Elsewhere in the blogging world, a blogger takes pride of the fact that other columnists “waited until Noel Arrigo’s trial was concluded to laugh in print about his confessors and aborted trips to Lourdes, leaving me to crack jokes alone (not that I mind, of course)”. The whole hullabaloo was raised because Saviour Balzan seems to have a twisted (selective?) impression of what the term sub judice means and what the effects of a case being sub judice are. It would be an interesting discussion to enter into were it not for the fact that the very people who take pride in having spouted truckloads of hilarious comments about the former Chief Justice and his situation were conspicuously silent at the moment of the very same ex-Chief Justice’s appointment. You’d imagine that what counts for the Balzan goose should count for the gander.
It’s not like he started selling condoms when the case was sub judice (if we accept Saviour’s definition) right? Which just goes to show….
Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.
5 replies on “Sub Judice – Bad Romance”
Yeah, right … supra erectione for sub judice. Like not cracking condom jokes when Arrigo was appointed is in the same league as not making mention of the drug money bribe when he was convicted.
Fausto, Fausto. That’s the last thing I’d expect from you.
Of course it is not in the same league. When Noel Arrigo was appointed Chief Justice his company was selling condoms yet it would be considered risky to crack jokes about it – immature even. When Noel Arrigo was in the dock it was, how shall I put it, kid’s stuff to kick someone who is down and out.
Of course it is not in the same league. Same facts, different context. Somehow your friend seems to be proud of being the one to have found the condom vending business ever so funny in the latter part of Arrigo’s career (or non-career at that point). It did not seem so funny when Arrigo was appointed.
Which begs the question as originally put (before you played the little game of “drug money” instead of the condoms I focused on): Why now?
People. Glasshouses. et cetera. ridiculus mus indeed.
Oh sorry, for a moment I thought you were actually interested to talk about the elephant in the room, however lightly you touched on it.
You see, your friend (no protests, fair’s fair) having nothing to say on Mater Dei since March 2008, or JPO going form villan to hero, that’s amusing. But having nothing to say about the bribing of the most senior official of the judiciary with drug money, that’s cause of some concern. I just hope the reason to the latter silence is as trivial as my “friend” made it out to be: it’s all about who’s in the delegation heading off to bathe in the healing waters of Lourdes.
But maybe it’s just me.
It’s just you.
JPO villain to hero??? Never quite saw him as a hero.
Mater Dei? Come again?
Fair is fair. Condoms are condoms. And that was what I was talking about. Rubber johnnies indeed.
In case we are not being clear enough: I am not going to be the one to defend/attack Saviour Balzan – I have critcised him often and will not hesitate to do so. What I am pointing out is the inconsistency between all this pride of having cracked a few condom jokes during a case (while telling off peers)and not having said anything on the same matter (which I assume was equally funny at the time) at the moment of his appointment.
If you want to sit down and discuss presumptions and theories about who’s in which delegation and what inspires people like Daphne or Saviour to comment in some cases and not in others then I’m game for it. Otherwise it seems blatantly obvious that Daphne’s tirade on whoever failed to see the joke during the trial was hypocritical at the least.