IT'S HAPPENING

The comments sections of timesofmalta.com are not a scientifically accurate representation of public sentiment, of course. Opinion polls conducted professionally hardly achieve this aim, for all that it is now a well-known fact that the polls showed Labour in the lead by 15,000 at the beginning of the campaign and then tracked the collapse of their vote to 5,000 in favour of the Nationalists just before the Pullicino Orlando affair.

The final figure was also accurately predicted.

That having been said, the comments that followed my previous blog show a clear groundswell of popular sentiment against hunting.Predictably, the first couple of comments were the usual diatribe against me and my opinion.

That's something I can live with: it shows the blog is read and that my opinion, such as it is, counts for something.

The most puerile point made is that I am anti-hunting because of the incident when my son, Ben, and his colleagues were attacked while they were covering a pro-hunting demonstration.

In a sense, this is correct: the incident, during which Darrin Zammit Lupi was knocked out and Ben's equipment stolen, brought home to me that these people are thugs. Not all of them, of course, but the reaction from their leaders, that there was provocation, demonstrates that these people are not capable of lobbying for their position in a civilised manner.

Their behaviour, collectively and individually, since then hasn't changed the evidence. In fact, it's strengthened it.

But apart from the usual whines and whinges from the bird-killers, there was a gratifying number of comments that showed that the ordinary man and woman in the street are fed up of these loutish posers.

The writing is on the wall for hunters. The election result showed that they are a spent political force, if ever they were one. Popular sentiment is gathering against them. Their leaders, if they can be graced with the title of leaders, are behaving like people with their backs up against the wall, threatening and posturing about law-breaking and dire consequences. Now is the time for this particular serpent to be scotched, frankly.

JUSTICE DONE

For all that he remains entitled to be heard by the Court of Appeal, it is gratifying to see that in its learned and lengthy judgement, the Magistrate's Court has found Lowell guilty of inciting racial hatred and disrespect to the Presidency.

He was stung for €500 (which if he doesn't pay, will translate into a couple of weeks at the Republic's pleasure) and if he breaks the law again, he will be banged up for a couple of years.

This will be confirmed or otherwise by the Court of Appeal, but for the moment, this is the state of play: Lowell is a criminal with a right to appeal to have this status to be changed back to innocent.

Having read and seen this person in action, I never had any doubt that Lowell is a misogynistic racist with ideas that go so far beyond the pale of civilisation that he ceased to be funny long ago. His views on women's place in society alone are shocking: when you combine them with what he advocates should done with refugees and immigrants and with handicapped children, they become obscene. He's also a Holocaust Denier, just for the record.

Predictably, Lowell's fellow travellers in the racist sub-class poured on the bleats about freedom of speech and cultural danger, slavishly echoing their idol, whose rant on the steps of the Court could well be analysed to see if he broke the law again.

These professors of human rights law, who hold freedom of speech so dear to their hearts while totally ignoring other people's fundamental right to be treated like a human being and not an animal, display their absolute ignorance of the law when they grunt about freedom of expression. Let me illustrate.

As things stand today, I am entitled to call Lowell a common criminal, but only in the context of his conviction for instigating racial hatred last Thursday.

I can't, for instance, call him a fraudster or an embezzler, because he wasn't convicted (or even accused in front of Magistrate Scerri Herrera) of these crimes. Had the case been about fraud or embezzlement, and had he been found guilty, I'd now be entitled to call him a fraudster or an embezzler but not a convicted racist.

So is my point clear now? My freedom of expression in respect of Lowell is constrained by his right to be free from my unfounded allegations, and rightly so, this being a democratic society. Equally, in fact more forcefully, Lowell's right to spout racist rants, to say nothing of insults against the Presidency, and incite racial hatred is proscribed by considerations that civilised societies impose on themselves.

Clearly, given his opinions and the manner of their delivery, Lowell does not subscribe to the notion of civilised society, for all his self-aggrandisement and delusions of grandeur.

While he lives amongst us, however, he will behave as we require him to, or face the consequences.

WHY NOT ON eBAY TOO?

Dr Anglu Farrugia has given the Commissioner a three page document which he says backs up his claim that votes were bought and sold before the elections.

According to Farrugia, the price ranged from €70 to €150, with one instance of €1500 being paid. One has to wonder why one single vote attracted such a price: was it being auctioned on eBay?

Was it Pullicino Orlando's uncle's cousin's husband's brother's vote (or someone as illustrious)? Oh well, as longer as Labour and its adherents can blame anyone but themselves for their third defeat in a row, that's all right then, I suppose.

The funny thing is, I'm morally convinced (remember who used to use that cop-out line?) that the more astute within the Labour camp know very well where the blame lies.