Author: Jacques René Zammit

Categories
Values

L-Ewropa ta’ Toni u Fred (II) – In-* Tagħna

Mela Tonio issa sar Kummissarju Ewropew u s-Saħħa għandha prominenza kbira fil-portfoll tiegħu. Id-dagħdiha u skambju ta’ kliem bejn elementi liberali u konservattivi laħqet il-quċċata tal-attiża nhar l-interrogatorju parlamentari tal-kummissarju deżinjat sabiex ftit wara waqqhet fuq fommha meta għadda mill-eżami tal-vot. Tħallu lil ħadd jitnejjek bikom. Il-proċess ta’ skrutinju innifsu kien neċessarju u leġittimu – biss biss a bażi tal-pożizzjonijiet li kien ħa Tonio Borg meta kien għadu politiku f’Malta. Jekk wieħed jinsa għal mument l-ammont kbir ta’ informazzjoni bażwija li iddawret dwar il-konservatiżmu Malti xorta waħda jifdallu ħafna fuq x’hiex jagħrbel dwar Tonio Borg u l-potenzjal tiegħu.

Tonio jirrapreżenta element politiku importanti fil-qofol Malti. Huwa element politiku li inbena tul iż-żmien reazzjonarju demokristjan waqt il-perijodu tal-gvern soċjalista fis-sebgħinijiet. F’dak iż-żmien id-determinazzjoni u viżjoni demokristjana kienet tinvolvi għanijiet ċari li ma jistgħux jiġu sempliċement diminwiti fi kristallizzazzjoni tas-suq ħieles u liberta. Xogħol, ġustizzja, liberta u ftit wara solidarjeta ma kienux għadhom saru il-munita dgħajfa jew “catchwords” li drajna bihom illum. Kienu sisien sodi għal pjan soċjali ġdid wara l-falliment tas-soċjaliżmu a-la-carte Mintoffjan. Kellha tkun soċjeta illi wieħed iħossu kburi li jifforma parti minnha u li jista jaspira għal (kwalita ta) ħajja aħjar.

Tonio kellu sehem f’dak il-moviment. Dak il-moviment wasal biex għaraf ir-rieda (u l-bżonn) ta’ sħubija fil-proġett Ewropew u kien parti fondamentali (iżda mhux unika) sabiex din il-ħolma isseħħ. Post Malta fl-Ewropa, ma’ l-Ewropej. Ma kienx hemm dubju. Issa u mhux imbagħad. Fuq dak ma kienx hemm dubju lanqas. Imma l-ġgant tal-libertajiet qisu tnikker u ddewwed u mal-ewwel ħjiel ta’ diskors usa’, mal-ewwel bżonn ta’ elaborazzjoni tal-għanijiet soċjali sabiex il-“just society” tolqot iktar nies u drittijiet – qisu bħal donnu beża. U kellna l-ewwel trasformazzjoni. Minn ġo Malta imsieħba fl-Ewropa żammejna sod ma “tradizzjonijiet” u “valuri” Maltin mingħajr ma azzardajna inħarsu jekk kellhomx bżonn xi aġġornament.

Il-partit li jridha li xpruna il-poplu fl-Ewropa sar l-istess wieħed li tella barrieri u ħitan biex mhux l-Ewropa kollha tidħol għax mhux kollox jgħodd. Għalhekk Tonio ma ħeliex wisq ħin qabel ma beda jikkwota trattati u eċċezzjonijiet. “Iva” stħajjiltu jgħidilhom, “ħaddanna l-Ewropa imma l-ewwel u qabel kollox inħaddnu l-prinċipji tagħna… erm tiegħi”. Hekk qalilhom fil-fatt. Hemm kompetenzi u kompetenzi u mhux kull ma hu fl-Ewropa se jidħol f’Malta. U din kienet tweġġa aktar minn kull metamorfosi li seta’ kien hemm bejn Tonio ta’ Malta għal Tonio ta’ l-Ewropa.

Tweġġa’ għax kienet ammissjoni fil-miftuħ li l-mod ta’ kif il-ġenerazzjoni reazzjonarja tas-sebgħinijiet qiegħdin jiffaċċaw il-pass li jmiss huwa wieħed difensiv u magħluq. Malta tagħna u timxi bil-pass li rridu aħna. Ma hemmx diskussjoni. Ma hemmx ftuħ għal utopja ta’ djalogu u sinteżi ta’ ideat. Tiftakruha l-Ewropa ta’ Kajjin u Abel? Kajjin u Abel ilhom li telqu… imma minflokhom għandna l-Ewropa ta’ Malta u l-Ewropa l-oħra.

Tonio komdu jiffirma li se joqgħod għal li jgħidulu – anki jekk b’xi mod tmur kontra l-kuxjenza u valuri tiegħu stess. Kellu jiffirma inkella kien jibqagħlu dubju jgħadduħx fil-klabb tal-Ewropej. Eddie Fenech Adami – missier id-demokristjani reazzjonarji tat-tmeninijiet qallu li kieku ma kienx jiffirma. Kien ikun iktar konsistenti Eddie – għallinqas hekk naħsbu aħna. Għax Tonio b’għemilu u b’ħidmietu baqa jsaħħaħ l-inkwiet li għandna. Li verament għandna żewġ “Ewropa” – dik tal-Maltin u dik li Tonio tant ħabrek biex daħal fiha issa.

 

Categories
Euroland Values

L-Ewropa ta’ Toni u Fred (I)

Xtaqt nibda billi inkellimkom dwar Tariq Ramadan. Huwa doċenti universitarju ġewwa l-universita ta’ Oxford fejn huwa professur ta’ l-istudji iżlamiċi kontemporanji (Kulleġġ ta’ St Antony ġewwa l-istitut ta’ l-istudji orjentali). Ramadan ma hux biss professur universitarju għax hu ukoll persunalita medjatika bi preżenza qawwijja fuq il-mezzi tax-xandir dinjija (mis-CNN sa Al-Jazeera sa TV Iranjani) fejn sikwit ikun preżenti jiddiskuti l-islam fis-soċjeta kontemporanja – b’mod partikolari fis-soċjeta ewropea.  Ħafna misilmin Ewropej iħossu li Ramadan huwa rappreżentant den tal-kawżi u drittijiet tagħhom.

Jekk tfittex ismu fuq youtube issib ħafna interventi tiegħu f’dibattiti u programmi televiżivi u personalment insib li huwa tajjeb li wieħed josserva dawn l-interventi tiegħu biex ikollok perspettiva differenti ta’ kif persuna ta’ twemmin li ma hix nisranija (s’issa t-twemmin dominanti Ewropew) tħabbat wiċċa ma sitwazzjonijiet fejn il-prinċipji, valuri u morali tagħha ikollhom jinsiltu minn ġo soċjeta li trid jew ma tridx kull ma jmur qed issir iktar u iktar eteroġeneja. Ara per eżempju dan il-vidjo qasir:

F’sens liberal-demokratiku ma tistax ma taqbilx mal-konklużjoni kemmxejn relativista ta’ Ramadan. “Live and let live” tinstema soluzzjoni tajba ħafna għall-għawġ kollu imma ikun hawn min jgħidlek (bir-raġun) illi s-sinsla tradizzjonali tal-Ewropa qed jitherrew b’dak il-mod. Tħarsux biss lejn kwistjoni ta’ omosesswalita. Rajt lil Ramadan jiddiskuti l-obbligu tal-velu u d-dritt li nisa misilmin jilbsu il-velu anki fil-pixxini pubbliċi. Ħin minnhom waqt li kien qed jiġi interpellat b’mod pjuttost vivaċi minn ġurnalista qalilha ħaġa li għalijja kienet familjari ħafna. Qal: “Allura biex inkunu liberali u tolleranti b’bħalek irridu nobbligaw lil kullħadd jgħum mingħajr velu?” Hemm hi. Arma komuni dan l-aħħar, nasba li taqbad lill-liberali dgħajjef fl-argumenti imma ferventi fil-proselitizzazzjoni… bl-iskuża tat-tolleranza jispiċċa isir iktar intolleranti.

