Skip to main content

Who's the real monster?












I usually hate comparisons, but some very different reactions from the 'great unthinking' rabble do merit some analysis.

In May this year, the notorious dog Star was found buried alive. A prima facie, this looked liked the most horrific case of animal cruelty, and is still considered so by some. The perpetrator was described by the sensitive and caring animal-lovers as a villain, a heartless monster, deserving of death, stoning, or even to be 'buried alive in the same manner'.

But what did Mr. Vella actually do, according to the testimony heard in Court?

Star was sick. It was shedding fur, and quite old already, and its owner did not afford the treatment. In trying to save some money from paying for the dog to be put to sleep and killed properly by vets, she gave it to Mr. Vella to have it killed himself. Nothing much to make people angry till now. Mercy-killing of very sick and suffering animals is widely done and usually acceptable. You may argue that the dog should have been properly put to sleep by vets, and you might have a point there. But unless you're a vegeterian, killing bulls or pigs with a shot in the head is repeatedly done daily, and it doesn't seem to anger many people. At least, no one is yet calling for slaughterers and butchers to be put to death.

Mr. Vella's fault lies in using an illegal home-made gun. The gun didn't manage to kill the dog as it didn't fire with enough force for the lead pellets to penetrate the head, but it did knock the dog out. And what would any normal human being think if he shoots a dog in the head and it goes unconscious? Yes, you're right. You'd think it's dead as well. And you'd bury it too. Unluckily for him, the dog regained consciousness some hours later, and you well know the rest of the story. Mr. Vella became the devil incarnate; Star became a hero.

Fast forward to October. The Court hears the case of a Max Ciantar who in April 2010, driving at 102km/h in a residential road, without a car license and insurance, and under the effects of drugs, runs over two girls on a pedestrian crossing. This was his fourth driving offence (and still without a driving license mind you). The girls, miraculously alive, have not yet physically recovered from the ordeal, but the man will be able to hit the road again in 6-months time, when his driving ban expires. Max also managed to get remission for good behaviour from his jail-time, even though he had set his prison cell alight to hide his supply of heroin, and jumped out of the prison's internal courtyard. Moreover, he was also awarded €1,000 in compensation for a breach of human rights over restrictive bail conditions.

Today, the Court also decided the case of Emmanuel Pace, who stabbed a migrant seven times in May 2008. Acquitted of attempted murder, guilty of causing serious injury. With a 10-page criminal record, he'll still be out in 2 years 8 months (assuming he gets remission for good behaviour, which is a fair assumption considering that setting a prison cell alight counts as good behaviour).

Did we hear any cry of protest outside the court last week or today? Was there any mob waiting to insult the perpatrators as there was for Mr. Vella? Was there any outcry for harsher penalties? No, but probably it's all because we have seen no graphic photos of the injured twins and of the bleeding Ismael Obasa Hussein. Not that I believe it would have made much of a difference in Ismael's case. The skin colour would have camouflaged the blood in the eyes of many.


Comments

  1. Your blogs should be placed on the Times Of Malta webpage, replacing the stupidities put forth by the likes of Alison Bezzina and her ultra-liberal, anti-clerical lot!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for your encouragement and feedback Jurg. Send them a note about me, maybe they'd consider it ;)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wow! I didn't know the whole story behind Mr Vella. The media really portrayed him as a villain!
    Awesome post Mark

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mark - where did this background on Mr Vella come from? I do not recall it being reported in the media - although that could be just me shutting out the furore over the bitch's death.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You're completely right of course. Man people go for the tear eyed, knee jerk reaction, so often without even thinking at all.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Il-Hmar", check the article linked in the blog itself. It was all in the media: that he was given the dog by its owner because it was sick, that he thought it was dead, and all the rest. One just needed to join the dots and look at it from Mr. Vella's perspective. And I actually heard about these type of home-made guns from some hunters. They are used illegally in the closed season because they're silent and do not attract attention.

    ReplyDelete
  7. There are no excuses for what Mr Vella did to Star and it's a pure case of animal cruelty......he just didn't care how much Star suffered as long as he got rid of her.....so personally I think yes he is a monster......all he had to do was take her to SPCA and explain the situation.....the case of Max Ciantar and Emmanuel Pace is also unfair for the victims and its unfortuante that their story has not been publicised as much as Star's but it still doesn't mean that Star isn't a victim too.......

