Author: Jacques René Zammit

Categories
Mediawatch

Back in Time

It’s been a quiet week – away from the blog. Who am I kidding? A turtle flapped its way up Gnejna bay to lay its little eggs of hope only to be given the Kardashian treatment. Be a celebrity turtle for a day. As if that was not enough the J’accuse Prophesies all fell into place in one damned week. Columnists were made to regret their decision to back a lying politician to the hilt for the sake of winning an election. Remember the “objects of hate”? That was February and March 2008. J’accuse was asking the obvious questions: Can politics by default be successful? Is there anything shallower than the politics of taste? Does backing every Johnny Come Lately for the sake of winning a few votes pay in the long run?

Well it did not. Eerily we went back to those posting days and we noticed that we touched on much more issues that would come back to haunt certain people in 2012. It’s not so uncanny when you think of it but posts such as “PfP – What’s the pFuss?” turned out to be, how shall I say… relevant. Or take the one entitled “Theatrics of the Hard of Hearing” – also a topical issue. Only a few days previously we had highlighted the birth of a new star in “In-House Bickering“. Before that we had analysed Gonzi’s first cabinet choices in “A Cabinet for the People“… that included the following interesting excerpt:

Not something JPO can hope for seeing that his constant denial of knowledge of anything to do with Mistra seems to have exploded in his face. Small aside here. JPO’s treatment by the party had its setbacks too. He was an expendable puppet in the war with Sant. In the party’s list of priorities, proving that Sant would chicken out from confrontation was more important than harnessing a potentially damaging candidate. Projecting him into the limelight to outwit Sant meant that JPO could not limit the damage and his fruitless denial only ended up in Gonzi’s ruling out a Cabinet position for the man who garnered a voting bananza simply on the “sympathy” basis. In the process PN also showed a nasty side in its use of the media and journalists to achieve its aim. Nul points and more.

Then, as now, misinformation regarding the pros and cons of a coalition was high on the agenda for some people. Of course it did not help that they confused the actions of individuals projected to the dizzying heights of one-seat majorities with those of potential political parties that are accountable to a set of commitments. In The Real King Makers we highlighted the perils of the PN’s one -seat majority.

And yes, there was Daphne. Daphne who started the campaign planted before her PC posting comment after comment on J’accuse challenging the “objects of hate” to fall in line with the simple choice of electing PN by default … because Labour is not good for the country (sound familiar?). The tactic is well documented in the post “Seven Day Bloggists” – how serious conversation degenerated into M.A.D by blog. DCG decamped to her own blog created midway through the campaign – probably when she realised that having a blog meant controlling the content (only nice things happen on your blog). That same blog, the Runs, was the one that would back the tearful Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando to the hilt. Elect anyone but Alfred Sant. So much for rational voting….

There’s more to read in those pre-electoral months on J’accuse. We’ve been reading through to see how much of today’s mess was predictable back then. Turns out that the answer is “Quite a bit”. This blog is kicking back into life after a deserved pause (because I say so).

Categories
Blogspot

Dwar il-Maltin ta’ Barra

F’Awwissu tiskadili il-karta tal-identita. Kont qed intella u nniżżel għandix inġeddida.

Kulltant itik li tieqaf ftit. Hemm bżonn. Ħalli kif ngħidu aħna z-zingari “issorbixxi” aħjar dak li qed jiġri . Ovvja li jekk titkellem ma tistax tisma’, jekk tlissen ma tagħtix widen u jekk fid-daqqa u il-waqt tarma tgħajjat jiefqu jagħtu kasek. Allura tieqaf u “tipploka”. Għax hemm bżonn.

Tmien snin ilna. Aħna li tlaqna minn artna nesploraw u ninvestigaw il-ħajja lil’hinn min żokrot l-univers. Tmien snin li fihom skoprejna univers ieħor. Iġġerrejna tul il-kontinent il-qadim nitmattru fejn irridu u ngawdu il-ftuħ, il-wesgħa u d-differenza. Meta l-kontinent ma wesagħniex iktar morna niġru infittxu il-biżlejn għammiela ta’ kontinent ieħor – għatxana għall-għerf bħal kull filosfu erranti tas-seklu elfejn lebbitna ‘l hawn u ‘l hinn biex forsi narmu minn fuqna dik l-għera li konna tgħabbejna biha minn twelidna u li f’daqqa konna sirna wisq konxji taghħa.

Pijunieri konna. Kburin u imżatta. Tlaqna niġru meta qajla konna indunajna bil-ġmiel tal-mixi. Bnejna artali ġodda fl-eteru u ġibna ruħna bhal mitt papa – ilkoll nippontifikaw. Bħal Raleigh li ġie lura mill-kontinent ġdid bi pjanti ta’ tabakk u patata sirna għorrief tal-botanika. Mhux għax ma kellniex raġun. Tafu kif jgħidu l-Ingliżi… in the land of the blind, the one eyed man…. Hemm aħna – Ċiklopi -għaddejjin nippontifikaw. Sirna enċiklopediċi.

Sadattant f’żokrot l-univers rawna, iggustawna imbagħad beżqulna u beżquna. Ikkuppjawna, kasbru u kissru l-mini-artali ta’ progress li konna tant nittfanntsu bihom. Kull deni ħadnieh b’ġid. Komplejna kwieti għax konna ilna li għarafna li dak kien parti mid-destin miktub f’demm niesna. Destin li qatt ma jippermetti tkabbir magħqud imma tkissir imfarrad u maqsum. Dak ma kienx l-ikbar dispjaċir.

L-ikbar dispjaċir ħadnieh dan l-aħħar. Meta indunajna li konna ilna li xeddejna ilbies il-pijunieri, uniformet l-esploraturi, togot l-enċiklopediċi. Indunajna li konna tgħażżinna. Tlifna l-għatx għall-għerf u għal oħtu il-mistoqsija. Lanqas ma kien għad hemm lok għall-poeżija tal-elf għaliex. Ma konniex tgħaġinna fid-dinja ta’ barra fejn konna tfajna il-kappell. Le l-ebda Dukat ma qatt kien ser jissejjaħ darna. Imma konna tgħażżinna.  U għal mument tlifna kull interess f’dak li kien qed jiġri f’żokrot l-univers.

Allura tieqaf. Pawża meħtieġa sakemm tirranġa il-kumpass, taħsel l-uniformi u traqqam it-toga. Hemm bżonn. Ilna tmien snin issa li tlaqna min xtut artna. Jekk il-pass li jmiss għadu mhux ċar allura trid tieqaf u tipploka u issorbixxi.

Narawkom daqt.

Qabel Awwissu se nġedded l-ID Card. Biex tagħmel parti mill-Unjoni Ewropea trid l-ewwel tagħmel parti min pajjiż. Biex tivvjaġġa fiż-żona Schengen mingħajr passaport kull m’għandek bżonn hu ID Card (jew liċenzja tas-sewqan)… biex titlaq iddur fl-Ewropa trid tibda minn x’imkien.

U l-bidu dejjem kien ser ikun żokrot l-univers….

Din il-bloggata hija dedikata lill-Maltin ta’ barra u b’mod speċjali lil dawk li telqu minn Malta fl-ewwel nofs tas-sena 2004. Dan il-blog ser jieħu pawża qasira. Ir-ritratt huwa ritratt tal-belt ta’ Lussemburgu meħud mis-sema.

Categories
Politics Values

I.M. Jack – Sunday’s Legal

The law has become a dominant part of the news over the past year or so and not only because of the supposed reforms that are being carried out (thanks to/in spite of/to comfort/with or without) Franco Debono. Ubi societas, ibi ius or so the latins teach us – wherever there is society there is the law. A legal system is at the core and backbone of our society and it allows us to survive each other and our naked ambition and instinct. Respect for the law and its principles are probably much more crucial for the survival (and creation and promotion) of a just society than economic prosperity. We are witnessing however a complete dilution and dumbing down of our legal framework.

What we have is a combination of a full frontal assault and denigration of all things legal. We have seen columnists who assume that their appreciation of the law with all its underpinnings and implications is superior to that of any legal practitioner. We have witnessed  lawyer politicians who opt to prostitute their profession in favour of political mileage. We have seen the gradual erosion of public confidence on the law and the legal system based on urban appreciation of legal events, shoddy and sensational law reporting and opportunist political mileage. The law faculty continues to gaze at its toes as its graduates increasingly seem to be unable to engage in logic and analysis due to serious shortcomings in the linguistic department.

The judicial branch is still under fire from many quarters and is still reeling from the reputation-killer events of recent memory. The Chamber of Advocates seems to be more intent on either playing second fiddle to political interests or in getting a piece of the power cake by pushing for more control over warranted lawyers – a push that smells of control of competition as much as anything else in this country of fishpondism.

