Natural Bore

The prospect of it hovered above loyal Times readers' heads like a ghastly dread, and after an extended period of restraint Jo-jo Mifsud Bonnici has finally lashed out against Kenneth Wain's invective on constitutional affairs. Wain's original article was written such a long time ago that it is no longer available on The Times on-line archive, so curious readers wanting to know what it is that Jo-jo is on about now, will be obliged to pay a visit to the National Library, which will memorialise this ridiculous exchange among irrelevant geriatrics in perpetuity. It is not immediately clear why it has taken Mifsud Bonnici a month and a half to put together this crabby reply, though there are some hints that he may have spent some time hitting his books in a bid to thwart his opponent. He throws off a reference to legal theorists as though their work constituted his bedtime reading:

"I have to begin by stating once again that what I objected to with regard to the use of the cliché 'naturalistic fallacy' was and is based not on my likes or dislikes but simply because it is a false statement, as demonstrated by Finnis. E. Moore and other philosophers who use the cliché have repeated it without looking at it closely as Finnis does."

But cursory research throws up some worrying evidence about the regard that Mifsud Bonnici has for accuracy. Enthusiastic readers of this polemic may well wonder who exactly Finnis E. Moore is. Might he by any chance be related to legal philosopher John Finnis? Or to G.E. Moore even? You might expect a bit more from a man who taught law in the country's university, especially one that takes some pleasure in chiding philosophers for not "looking at things closely".
No further proof of in-depth investigation is suggested by the subsequent paragraph either. One would imagine that at this stage of this legal slagging-off contest that the sparring partners would have ceased what Anthony Licari would probably render as "going around the almond" and would have defined their respective premises. And yet Mifsud Bonnici offers a definition of entrenchment that has undergraduate essay written all over it:

"Coming to entrenchment. If Prof. Wain used it simply as a technical word I have to reiterate that indeed it is and it describes what is a juridical device or technique used by jurists who are looking for a form of legislative restraint for the whims of simple majorities who change and twist laws to suit their temporary hold of power."

I will be humble and concede that it may be my deficiencies in comprehension that made me read a sentence from the following paragraph about three times before even beginning to understand it. If I were a bit more confident in my abilities, however, I might suggest that the childish and careless (and rushed?) punctuation would have hindered the efforts of even the most interested reader.

"I do not see anything special or particular in 'our kind of entrenchment' which qualifies it as 'anti-democratic' unless, of course, Prof. Wain does not mean to single out our kind of entrenchment as being anti-democratic but holds all kinds of entrenchment as being so."

Or has Mifsud Bonnici been devoting the last six weeks to formulating new ideas? Judging from the number of references to earlier arguments (e.g. "I have to begin by stating once again", "I have to reiterate", "I also repeat what I said", "I did also say" etc.), there is very little that is original in this sour and academically impoverished nonsense.
The motivation for this article has, in fact, everything to do with an infantilism redolent of a schoolboy pissing contest. Which makes it all the more ironic when Jo-jo asks whether "we [will] ever reach ... maturity?"
And it is immaturity that compels him to perform what he must believe to be a masterful feat of rhetorical entrapment:

"Happily, I can conclude my intervention by noting that Prof. Wain, in his ultimate paragraph, in part at least, agrees with what I have just written. He in fact states, with reference to natural law: 'Today it is not worth keeping and unnecessary for sustaining human rights'. I take this to be an acknowledgement that, at least up till today, natural law was necessary to bring forward human rights and sustain them. It is only now, today, since the battle has been won, that natural law is not worth keeping as it is no longer necessary for sustaining human rights as they have now taken root and are entrenched in most constitutions."

If this is what passes for lawyerly bravado, then God help us. In the unlikely scenario that Mifsud Bonnici were ever to be defending me in litigation over a parking ticket, can I just put in an early request. Lethal injection please.