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Anonymous: (First of all I would appreciate if people used a name or pseudonym and stuck with it, so everyone would whom to address)

    As I said above, yes Star suffered, but not because Alfred Vella is a monster. Let's put it this way: imagine that he took the dog to a Vet to be put to sleep. The vet makes a mistake and administers an incorrect dose, knocking the dog off but without killing it. Mr. Vella would have thought the dog dead and buried it. Would Mr. Vella, or the Vet, be the monster in this case, or would it just be an unfortunate event?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Prosit Mark. Grazzi tal-link u naqbel mieghek fuq li ghidt. Meta uzajt il kelma njoranza fil blog tieghi kont qed nirreferi ghaliha kif soltu nghamel ie. xi hadd li jinjora. (http://tberfil.blogspot.com/2011/02/omm-linjoranza-dejjem-tqila.html)

    Prosit tal-kitbiet tieghek. Naqbel hafna ma' certu kummenti ta' tifhir li ghaddewlek hawn.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Lilek haqqhom jaghmlulek monument ghal kitbiet tieghek ghax allinqas qed tiftah hafna imhuh maghluqa li hawn Malta. Proset hafna

    ReplyDelete
  11. Grazzi hafna Marilyn. Napprezza ferm il-kumment tieghek.

    ReplyDelete
  12. In the STAR case you missed a very important point...MONSTER Vella chose to tie up the poor animal before burying it ... This leads one to believe that this monster was quite aware that IT didn't manage to kill the dog, so before burying it, IT made sure that it wouldn't be able to unearth itself .... and YES I do believe that Monster Vella should be given the exact same treatment IT gave to the already ailing animal

    ReplyDelete
  13. Again, I'd appreciate if people who do not wish to reveal their identity, at least use a nome-de-plume so I can differentiate between the 3 different Anonymous writers.

    To the last anonymous: How do you know he tied it up BEFORE burying it, and not before shooting it? Common sense tells me that it's far more probable he tied it while still alive to be able to shoot it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. well... what normally a sensible man would do with a case like that :
    bring the dog to animal welfare to be helped with. Obviously mister Vella didn't care of, secondly he tied a rope so much that the nose of this poor doggy looks almost cut, WHO THE HELL WITH NORMAL BEHAVIORS WOULD DO THAT? You only kill animal when there's nothing else you can do for them to survive, I'm not shocked this man was punished for what he did, he is lucky not to live around my house either, I hate people mistreating animals

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I am dropping out of the Anti-ACTA protest

Like many avid internet users, I have followed with interest the debate about ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement). After reading numerous articles, watched sensational videos, and discussed ad nauseam with friends, I have realized that what I have come across is a campaign hi-jacked by lies, myths and misconceptions as to rival Malta's misinformed divorce referendum campaign. I have to say that the videos on Youtube   got me worried. I quickly signed the petition, joined the Anti-ACTA groups, and prepared myself for a full-blown fight against the big-governments who want to intrude on our privacy and freedom of expression. Like our MEP Edward Scicluna invited us to do in the University debate last Wednesday, I did not try to understand the details of ACTA but rather saw who the players behind it were. But as usual, my logical instincts took over, and his call to not try to understand ACTA actually pushed me to read the text. And here's what I now know: ACTA is

The Church and its riches

The above pictures has lately been doing rounds on facebook. Posted comments refer to injustice, hypocrisy, and of the Church not practising what it preaches. It seems it has become a common trend to blame the Church for everything under the sun. Hitting at the Church is the new way of looking cool. But before joining the bandwagon of shares, likes and comments, let me try to analyze the points this photo is trying to make. The first one: the Church is immensely rich. Well, it could be, but what do most of these riches constitute? Most of the Church's "riches" are fixed immovable assets, of which most are important human heritage. They can practically never be sold. Let's just say that the Pope sells all his adornments (provided anyone wants to buy them), maybe even Michelangelo's Pieta, and once we're at it , yes, maybe he should also sell the Sistine Chapel and have it converted to apartments. Then what? Apart from making UNESCO and the rest of human