Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/841483
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 25 JUNE 2017 15 Interview Former GWU secretary-general TONY ZARB dismisses talk of 'hate speech', as he puts up a robust defence of his attacks on Nationalist MPs, PANA committee chairman Werner Langen, the Archbishop... and all other 'traitors' whom he accuses of 'harming Malta's interest' terested in Selmun. All under Na- tionalist governments. But I have one regret. Because it was Tony Zarb who brought these people... they destroyed them (kissruhom). They destroyed all of them. That is my regret; and that's why I always say: I love my country, Malta... whatever the circumstances, and whoever is in government. Those were just a few examples, by the way. I could tell you more. Tony Zarb had a lot of meetings outside Malta. But he never spoke a word against Malta. Never, not one. Not even when he was faced with a seven and a half-year prison sen- tence... At the same time, however, the two parties have more similarities than differences. The Labour Party has kept the same intrinsic economic model established by the PN: they rely on the same sectors, use the same taxation systems, upkeep the same welfare model... yet you talk about them as if they represent clean opposite political ideologies. What difference do you see between the two parties? The difference I see is that, today, the Labour government is creating a strong economy so that wealth trickles down to the bottom. The Nationalist government under Gonzi was the opposite: it used to place burdens on the people... on workers, on pensioners... But Gonzi had to contend with a major global economic crisis. Couldn't it also be that Joseph Muscat was simply lucky... by the time he got to power, the crisis was over, and he could reap all the rewards? I'd say Joseph Muscat recognised an opportunity, and exploited it. Coming back to the trading of insults: you took personal offence to a statement by Archbishop Charles Scicluna condemning 'hate speech'. I interpreted that comment to be a subtle criticism of both sides: as (let's face it) neither side is exactly innocent... You are wrong. Let me tell you why. The Archbishop spoke out in reply to my comments. That's how it was reported. And I took offence at that, because the Archbishop who spoke out about my com- ments, kept his mouth shut about everything else that happened these past months. He said noth- ing about the divisive, hateful and venomous campaign we just went through. He never spoke about hate-speech coming from people he knows well, he associates with, and who are close to him. For ex- ample, the clique that is running the Church's radio station. Not a word did I hear from the Arch- bishop. Was there no hatred and venom in any of that, I ask him? Where was he all that time? Where was he when there was a threat to my life, and my family? He said nothing. I will say it to him again: send for me. Not to confront him; I don't want any confrontation with the Archbishop. But I want to ex- plain to him why I react like this when somebody hurts my coun- try... Do you mean the threats reported in connection with your stand on precarious work? Yes. I was the first person to talk about precarious work in Malta. And ever since I spoke about it, my life, and my family's lives have not been the same. The threats and intimidation I received were seri- ous. Evidently I trod on someone's corns... and I ended up with po- licemen on guard duty outside my door. But if we start bringing up all the details, we'd never finish... country I'm not saying the prime minister shouldn't be investigated, or that he shouldn't testify before the committee; but they have already judged him and found him guilty PANA COMMITTEE