Author: Jacques René Zammit

Categories
Politics

Polidano can, if he thinks he can

There’s a story in today’s Times about how MEPA has stopped illegal works being carried out by property developer Polidano. The work in question was being carried out in the gardens of a number of Balzan townhouses that are protected. It’s the usual story, you would say, but what really sets alarm bells ringing are phrases such as:

“(…) Mr Polidano had repeatedly applied to knock down four historic townhouses in the village core to build six terraced houses with swimming pools instead.”

Repeatedly? Forgive my stupidity but can I ask a simple question: Can he do that? What is the point of a permit application system if it is not exhaustive? You apply and you either get or don’t get a permit. I would guess that that should be that. Apparently it isn’t. If someone like Mr Polidano does not like the outcome of his application then he can keep on trying until maybe somebody changes his mind – and then he will get permission to bulldoze 300-year old townhouses to build his swimming pool projects in Balzan.

If there ever was a massive WTF then this is it. Here is my hastily constructed timeline based on the facts in the article:

March 2003 – permission requested for alterations to facade etc  – REFUSED

May 2004 – appeals in relation to refusal – REFUSED

December 2005 – application to transform two town houses into 43 apartments and 121 car underground park (while preserving facades) – REFUSED

April 2007 – appeal in relation to Dec 05 application – REFUSED

July 2009 – asks board to reconsider decision – REFUSED

But some people don’t take no for an answer. Notwithstanding the Inter-style track record with MEPA Polidano’s bulldozers seem to have swung into action  and were busy within the protected gardens (see photos on Times report).

We are talking about gardens in townhouses in Balzan – an area famous for the citrus trees and more. We are talking about at least one of the houses having a historic value with Grandmaster De Rohan having used it as his country residence. I’d love to meet the architect who signs off these “projects” for Mr Polidano. What could be going through his or her mind when he is appending his or her name to such wanton destruction.

Worse still though is the attitude that Mr Polidano has with MEPA. Somehow you get the feeling that all the enforcement notices and orders to desist will not prevent the total destruction of the gardens in Balzan.

All the MEPA orders, and all the enforcement men will never be able to put Balzan together again. 

 

also from Flimkien ghal Ambjent Ahjar

 

Categories
Local Councils Politics

Hate crimes, Nationalist Candidates and PLPN Emos

The latest smart cookie from the constellation of Local Council Candidates has hit the news. This time it is Julian Galea – nationalist candidate for the Sliema Council – who has been lucky enough to have been caught on “secret tape” declaiming among other things his “phobia of Labourites” and boasting how his Labour-leaning employees earn less than Nationalist employees. This exposé could not come at a better time in order to expose the ridiculous idea behind “hate crimes”. You had Maltastar.com headlining this bit of news with a large sign saying “Stop Hating”.

It’s the DNA business all over again. One candidate or politician is caught expressing the thoughts that go through the heads of most fanatics of one of the two tribes any given day and suddenly we are all Padre Pios and discover our inner emos that are silently indignated by this offensive behaviour. How bloody typical.

Which is not in any way justifying what Julian Galea said. Julian Galea is your typical “anything goes” candidate like the Alexis Callouses (sic) of this world. He is a symptom of the abject inability of a party to shed its temptation to field as many candidates as possible without a proper screening. His “phobia” bullshit does not merit to be classified as a crime although we have a draft law that potentially will make it so. Incidentally with regards to the possibility of different pay for different political creeds we ALREADY have a law against that so no need for another one (and EU law enthusiasts will remember Defrenne vs Sabena). I vaguely suspect that he meant that Labourites are not high achievers and therefore end up on the lower end of the pay scale not that he pays on the basis of political allegiance – still, this does not make his talk any better or more palatable.

I too have a phobia. I have a phobia for stupid. It is a low threshold of tolerance and people like Julian Galea make my blood boil. So do the media manipulators who are now desperately trying to link his employment policy to GonziPN. Because it’s obvious isn’t it… if Julian Galea (I hadn’t heard of this geezer till today) thinks so then the PN must be endorsing this policy. But that is our politics. It has been for the past fifteen years now. Candidates not worth the poster their face is printed on, media frenzies of shit-stirring emptiness and a misguided appeal to values of convenience.

We are all emos now. It’s in our DNA.