Imbagħad jgħidlek Tariq li l-Lhud kienu ilhom għexieren ta’ snin bil-ħinijiet differenti għan-nisa filgħodu fil-pixxini pubbliċi imma “ħadd ma qajjem għagħa fuqha”. U jidħlu elementi oħra ta’ tipi oħra ta’ diskriminazzjoni u ta’ tolleranza u l-kobba tibqa titħabbel.

Fil-verita il-kwistjoni qiegħdha f’għażla ta’ soċjeta. Il-kuntratt soċjali impliċitu jimplika qbil fuq tip ta’ soċjeta li trid titfassal. Diskussjonijiet dwar normi u valuri li huma neċessarji għas-soċjeta għandhom jitqiegħdu f’dan il-qafas iktar wiesgħa. X’irridu mis-soċjeta tagħna? Fejn hi sejra bħalissa? B’liema valuri irridu inrawmu lit-tfal? Jekk trid eżempji estremi issib kemm trid bħall-iSpartani antiki li kellhom sistema tagħhom ta’ l-ewġenika. Trid soċjeta li tindokra lil membri tagħha jew waħda li toħloq biss il-“level playing field” utopiku biex imbagħad titlaq lil kullħadd f’tellieqa?

Din id-diskussjoni (u għażla) ma ssirx biss meta tinħoloq soċjeta ġdida b’għanijiet ġodda iżda hija waħda kontinwa. L-irwol ta partiti politiċi u membri tagħhom huwa li jkunu katalisti f’din id-diskussjoni. Li qed jiġri hu li l-valuri u prinċipji tilfu l-importanza tagħhom u saru sekondarji għat-tellieqa għall-poter. Wisq drabi ikollhom isiru kompromessi tal-kuxjenza (jekk ikun għad baqa kuxjenza) u kull ma jmur d-diskussjoni formattiva – dik li ssawwar is-sisien li fihom titrawwem is-soċjeta ma hix qiegħdha issir. Issir biss metadiskussjoni b’dak li jissejħu “catchwords” illi huma tifkira imbiegħda (souvenir) ta’ żmien ieħor meta l-valur kien sovran u l-bniedem kien verament uman – verament umanista.

Diskussjoni ma hix ġlieda biex timponi jew tolleranza relativista li iddgħajjef imma proċess soċjali meditattiv u ta’ żvilupp li jwassal għat-tisħiħ tal-membri kollha a prescindere mit-twemmin u ħsieb individwali tagħhom. Allura iva, meta Tonio Borg iqum fil-parlament u jħeġġeġ lill-membri kollha sabiex “iħaddnu t-twemmin tagħhom” huwa mhux biss xieraq imma neċessarju. Imma dak huwa l-ewwel pass biss. Li tagħraf li twemminek ma hux universali u li tkun lest tiddiskuti, tinvestiga u tistħarreġ l-aħjar mezz kif bi twemminek u forsi ukoll bl-input ta’ twemmin ħaddieħor ittejjeb il-qagħda soċjali huwa t-tieni pass.

Dak il-pass kif se naraw ma hux ħafif. Huwa pass mimli riflessjonijiet, ftuħ għal ideat u iva… fejn hemm bżonn… kompromessi.

 

Categories
Campaign 2013 Uncategorized

The Hidden Hand, Fundamentalist Liberals and other tales

Something strange happened in parliament yesterday. George Vella meant to congratulate Tonio Borg for his appointment to the post of Commissioner and apparently did so. In doing so though he came up with some weird theory about a “hidden hand” that could have been behind John Dalli’s resignation (so he did resign?) and the opposition to Tonio Borg. I have developed a pavlovian reaction to any kind of conspiracy theory that involves “hidden hands” or “evil cliques” or “axis of terror” so George Vella does not kick off to a good start with me on this point.

It gets worse though. I am not about to speculate on whether or not the “hidden hand” really exists and what the purpose of this veiled limb might really be because I’d rather concentrate on the metamessages that filtered through before and after Tonio’s victorious vote in the EP.

Labour’s National Interest

George Vella’s “hidden hand” theory was wrapped in the sweet progressive packaging of a collective Labour message dubbed “Fl-Interess Nazzjonali” (in the national interest). There was some interesting reading to be had there. Leader Joseph had committed the pack to backing Tonio while explaining that it would not be an easy affair – presumably because he had some insider info as to what would be happening to Tonio Borg’s CV in the run up to the vote. Which can only mean one thing – that Labour’s men knew of the ideological baggage problematics that would surface during the grilling and in the run up to the vote.

So what did progressive labour do? It is not a given fact that Labour should have joined the wolves baying for Tonio’s blood simply because it is supposed to be “progressive”. That definition of progressive plays into the hands of the “liberals are intolerant bigots” crowd in any case. There had to be a reason though why Labour actually wanted to back Tonio Borg’s nomination. It could have been easier after all joining the sceptic wing of the socialist grouping who kept requesting commitment after commitment from the nominee. Instead Labour joined the Borg Backers. They claimed to be ashamed of the belittling of Malta and its portrayal as a backward nation – not too clear whether they were disappointed because this was the stark reality or simply because calling Malta names is just not done.

So when it came to saying why they backed Tonio they came up with what Wilfred Owen called “The Old Lie” – national interest. Mintoff must be applauding in his tomb. In other words Labour does not have a principled position on Tonio Borg. Labour just wanted Tonio Borg’s vote to go through “għax Malti”. A bit like the rush to get likes for some obscure international competition simply because we should back people who are  Maltese you know.In the end Labour just showed that it has absolutely no clout within its europarliament grouping and that once again it is a party that is unable to stand up for a principle whenever necessary.

Free votes. Thank God they don’t cost money.

The Nationalists and Fundamentalist Liberals

While the Labour party hid behind the “babaw barrani” or as he is to be known henceforth “the hidden hand” to hide their spineless antics, the nationalist party upped the ante in an area in which it is an expert. We witnessed over a few weeks the demonisation and character assassination of anything remotely liberal. By grouping the bungling idiots who upstaged Tonio Borg’s “grilling” with misinformed questions with those who are genuinely concerned with Tonio Borg’s suitability the nationalists adapted their “zokk u l-fergha” campaign to the present set of circumstances.

Suddenly requesting a commitment from Tonio Borg with regards to certain points which remained open to doubt after his grilling made someone “a liberal bigot”. Rubbish. They were entitled to request whatever commitments they deemed necessary. Once Tonio signed them they should have also got on with it and voted him in. They had his written word after all. That Tonio still has to deal with his conscience in those particular circumstances where he will be working on programmes that are not compatible with his beliefs is neither here nor there. So long as he does the job it’s fine. At most he can hold his nose while dealing with the shit. Or resign. Either that or he should have done as Eddie Fenech Adami advised him and never signed that list.

But back to the nationalist’s new chimera. They are fast transforming the image into one reminiscent of the baby-eating communists of the early post-war. Liberals, they’ll rape your children and sleep with your pet cat if you’re not too careful. Liberals, they’re intolerant and don’t know where they left their manners. We know it’s a load of rubbish but the PN machine is in full swing to shoot down these upstarts who might differ from them on more than one point of principle.

The funny thing is that ideally many of these liberals who are in a silent minority potentially form part of the critical mass of swing votes. Even funnier is the fact that no matter how much of a battering they will get from the PN, come election day they will be faced with the usual “wasted vote” dilemma and before you know it it’s a nice number 1 next to Manuel Delia et al.

Middle Fingers

You’ve got to admit. It’s a weird political world that we inhabit. Our progressives are busy warning us about the foreign hidden hands that militate against our national interest. Our conservatives are busy accusing those of a mildly more liberal opinion of being intolerant and fundamentalist. As all this goes on the parties agree to bury the hatchet to pass a very conservative IVF law, still have not got anywhere on the question of same-sex marriages and will be darned before they admit that their house is not open to the normal sort of liberal democrats.

Meanwhile the spin machines will easily oblige with a few articles here and there balancing the need to shoot at Labour with the need to emphasise at how useless the bunch of wishy washy liberals is. All the while they fail to get the joke.

And the joke is on them.

note: attached image is an early one from the notorious shtf collection that has suddenly become topical again

Categories
Admin

We were wrong.

This wouldn’t be a serious blog if I was unable to admit to being wrong whenever necessary (and whenever it proves to be so). A few days ago I blogged about the extra-territorial application of criminal law and in particular about what would be my interpretation of the combined articles 5(1)(d) and 241(1) and (2) of Malta’s criminal code. I could blame “the ravages of time” or my lack of attention during the lectures given by Prof. De Marco but that would just be me pussyfooting. I could also obliterate the blog post in question as though it never was but our blog is made of more serious stuff than that isn’t it? I should have read the articles in question more carefully and I would not have committed such a simple error. So here is the explanation:

A foreign doctor intervening on a pregnant Maltese woman on a foreign territory so as to terminate her pregnancy IS NOT CRIMINALLY LIABLE under Maltese law. The reason is that a thorough reading of article 5(1)(d) gives you the indisputable fact that for a crime to subsist it would have to be committed BY A MALTESE NATIONAL (or permanent resident) ON ANOTHER MALTESE NATIONAL (or permanent resident). Essentially the crime would only exist abroad if both doctor AND patient are Maltese.

I hope that it is clear and regret any inconvenience that my interpretation might have caused. Incidentally this new (and correct) interpretation does not change for one iota my assessment of the duplicity of Gift of Life -style activists who are quite content with the containment of our anti-feminist laws within the jurisdiction of our country.

 

Categories
Mediawatch Values

Conscience, liberally speaking

François Hollande has found himself in quite a fix. His government is currently pushing the kind of law that is very easily labelled as ‘liberal’ (and consequently carries all the baggage that you might identify with the word these days). It’s France – the epitome of laïcité – and you’d expect the citizens of the republic to be either enthousiastes or at the most nonchalantes about the adoption of a law that has been dubbed “Marriage pour tous” (marriage for everyone). Yep. The biggie in France right now (apart from the herd of elephants in the corner called Angela Merkel, the Economist and the failing economy) is the new law that finally legalises same-sex marriages.

The debate is not so simple. Protests this weekend led to up to 100,000 catholics hitting the streets. In some cases we had violent scenes against the French version of FEMEN who had bullied the protesters in their usual topless garb with the words “IN GAY WE TRUST” writ all over their angry boobies (like angry birds but sexier) and spraying “Holy Sperm” out of cannisters. The religious organisations – still unable to get to grips with the very basis of laïcité are vociferous in their criticism. It’s not just the Malta of Tonio Borg that has obvious trouble coming to terms with certain concepts.

What was really intriguing were François Hollande’s declarations yesterday. Faced with a backlash from the mayors of many municipalities who found the idea of having to bind two persons of the same sex in marriage appalling he came up with a controversial solution. We still have freedom of conscience. He said. They are free to step back and nominate a delegate in their stead. He said. The possibilities of delegation can even be widened. He said. (In the likely scenario of a whole commune of representatives – from deputy mayor to cleaner of the Hotel de ville – refusing to preside over a lay marriage he is suggesting that they nominate “a valid outsider”).

Really François? How bloody socialist of you. Seems to me that the socialists of the 21st century are all bla and no substance. The proverbial men without balls (and women without…. oh you know… balls). What is the bloody point of asserting a right within a lay constitution only to say that there is a freedom of conscience involved and that the official person appointed by government to sanction that right might step out because he does not like it? Is the socialist movement asserting that it is a right or is it not? I’d love to see the gay mayor of Juan-les-Pins (disclaimer I don’t know whether he really is gay) refusing to sanction a heterosexual marriage… claiming that his conscience dictates otherwise. Where does this stop? What civic rights and duties could we thenceforth forego on the basis that we are conscientious objectors.

You know Monsieur Hollande, my conscience does not see paying exorbitant taxes in too good a light. I think I’ll take a pass and leave the tax form empty…. In today’s jargon messy Hollande deserves to have one big WTF? tattooed across his chest and paraded all along the Champs Elysées.

***

So while Hollande was busy crafting an escape vehicle for all the officials in his country whose conscience barred them from performing certain duties within their “portofoglio”, his colleagues within the European Socialist Party were taking a vote with regards to whether or not back that great Conscientious Politician Tonio Borg. In the end the Nays had it. Sure, socialist leader Swoboda seems to have quite a fancy for Tonio (not that kind Mr Borg) but for two-thirds of the grouping, Tonio had not provided enough guarantees. What guarantees I hear you ask? Well, the socialists in Europe expect Tonio Borg to never raise a conscientious objection to whatever projects the Commission embarks upon based on the laws of the treaties.

At the end of the session Maltese Labour MEP Edward Scicluna had this to say on facebook (where else?):

“An hour long humiliating experience I, as a Maltese, could have done without in group meeting today. Irreparable damage to our reputation. […] Condescendingly Malta pigeon-holed as the most backward and intolerant in Europe. This as a positive reason why EP should approve Borg.”

Apart from the fact that we have yet another example of garbled nonsense from yet another politician it is hard to decipher whether Scicluna is angrier at the fact that the Socialists were being condescending to Malta or whether he is angry at the fact that they seem to be intent on rejecting Borg’s nomination. Scicluna is a socialist himself so it would not be too big a deal were he trying to give the impression of both. They’re a strange breed these socialists – and they’re about to do another of their “free conscience” moves by allowing their europarliamentarians a “free vote” : which basically translates into “we cannot make head or tail about what we really want so best leave it to the disparate group to send a garbled message”.

***

Finally yesterday was also the day when the Church of England’s synod session continued. Hot on the agenda was the introduction of female bishops in a church that has already embraced the concept of lady priests (that’s not a cross-dressing father but an honest-to-god female with a dog collar). The “House of Laity” (The synod is tricameral, consisting of the House of Bishops, the House of Clergy and the House of Laity) fell 6 votes short of approving the motion that would allow women to be appointed Bishops. Both the House of Bishops and the House of Clergy had obtained the 2/3 majority necessary for the motion to pass but this fell at the final house – the one where the lay members of the church are represented.

The vote against women bishops included some women’s votes and this was a huge disappointment for the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams. The new Archbishop Justin Welby has also described the vote as a disappointment. Interestingly, the Bishop of Christchurch (New Zealand – where female bishops have been ordained for decades) Victoria Matthews described the result of this vote as “the product of fear”.

***

21st century Europe might be afflicted with economic problems. Beneath these problems lies a deeper moment of crises that is shaking the foundations of our moral and political compasses. Much of what happens around us today is a result of this struggle that is afflicting or effecting the collective conscience of the Old World.

 

Categories
Mediawatch

Oops!

The European Parliament vote that determines whether Tonio Borg will make it to EU Commissioner might turn out to be a nail biter after all. We already knew that the liberals and the greens would be exercising their right to not believe that Tonio Borg’s track record in government can do the trick for him in the EP. We expected the socialists to have been truly charmed by the erstwhile politician’s performance in the Q&A plus the reds in parliament do have a way of  “power sharing” with the EPP as we had seen with the sharing of the Parliament presidential chair. The socialists voted on Champion’s league night and the vote was a surprising Nyet to Tonio.

What the socialists also chose to do is to give the parliamentarians a free vote. We all know what that means – Joseph Muscat seems to be quite a fan of that one. It was strange to see Edward Scicluna’s disappointment at the formation’s official position – he went so far as to describe it as condescending. Notwithstanding what some spin pundits in Malta are repeating ad nauseam this is not a question of imposing liberal opinions on someone who very evidently does not share them. This is about obtaining guarantees from Tonio Borg that he will not let his own personal views (to which he has every right) come in the way with his duties as commissioner. Many are still not convinced. Even after his reply to the 7 commitments that were requested of him it is evident that he has been unable to convince the most sceptical.

I have had occasion to mention this before and will do so again. The nomination by the PN government carried its risks. The problems being faced by Tonio Borg were not completely unpredictable. Interestingly it is also an accepted modus operandi in Malta – a nod to conservative inertia – that is on trial in tomorrow’s vote. A rejection might be a disappointment for Malta’s parties – both the conservative and the pseudo-progressive … although I am quite sure that Joseph has harboured a wish for Borg’s failure throughout the process. Tonio might just scrape through or he may not. Will any lessons be learnt from this experience? Probably. And that is what we can hope for at most as our country’s “progress” unfolds.