-

 

SOMEONE REMIND JOE MIFSUD HE’S A MAGISTRATE, NOT AN INQUISITOR

Magistrate Joe Mifsud, commenting on a murder case and conflating abortion with murder, said that “The Court regrets that for yet another time there was loss of life that the Court always believed should be protected from conception until death”. Magistrate Mifsud added that “this is what society wants, that the institutions listen to them and not to those who spread the culture of death and murder because certain lobbies that exist in our country make a noise”.

Someone should remind Magistrate Mifsud that he’s a Magistrate, not an Inquisitor.  What society wants is for Magistrates not to publicly express their religious prejudice and bigotry that may influence (or appear to influence) their judgements in a Court of Law, judgements that should be religiously and politically impartial as stipulated in the Constitution and based exclusively on justice conditioned only by the law.

And as someone has just brought to my attention, has Magistrate Mifsud considered the possibility that the murder victim and her grieving family were/are themselves Pro-Choice before possibly so insensitively insulting them publicly? But no, let's use personal tragedy to proselytize, and to hell with real people's feelings.

Here's an excerpt from the Constitution of Malta that now makes Magistrate Mifsud unfit to adjudicate court cases involving non-Catholics and Pro-Choice people who Mifsud declared to be comparable to supporters of alcohol-and-cocaine-intoxicated drivers who run over and kill women:

39.  (1) Whenever  any  person  is  charged  with  a  criminal offence he shall, unless the charge is withdrawn, be afforded a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law.  (2) Any court or other adjudicating authority prescribed by law for the determination of the existence or the extent of civil rights or obligations shall be independent and impartial; and where proceedings for such a determination are instituted by any person before such a court or other adjudicating authority, the case shall be given a fair hearing within a reasonable time.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

-
Image
EMBRYOS AND FOETUSES HAVE RIGHTS BECAUSE JOHN PACE SAYS SO Mr John Pace wrote a response to an article of mine  that was also published in an abridged version in The Times of Malta on January 16 (physical edition) but somehow did not make it to the online version. Apparently the editor chose “Life alone has no rights” as the heading, which, while factually true, is not the heading I submitted. This makes Mr Pace’s criticism of the title at best inconsequential, but I will address his concern (as well as the rest of his response) below. Mr Pace says that the “unbelievable title” is a “defiant disrespect of life inspired by another faith extolling the culture of death”. I suppose Mr Pace eats, and he eats plant or animal food that were once alive before they were killed to end up on his plate. So even though I did not choose the title myself, it is still factually true that life alone has no rights, otherwise Mr Pace would have to renounce eating any living beings or things. And...
Read more
-
Image
  WITHOUT CRITICAL THINKING RATIONAL DISCUSSION IS IMPOSSIBLE Nothing exposes the deficiency in critical thinking like many comments in online newspapers, where logical incoherence seems to be the order of the day. I will illustrate this with an example, without even the need of presenting the worst case. The example will show that deficiency in critical thinking makes rational discussion practically impossible, and hence demonstrate the urgency that critical thinking in education deserves. Replying to a comment in The Times of Malta , where Victor Laiviera, who is pro-choice, had suggested that “whether a person comes into existence at the moment of conception, when it acquires a brain or when it becomes viable are, in (his) opinion, secondary issues”, I had replied by saying that “here is where (the commenter and I) part ways. As pro-choice Kate Greasley convincingly argues in her book ‘Arguments about abortion’, the question of whether foetuses and embryos are ‘persons’ is ...
Read more
-
Suggested reading: Steven Pinker - How the Mind Works Steven Pinker - The Blank Slate Philip Ball - Unnatural: The Heretical Idea of Making People Dick Swaab - We Are Our Brains: From the Womb to Alzheimer's Derek Parfit - Reasons and Persons Thomas Nagel - Mortal Questions David Boonin - The Non-Identity Problem & the Ethics of Future People David Boonin - A Defense of Abortion Bonnie Steinbock - Life Before Birth: The Moral and Legal Status of Embryos and Fetuses Nathan Nobis and Kristina Grob - Thinking Critically About Abortion: Why Most Abortions Aren't Wrong & Why All Abortions Should Be Legal Ann Furedi - The Moral Case for Abortion: A Defence of Reproductive Choice Kate Greasley - Arguments about Abortion: Personhood, Morality, and Law Jeff McMahan - The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life Bonnie Steinbock and Paul T. Menzel - Bioethics: What Everyone Needs to Know
Read more