Morality and the Law (Quis Custodiet?)

Not since the days of Alfred Sant’s “konvinzjoni morali” have morals been so much at the forefront. At the time Sant’s “moral conviction” was bandied around in areas where proof was hard to come by – some would say it was an unfounded allegation dressed up as faithful conviction. Nowadays the word “morals” pops up more often than not and J’accuse is noting an alarming shifting of goalposts – more particularly because the “moral standard” is hard to define unless of course you have the conviction that your morals are better than those of others.

Take Roberta Metsola TT. The candidate funding saga is not the first time she has almost become an authority on morals. We all remember that in full election swing, both as a candidate and as a proto-candidate (before registration), she called on the government’s “moral obligation” to pay back the registration tax even if the letter of the law did not, eventually, oblige it to do so. At that point, Metsola’s moral compass was firmly in favour of reading the law in all fairness to the citizen and the taxpayer. Accountability must have featured somewhere along the lines too. Morality would trump the (unfair) letter of the law and get people their dues (and Metsola her votes). Funny how she has not come up with a “moral” reading of the law regulating electoral spending limits this time round. If not “moral” at least “purposive” which is probably what the Times editor probably means by “the spirit of the law” in today’s editorial.

Then there was the moral ping pong between Victor Scerri and Lawrence Gonzi. We almost heard the words “moral responsibility” which were beginning to sound like some kind of judgement issued outside the jurisdiction of our courts. Extra iure if you will. Morals are a tough line to thread. Laws are supposed to be as close an embodiment of the collective morals as is human and democratically possible. The good mores of the societas are reflected in the codification of positive law. Legal and philosophical theorists have long quizzed themselves as to the perfect formula for the crystallisation of society’s morals into a code that could be applied fairly and justly to all citizens. Contrary to what Lawrence, Victor and Roberta may be believe there isn’t more than one body of  laws governing the running of tis Republic. We cannot afford to temporarily suspend the application of the laws in such a manner as to please the moral whims and fancies of individuals who happen to be members of the party in (relative majority) power.

Legal loopholes aside, resorting to the “moral” trick can only work in this country where we like to think we are all holier than the pope and where the words “kelma ta’ ragel” (word of a man – especially when well marketed) or “mhux fair” (it’s not fair) have wrongly been distorted as having more importance than the proper interpretation and application of the rule of law.

In my book that’s beckoning anarchy, but so long as it is PLPN then it’s ok I guess.