 

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Carmen’s Regressive Thoughts and the Labourite’s Obsession with Government Control

Back in January 2012 Dr Carmen Sammut a specialist in media studies succeeded Aaron Farrugia as Chairperson of Labour’s Think Tank “Fondazzjoni Ideat”. Farrugia had presumably been kicked upstairs (downstairs) and filled the new enigmatic role of secretary to a manifesto. Meanwhile we had high hopes for Dr Sammut who judging by the quality of her input in her “blog” on MaltaToday (more like a regular column Carmen – for someone specialised in media you should know) was brimming with promise for some reasoned discourse.

That was then. Now, only a month later we have an article entitled “PN and civil society: a relationship of convenience“. All in all it’s not a bad article and the observations regarding the PN’s on and off flirtatious attitude with civil society are not quite off the mark. The problems begin when Dr Sammut falls into the commonplace trap of attempting to blame GonziPN for everything she does not like and disagrees with. Even worse, her prescription for what she claims to be a shackled training ground is “government intervention”. Yesterday we had Owen Bonnici inviting the Public Accounts Committee and the Auditor General to ride roughshod over any pretentions of autonomy the student body might have, today Carmen Sammut, Chairperson of Labour’s think tank, believes that a Prime Minister should intervene and change the statue and workings of the autonomous student body. Here’s Ms Chairperson:

We can also observe that some valid groups are being shackled so that they do not have enough oxygen to flourish. Take student politics at University as one very clear example. The University should be a training ground for political and civil society leaders. Yet, government has never lifted a finger to ensure that many student organizations do not continue to be blocked-voted out of the Students’ Council. It never intervened to help replace an outdated first-past-the-post election that secures a majority of votes for government sympathisers in the executive committee.

There’s something seriously twisted in Labour’s way of thinking. It definitely cannot get to grips with the basic elements of student representation. Forget for a second this particular prescription by Carmen Sammut. What is really worrying is how Labour seems to perceive the role of government in civil society. It is a gilt-edged invitation for Big Brother to step into places where he is definitely not wanted. Is this how a Labour government will work? In the absence of concrete proposals we can only go by what the Chairperson of their think tank seems to think is the best mode of action.

“Block-voted out of Students’ Council”? What bullshit. Has Ms Chairperson bothered to read the statute? Does the fact that 50+1% of voters opt for a particular grouping (no matter how twistedly incompetent) suddenly make it a no-no? Funny, I thought that is how we get a government – that is just what Joseph Muscat is aspiring to achieve come next election: a block vote into government. Outdated first past the post eh? Pinch me, I must be dreaming. Again, Dr Sammut, as one of the persons directly responsible for drafting the statute in question I dare you to state that you looked beyond the complaints of a few Pulse members. In any case your assertion that government should “lift a finger” in this issue is frightening. Terrifying even – in that it exposes the huge chasm between your thinking and reality. Progressive party?

With thinkers like this the only way is back….

Categories
Values

Prostitution in Malta (a brief idiot’s guide)

No I am not about to list the best way to go about obtaining sexual favours at a price in Malta. I honestly would have no clue how to go about it although I am familiar with the popular locations from Maltese lore where Malta’s equivalent of the Trastevere species would prowl in search for clients. Nope this is not it. Think of this as a sort of factoid collection centred around the oldest profession in the world and how it is regulated in Malta (or isn’t). And the basic, mind blowing premise is this: PROSTITUTION IS NOT ILLEGAL IN MALTA.

Yes. Contrary to public perception, there is nothing in the Criminal Code or elsewhere for that matter that prohibits me, you or anyone from earning a bit of money by performing sexual favours in return of a proportionate (or cut-price for that matter) remuneration. Really? Really. So where do the problems with the law start. Let me tell you where…

1. The Criminal Code

Take the criminal code – a simple CTRL + F of the term prostitution will lead you to two interesting discoveries. First that “prostitution” is never defined. Secondly whenever the term prostitution is used it is within the context of preventing someone (whether a minor or an adult) from being forced violently or through deceit into prostitution. Basically you CAN be a prostitute but ONLY if you choose to be one out of your own free will. The biblical profession is legal. And that my friends is a fact.

2. So what is illegal?

Most crimes linked to prostitution relate mostly to exploitation. Thus any form of what is called “White Slave Traffic” is a crime. It is linked to what I said earlier. You can never oblige someone to become a prostitute or deceive someone into becoming one. It is definitely a crime to live off the profits of other people’s prostitution (the vernacular “pimp” – the Roman Law crime of “lenocinium”). Interestingly one of the civil law conditions that is an automatic ground for the termination of rent is the use of the rental property for the purposes of prostitution (article 1618 of the Civil Code). Another civil law consequence of prostitution is the possibility to disinherit a descendant if he or she is a prostitute “without the connivance of the testator” (article 623).

A person who is soliciting for prostitution – or prowling the public side walks for clients is susceptible to being charged with a contravention of disturbing the public peace. The reason behind such a contravention would probably be – to put it bluntly – that you are free to dispose of your body as you choose and satisfy as many people as you like in return of payment as much as you want BUT don’t do it in our face. Don’t forget that other contraventions under our criminal code include such things as the prohibition to lead an idle and vagrant life, the prohibition of pretending to be a diviner of dreams,  and the prohibition of driving animals (whether beasts of burden or riding animals) over a drawbridge otherwise than at an amble (you’ve gotta love those speed cameras).

There’s the general low down on all things prostitute. All the usual disclaimers of this blog apply including any exclusion of liability should anyone wrongly choose to rely on this content as though it were the bible truth.

 

Categories
Rubriques

I.M. Jack – The March Hare contd.

2. The Law is an Ass

Or is it? One effect of the multiplication of immediately available information has been the massive impact that this has had on the interaction between the demos and the institutional framework that represents them. By this I mean that what is commonly referred to as “the people” tends to give more and more input on the processes that exist in a democratic environment. I would hazard to state that for a very long time one major imperfection of democracy functioned to its advantage and longevity. This imperfection was the practical impossibility of involving everyone and everything in every single decision that needed to be taken within the framework of separation of powers.

A new advert by the Guardian called “Three Little Pigs” (see below) turns out to be a perfect illustration of what I mean here. The majority of information reaching us comes from the traditional media (or in some cases citizen journalists) and then these “facts” that have been reported are given the demo-treatment. Reactions – indignation, satisfaction, summary judgements etc – might even influence the follow-up to a news item. All the while the usual machinery of the state might be interacting with a particular news item : a crime? a sporting achievement? a public blunder by a public person? an injustice to a citizen?

Where does this take us? I believe that the current shift is crucial to the redefinition of a major democratic paradigm. It’s as if you could check in on your accountant/lawyer’s/doctor’s work on a daily basis and you suddenly tried to influence how he or she goes about the job. The rules and structures behind democratic processes are what binds us all and keeps us a step away from chaos. If, for example, we suddenly all had a say about how a day in the court should run we would steamroll over procedures that have been developed to guarantee and safeguard a multiplicity of rights. The same goes with reporting in newspapers, decisions on governance and governability and more. The danger is further confounded when public judgements are made on the basis of political expediency or allegiance. Reason and social mores are put aside so long as we can shoot from the hip about the “inadequacy of legislation” – forgetting that there is a process behind the formation of such legislation that guarantees stability.

3. Owen Bonnici and Students’ House

This bit of news in the Times got my blog fingers itching and is a perfect example of the cavalier attitude that the modern band of politicians have towards the guarantees of the law and more.

Labour MP Owen Bonnici has asked for an investigation by the Public Accounts Committee or the Auditor-General into whether government rules were broken when parts of Students’ House at the University were handed to the University Students’ Council, which then rented them out for commercial purposes.

Now I admit that having been KSU President I might have a considerable advantage over Owen in this one but the story jars on many a point. Let’s begin with the basic. The most basic. KSU is an autonomous organisation – one of the oldest in Malta having been founded back in 1901. The good operation of the Students’ Council requires that it operates free from outside pressure and that includes the administrative organs of the University of Malta, not to mention the government. I hate to go down this line because it plays into the retro-fetish of nationalist enthusiasts but one of the greatest coups to safaguard KSU’s (at the time SRC’s) autonomy occurred in the 70’s under – you guessed it – Mr Mintoff.

At the time SRC ran the house now known as the NSTS Building in Saint Paul’s and Mintoff wanted to get his hands on this prize property at a time when most Uni assets were up for grabs. What happened next was that a foundation was created (the NSTF) with the SRC as one of its members. Technically speaking NSTF is still a branch of KSU with KSU still participating actively in the management of the foundation. The foundation kept the property an arms breath away from the meddling government at the time. Why do I mention all this? It is important to understand the issue of autonomy of the student body and that Dar l-Istudent on Campus is for all intents and purposes a KSU managed property (I hesitate to say owned).

