Skip to content

Post No. 26 (Perspective)

February 18, 2010

Hello again everybody… my, my isn’t this room half empty 🙂 Real life can really get in the way when one is trying to blog …

I must confess that the motivation – the impetus, if you will – for returning to this blog was provided by nothing else than Daphne Caruana Galizia’s (henceforth 🙂 DCG) crusade against Magistrate Consuelo Scerri Herrera (CSH).

I know … I know … admitting to reading Ms Caruana Galizia’s  blog is not done – there you go, I gave you a glimpse of me, warts and all.

She posted an entry about moral authority, wondering had Fenech Adami been having an affair, would he have won the referendum and the subsequent election (or something like that)

Her use of the noun phrase moral authority, quite simply, pissed me off. Every Maltese person who can read has seen something by DCG. We all know how she wraps her ideas…

I will show that in the (now infamous) post entitled The charming tale of the magistrate who shagged a man while his wife was having a baby she tells us that she is only “exposing” the magistrate to get even. If you want to read it just go to her blog. I’m not posting a link to that sort of playground bullying. Sorry. (Not.) I regret having to quote chunks of the post … but what would you do? Here goes:

Ordinarily, I would rather die than invade my own privacy. But there is a gang of bitches, some of them on heat but others long past it, who need to be told in as public a way as possible – before they end up with a great deal of egg on their faces – that my husband and I have been together for 26 years and intend to stay together for the next 26.


We love each other deeply. It is precisely because we love each other that we have overcome any number of terrible obstacles, some of them beyond our control and some of them the consequences of our own actions. If this were not the case, we would long since have ended up like […] , who is one of the main drivers of the story – or for that matter, like Consuelo.


These bitches – […] , Consuelo Scerri Herrera,[…] – have no experience of, or respect for, the dynamics of a long marriage. […] does, but perhaps the least said about that, the better. Let’s just say that I’m surprised he’s chosen to go down this particular road. It can’t possibly end up well for him.


I have known Consuelo Herrera since we were 16. She has always been a nasty and deeply unpleasant cow. The cause of her resentment and of her desire to play chess games with people – like her sexual shenanigans in later life, which are all about trying to catch up on the dates and the sex she didn’t get back then – has its roots in her young years, when she looked like a cross between Worzel Gummidge and the back of a bus, and all the boys for whom she had the hots ran as fast as they could in the opposite direction (and in two cases, towards me)

The last parenthesis could only have been included to ensure that the reader knows that DCG thinks she is more attractive than the magistrate. (For those of us who have relegated our childhood reads to our …erm … childhood, Worzel Gummidge is a scarecrow with some sort of special power. If I’m not mistaken he has different heads for different situations … but I may be wrong.)

I don’t know what story the magistrate encouraged her friends to look for in the next day’s paper, however I doubt it was the story about the plate-chucking incident chez les Caruana Galizia…

Let me get to the flesh of my hypothesis.

After reading quite a bit of the vitriol, I was convinced that DCG wasn’t being true to herself – or at least to her readers. I questioned the honesty of her motivation:

I tend to agree that a person in her position should tone down her lifestyle a notch and what have you, but this has been – apparently – going on for ages. So whatever is fanning the flames of righteousness in your bosom is probably not concern for the country’s judicial system.

She answered that Yes, actually it is. I have long felt outrage at the way certain magistrates conduct themselves with nobody able to touch them, nobody willing to write about them, and general complacency among lawyers and others who appear before them. It’s horrendous

Towards the end of The charming tale she claims that she and at least one of her acquaintances knew all about the magistrate’s alleged shenanigans

[…] an amusing (and perfectly true) anecdote. Around two or three years ago, when Herrera and Musumeci’s affair was clandestine and both were living still with their spouses, Musumeci organised a meeting of several people at his office, about some development project or other. Forty minutes later, they were all sitting there fuming, having been told that their host Musumeci was on a magisterial inquiry…at 8pm. Then one of his (naïve) staff dashed in.

“Skuzani, sinjuri,” he said to the waiting group. “Imma l-perit ma jistghax jigi wara kollow [sic], ghax baqa mwahhal mal-Magistrat Herrera.”

A man there happened to be one of the few who knew about the double adultery, and he had a sudden mental image of that thing which happens when a dog and a bitch mate and they get stuck together and you can’t pull them apart. He snorted with laughter, his coffee going up his nose, but he couldn’t share the joke.

My question is: Would she have taken the trouble had not Magistrate CSH trod on her toes? According to her logic, she should have exposed the magistrate as soon as she discovered that she was having an extra marital affair because: She lied to her husband and to the father of her children not once or twice but for a prolonged, sustained period during which she cheated on him. […] Magistrates and judges are no different. Indeed, evidence that they have lied – and lies to a spouse are lies above all – should be taken far more seriously than evidence that a politician has lied.

(I found this in a post called Lies and Credibility.)

DCG had known about the magistrate’s “bit on the side”for quite a while, as shown above. She does not really care about our judiciary’s credibility etc. She just wants to get her own back at the magistrate because of some story – never published – that the magistrate urged her friends to read. This is reprisal. Pure, simple and unadulterated by lofty notions of righteousness or justice seeing to be done. The timing and the background she provides all but destroy the credibility she tries to convey.

On the other hand, all that DCG is saying is most probably true. It’s too inflammatory to be false. The consequences would be unthinkable. I tend to agree with DCG that the magistrate – if all the allegations are shown to be true – is in an awkward position. She has made herself a sitting duck for blackmail.

I will not go as far as some of the people leaving comments to the effect that such a person is not in a position to sit in judgement of anyone. Such statements smack of tiny minds who do not know their place in the world. I would, however, urge the judiciary to ensure that such goings-on are nipped in the bud and that magistrates and judges are subjected to strict codes of behaviour. Failure to comply should be dealt with effectively and the perpetrator embarrassed before he or she embarrasses the system.

There. Got it off my chest.


From → The Gripevine

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: