Joe Micallef Stafrace, 1933-2021
Joe Micallef Stafrace had a distinguished career but, above all, he was a decent and well-read man.
He was loyal to the Labour Party but never afraid to criticise it or its leadership when he deemed necessary. Is-Sebħ, which he edited, became a daily in 1956. It was an anti-colonial mouthpiece at a time when Dom Mintoff’s party was seeking integration with Britain. One of its famous front-page editorials in February 1956, when Major-General Sir Robert Laycock was governor, was titled “Pay up or go home”.
Although Micallef Stafrace was a victim of the Church’s interdict in 1961 and got married in a sacristy, he was actually quite a religious person with an interest in theology, a man of principle with a high regard for morality.
When Mintoff’s party won the 1971 election by a whisker, Micallef Stafrace was made minister of trade and industry, which also included agriculture, fisheries and tourism. He resigned after a few months because, as he told me, to work alongside the opinionated, disrespectful and maverick Mintoff was just about impossible.
In 1976, during the election campaign, he published Fehmti, a select collection of his many articles in It-Torċa, including some eloquently dissident ones.
Around 2005, Mark Fenech and I appointed him editorial consultant to the original interview-based TVM series ‘L-Istorja minn wara l-Kwinti’ and we both greatly valued his advice.
His wife Yvonne, née Zammit, worked for the GWU and was secretary to Reggie Miller, about whom she wrote and had published a biographical history thesis. She was a kindred spirit and greatly complemented her husband.
I last saw them some weeks ago at St Catherine’s nursing home, in Attard, to where they had retired but Joe remained au courant to the end, a columnist in It-Torċa and Leħen is-Sewwa.
To his dear wife and children my profound condolences.
Henry Frendo – Attard
Australia, our second home
It was interesting to read the article on Maltese migration (January 31) and it brought memories to all those ex-migrants who went through that experience.
The photo above is from my late mother’s passport of when my siblings and I, (sitting on my mother’s lap), including another brother, travelled by ship, the Aurelia, in 1957 to join our dad in Australia.
As the article says, we encountered the odd person here and there who liked to call migrants wogs. But, all in all, Australians are good people and our neighbours were always helpful, especially when our dear dad died just two years after we arrived.
My family and I will always be grateful to our second home, Australia.
Alfred Gauci – Sliema
Medical experts in court
I thoroughly agree with Jason Zammit in urging a bit of common sense in our legal system when it comes to calling medical experts to physically appear in court to give evidence (January 31).
I was, for many years, a court expert in the UK in my own medical speciality (pain medicine). I compiled hundreds of reports in civil litigation cases and subsequently answered, in writing, questions put to me by solicitors and barristers appearing for both sides, prior to court sittings.
I frequently took part in phone/video conferences with other medical experts so as to produce joint reports. All this usually obviated the need for me to appear in person in court and having to cancel my NHS commitments as a result. Naturally, in some cases my physical presence in court was demanded but when compared to the many reports I produced, such appearances were few and far between.
One of the main reasons that UK solicitors and barristers avoid calling experts to give evidence in court in cases of civil litigation is the cost involved. Medical experts’ fees for court appearances in the UK are substantial. Perhaps if medical experts in Malta were to demand high fees for attendance in cases of civil litigation, lawyers would be less keen to call them to give evidence in person!
Naturally, criminal cases are a different matter but, here again, with goodwill and common sense on all sides I am certain that an equitable solution can be found.
Charles A. Gauci – Sannat
Breaking up a family
I refer to the front-page article ‘Children can’t access basic rights as policy changes’ (January 31). It seems these changes have been made by Identity Malta.
The article concerns the plight of James Edafe Agoda and his family and the policy changes are threatening to break up this family.
Around December 2019, Identity Malta was in the news as it had made life difficult for some Serbian families, threatening to separate some 22 children from their families and proposing to send these children away from the island. Thank God, Identity Malta eventually saw reason and applied the spirit of the law rather than the law itself, which was shocking in its literal interpretation.
Deciding to maintain the status quo and allowing these Serbian children to remain with their families in Malta was very positive and a credit to Identity Malta. May an appeal be made to Identity Malta to consider the present case of Edafe Agoda’s family in a similar light and to allow this family not to be broken up?
Anthony Stivala – Attard
No regrets whatsoever
Readers can choose to agree with Maureen Borg and John Pace (January 24) or they can refer to scientific evidence that reveals that 19 out of 20 women do not regret having an abortion even after a five-year follow-up.
This means that 95 per cent of women have no regrets whatsoever. Respect, compassion, understanding – this is what one would expect from those who vehemently disagree with abortion, rather than name-calling and misinformation.
Yes, most of the true stories on breakthetaboo.mt are anonymous, which is not surprising given that these women could easily be prosecuted for breaking the law, a law that subjugates women.
Isabel Stabile, Doctors for Choice Malta – St Julian’s
On euthanasia
I would like to quote an excerpt from Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical ‘The Gospel of Life’:
“I confirm that euthanasia is serious transgressing of the law of God because it is deliberate killing – which morally cannot be accepted – of a human person. This doctrine is based on natural law and on God’s word and is brought to us through the Church’s tradition and taught by the Church’s ordinary and universal magisterium.
“Acts such as this carry, according to their circumstances, the precise malice inherent in both suicide and homicide.”
John Consiglio – Birkirkara
Unwavering principle
I do not agree with claim that some prominent Catholics argue that abortion is permissible in certain circumstances.
At the beginning of his papacy, Pope Francis told members of the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations that abortion will never be endorsed by the Catholic Church. Every child that isn’t born but is unjustly condemned to be aborted has the face of Jesus Christ.
If Catholics focus on preventing abortion, there won’t be a change in policy that critics hope for.
Abortion is always wrong.
John Azzopardi – Żabbar
Letters to the editor should be sent to editor@timesofmalta.com. Please include your full name, address and ID card number. The editor may disclose personal information to any person or entity seeking legal action on the basis of a published letter.