Court Detectors: The Gozo law courts now have new detectors following the appalling stabbing attack that involved among others my childhood friend Kevin Mompalao. It is ridiculous that this kind of event has to happen before the obvious – such as the installation of a metal detector is put into place. Having said that, once the detectors WERE put into place it is rather useless to complain that they were formerly used at the courts in Malta as though this makes them bad metal detectors. It seems they were only removed since they could not cope with the flow of persons at the courts in Malta. Unless I am mistaken the courts in Gozo do not exactly deal with the same number of “clients” daily. Also, much of the agitation by the lawyers in Gozo stank of political manipulation. Justyne Caruana would do better to call for better ethical screening of some lawyers who practice regularly in Gozo and run on the Labour ticket. Who knows maybe she should start asking questions how a lawyer ends up owning property that used to belong to clients he “represented” or for example how he might decide to ignore the legal institute of curatorship. They are legitimate questions – based on the respect of the law that we are all trumpeting about. Go ahead Justyne… start that kind of campaign and I’ll back you on that one.

Reforms: I was asked to take a look at the Draft Administrative Code that is presently before out committee for legal reform in Parliament chaired by the Hon. Franco Debono. This Draft symbolises all that is wrong with the current wave of ambitious reforms. This is not the forum to even begin to discuss what is wrong with the “code”. The weakness of the legal drafting is only the tip of the iceberg. The administrative code nibbles away at crucial principles of our legal system while purporting to replace them. Are we really contemplating this kind of shoddy legislation simply because one MP decided to make much noise? While we can understand how the man in the street can be appeased with talk about efficient legislation right after a bitching session about the state of the courts, length of court cases and cost of lawyers bills surely the legal minds of this nation have not been flummoxed into submission to accept anything that has been thrown into the playground of toys for ambitious reformists?

That Constitutional: I followed with interest the tennis match between Giovanni Bonello and Giuseppe Mifsud Bonnici with regards to the issue of declarations of unconstitutionality by the courts of Malta. In a very small nutshell this is what they were saying: Judge Bonello implies that whenever a court decides that applying a law to the facts before it would be unconstitutional then that law should automatically be null and void. He adds that such a law should not require a parliamentary intervention for it to be rendered void thenceforth – the law would become null and void erga omnes. Judge Mifsud Bonnici on the other hand has argued that the nullity is only with regards to the facts before the court and that the law is not automatically rendered void. For what it matters J’accuse is in full agreement with the GMB version – particularly because the wording of our constitution is quite clear using the terms “to the extent of the inconsistency”.

Having said that what is truly worrying is that this kind of debate is played out on a newspaper. We do not have any serious fora for non-partisan discussion on legal developments. It is definitely a shortcoming of the faculty of laws. It is also the result of the lack of continuing education among us lawyers who prefer to concentrate on the more profitable sides of the profession. A direct consequence of this is that the biggest “academic” interests in the laws are usually intrinsically linked to professional interests. Drafting of laws – even special (especially special) laws – will inevitably end up in the hands of those lawyers who have a direct interest in the outcome. Do not confuse specialist with direct interest. The reason that the rules relating to parliamentary representation, interpretation of parliamentary procedure and the issues of separation of powers have taken on a downward spiral is because the “lawyers” busy dabbling with these laws are those who have a direct interest in the results: polticians.

Discussing this kind of legal issues and reforms on the Times and Xarabank is not exactly encouraging for the future. Kudos, by the way, to Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri for his clear unconditional explanation to the Times as to why he will not abet their efforts at sensationalising the courts and their work by replying to their queries.

 

That’s all for legal sunday.

Categories
EURO2012 Sport

Let the games begin

The festival of pre-summer eructation that are the European Championships will kick off at six this evening. As regular readers know, J’accuse has no real preference at national football level within the European sphere given how we were hooked onto the gold and green shirts of Brasil from a tender age. Thankfully the Olympic Football tournament will give us a chance to appreciate the likes of Neymar and Ganso but in the meantime there is this nuisance of a tournament to attempt to tickle the taste buds.

All eyes are on Poland and Ukraine. Not all eyes. Politicians are rushing to boycott the championships (the latest in line are Barroso et al) particularly because of the not too lovely record that Ukraine has with human rights and more particularly because the lady with pretzels around her head is still being ill-treated in jail. Eurovision had its Azerbaijan and Euro2012 has its Ukraine.

