The casual way with which I referred to Christian Grima and Simon Mercieca in the same sentence without contrasting the two and what they are doing was flippant and inexcusable. I apologise to Christian Grima for allowing that fact to suggest that the sins of the latter could be visited on the former.

I also conflated consequences with intent. Simon Mercieca’s arguments, for so he calls them, speak on behalf of evil which makes them evil. It is fair to conclude that his likely intent is to obstruct the course of justice, not to have whatever he believes to be the truth to prevail. By not making the distinction, I suggested Christian Grima may have the same intentions. That too deserves an apology.

I should have been more explicit about my concerns with some of Christian Grima’s posts. My concerns in his case are different, very different, from my concerns about Simon Mercieca’s posts. But they’re no less strongly felt.

Christian Grima is not entirely consistent in the positions he takes and some of his arguments, I insist, suggest that Yorgen Fenech should not face the full consequences of his actions in pursuit of some vague greater good. But I know Christian Grima fervently shares the desire of people of good will to see justice done. The same cannot be said for the other guy I mentioned in the same sentence in the post that created so much offence.

I do not write this because I have an aversion to friendly fire, or because we should be on the same side and those on the same side should expect never to disagree or even dislike each other. This is not a political party or a religious cult. I’m not cultivating groupies and in any case if I measure what I say by how people might like it on any given Sunday, I would be inconsistent.

I write this because I was not fair with Christian Grima when I dropped his name in a reference that did not properly contextualise either my meaning or his actions. And though I may be all the bad things he says he believes me to be, I don’t like it when I’m unfair.