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.