Which brings me to Owen and his “reporting”. What public accounts? What auditor-general? Would Owen be so kind as to ask the same gentlemen to initiate an investigation on the Labour and Nationalist parties in order to examine whether their management of financial affairs is tip-top? Why doesn’t he? Owen’s insistence is a bit like inviting Alexander Ball over to Malta to protect us from the evil French. We all know what happened for the next 264 years.

So there are suspicions about the current committee’s handling of tenders? Deal with it in the appropriate forum. Sure the latest generation of party lackeys on both sides of the spectrum will make a meal out of it as they have tended to do since the PLPN colleges   planted more and more idiots from their school of bipartisan thought. What needs to be done in this case is to gather a movement of students who will vote the suspect batch out of the representative organ and then presumably replace them with persons who can properly manage students’ house. If the students do not turn out to vote in that manner then there is nobody else to blame.

Bonnici’s act simply threatens the very autonomy of the student council and its rights of administration and management that were acquired over a long time after a series of tough battles by the predecessors of the current executive. It’s a wrong move that can only benefit Bonnici’s exposure but one that the students will ultimately end up regretting: if the PAC or Auditor-General follow through on the absurd request that is.

 

Categories
Politics Rubriques

I.M. Jack – the March Hare (I)

1. The State of the Parties

(PN) It’s over for GonziPN – or so seems to be the general opinion in the punditry pages. Following Gonzi’s landslide victory in the one-man race poll (96.6%) we are seeing a definite shift away from the one-man monolith that was victorious last election and a contemporaneous effort to re-establish roots among the electorate. Which leaves us with a number of conclusions and concerns.

First of all insofar as the business of governance is concerned, the PN General Council vote has not changed much. Even with a repentant Debono returning into the fold (his idea of repentance being that he believes he was proved right) the lasting impression is of a party that will go to any lengths to survive a full term in power. The dissidents within the fold excluded themselves from the 96%, mostly by abstaining. Meanwhile the “papabili” such as De Marco or Busuttil rallied behind the leader.

The PN remains a fragmented party in search of a definition. The signs coming from the minor tussles in Local Council campaigns are not positive. The fragility of the very fabric that should be keeping the party together is evident with its dealings with past and prospective candidates. There is however a silent larger picture with the usual suspects seeming to prefer a “silenzio stampa” to the noise we had become accustomed to.

Might there be a new strategy in the making? Is the transition back from GonziPN to PN a superficial diversion from deeper moves that might bring about a timely resetting of the PN modus operandi? Above all, are we dealing here with the proverbial “too little, too late”?

J’accuse vote: Brownian Motion.

(PL) Not much to be added here. The PL’s only consistency is its constant assault on the weak points of governance. The strategy of blaming every ill -imagined or real – on “GonziPN” is combined with procedural and psychological pressures to push a teetering government off the seat of power.

The prolonged lifeline of the current government might soon turn out to be the PL’s weakness. While Joseph gleefully repeats the “iggranfat mas-siggu tal-poter” mantra he fails to appreciate that the longer he is prancing about as the “prattikament Prim Ministru” the more he will actually set people wondering whether he has what it takes to carry out the job. How long they will be happy with his evasive answers as to actual plans might be anybodies guess but it might soon be time to stop taking bets.

J’accuse vote: Hooke’s Law.

(AD) Like the football team intent on surviving the drop AD can only plan its strategy step by step. Don’t blame the outfit for concentrating on the Local Council elections for now, General Elections can wait. AD may be short of manpower but they could have been greedy and fielded more candidates irrespective of their quality in areas such as Sliema where they could expect a huge backlash at the outgoing council’s farce. Instead AD are content to field their single version of a “heavyweight” with party chairman Briguglio.

Don’t expect many people to look at AD’s manifesto, which is a pity. The most the small party can hope is to get some mileage and exposure that could serve as a platform for an assault on the impossible come the next General Election.

J’accuse vote: Small Hadron Collider.

(Blogs) They’re not a political party but they’re evolving too. We are in a positive boom phase with more blogs than you could care to count (or read in a day). That is definitely positive. Expect to find more of the short-lived instruments – the lunga manu of party propaganda. Expect to be surprised that notwithstanding what is now a long internet presence (at least five years of growing internet readership) we will find that users (mostly readers) have trouble coming to terms with the immediacy and interactivity of the net. Most importantly the ability of your average voter to use his meninges to sieve through the information shot in his direction is about to be severely tested.
J’accuse vote : Blog and be damned.