Are we back to the middle ages? Apparently yes? Ugghhh!
So now a lady magistrate can’t hold a birthday party, for charity, without inviting relatives and close friends?
So now a gentleman is not allowed to invite the leader of the opposing party to a charity dinner?
I’m blogging this only because I’m curious: if a member of the judiciary wants to host a dinner for charity, then who should be receiving an invitation? According to some local (as opposed to foreign) blogs – close family are out of the question since they might be interested in politics. Family are also out of the question for the sake of “separation of powers”. Friends of family are also out of the question for the simple reason (unreasonable as it might seem) that they are family friends!
What a long shot such expressions of opinion are from the way etiquette and diplomacy is conducted in the modern world!
When I read such blogs on the world wide web it makes me feel ashamed to be maltese.
Check this out: http://www.legalnews.com/oakland/970161 i.e. Judges holding a party and auctioning property at the same time.
Imagine a Magistrate or a Judge, here in Malta, organising a party where they auction off their own personal property! What a hullaballoo would arise… (obviously only if the host is known for not being in favour of the party in government).
But I really don’t want to pursue the issue of “two weights and two measures” in this entry of my blog…
It’s well known all over the globe that people in responsible positions like judges and magistrates organize such events for charity. Malta shouldn’t shame itself by being the exception by making such dictatorial prohibitions. Same as happens in other countries, it doesn’t mean that when two people appear in the same photograph one has the right to automatically allude collusions, opinions, and general morality to be the same.
Nowadays it’s given and accepted, but what would you think would have been the comments had it been Joseph Muscat who was hoisted upon a criminal’s shoulders during mass meetings, and then later he would have gone to meet the same criminal under a bridge on the promise of receiving information on a case, and which information never surfaced?