One of the biggest problems facing this years games is that old cliché of the “ugly head of racism”. The Dutch team warming up in Krakow was exposed to monkey chants by a group of Polish supporters. The official line of the ultra-democratic UEFA is that the chants were not racist but rather a protest against the fact that Krakow had not been awarded any of the matches. Sure. Monkey chants.

“Abba dabba dabba dabba dabba” said the Polish fan to the Dutch team. That’s fan talk for “we’ve got nothing against you it’s just that we’d have liked to hot a game or two in Krakow”. Pull the other one Michel. Platini has not been helping much either. He chided the great SuperMario Balotelli for having expressed his very natural thoughts on the whole business. Balotelli had not only said that he would walk out of a match should there be any monkey chants but also that he would kill a person who would perform such chanting.

Ok. The kill bit might be a bit over the top but surely Balotelli need not wait for a ref to work out the complicated formula that involves calculating when the level of monkey chanting and banana throwing outweighs the economic losses incurred by abandoning a match in a major UEFA tournament. We have a suggestion for Mario. Don’t walk out. Just sit down. Do a Drogba. Fly to the ground as though you have been struck by a sniper and stay down. Then when the physio is up and asks you what you want massaged say it’s your pride… because it’s being severely tested and risks major damage. We’re with Mario on this one.

Racism aside we also risk seeing a few extra boobs and I don’t mean blunders. The female activist group FEMEN is bound to make an appearance or two in order to protest against (1) prostitution, (2) spending money on the championships and (3) general lack of democracy. I wonder whether the betting companies have any odds on flashers running across stadia in the Ukraine with the policemen with funny hats running after them.

As for the football. Well. Enjoy the last vestiges of a competitive tournament. From next time (France 2016) 24 countries will qualify for the tournament. Given that there are 53 member associations in UEFA that practically means that almost half of the teams will qualify for the next event. How that will increase the quality of a tournament that gives us such exciting draws as “Poland – Greece” is beyond me. And this is someone who will eagerly watch a Serie B play-out or Serie C1 play-off match.

Expect more random thoughts on the Euros from J’accuse in the coming weeks. For specific attempts at chronicling fear and loathing in Maltese football support there is an interesting experiment going on over at Maltatoday with Wayne Flask. if anything it might make the Euro championship a bit more entertaining. (I DID say might).

Categories
Sport

Poussins et Ours (au Stade Josy Barthel)

Chez nous on nous apprend dès l’enfance à ne jamais compter les poussins avant que tous les œufs ne soient éclos. Cela n’est sans doute pas le cas partout – les équipes de foot ont d’ailleurs aussi de petites nuances. Chez vous il faudrait semble-t-il apprendre à ne jamais vendre la peau de l’ours avant de l’avoir tué.

Nous voilà alors à l’entrée du stade, quelque deux cent supporters de “l’une des plus mauvaises sélections européennes” (merci L’essentiel de nous le rappeler), vêtus de couleurs rouge, blanc et noir (rouge et blanc hérités des Normands francophones et la couleur noire, symbole de l’âge de chevalerie lorsque nous étions chargés de protéger l’Europe contre la menace étrangère).

Pleinement conscients de nos limites, nous chantons, fiers, l’hymne national. La fin de notre prière à Dieu céda la place à des cris et des hurlements de soutien. Nous sommes là à espérer l’éclosion des œufs … On ne sait jamais !!!

Les chasseurs d’ours sont là aussi. Ils sont censés être favoris dans ce combat Lilliputien. Et ils jouent chez eux, ne l’oublions pas ! Au classement FIFA l’équipe Maltaise figure 31 places en dessous de l’équipe luxembourgeoise, c’est l’“une des plus mauvaises sélections européennes”. A force de nous rappeler notre incompétence, ils risquent de réveiller l’ours qui dort en nous. Trente et un, c’est aussi la température moyenne à Malte.  C’est chaud !

C’est tellement chaud que les œufs commencent à éclore sous nos yeux. Et c’est le But! Notre moustique fantastique trouve l’entrée. Les chasseurs en perdent leur tête. Avant la mi-temps ils ne sont plus qu’à dix sur le terrain. Sans chef – pas question de tuer l’ours. Pour nous c’est le délire total. Et voilà que naquit un nouveau poussin. But! Encore Mifsud. C’est le tueur en série des chasseurs d’ours.

On y a cru, on a espéré mais il a fallu attendre que les œufs éclorent. Qui l’eût cru ? Nous, “l’une des plus mauvaises sélections européennes”, nous étions là à fêter la naissance de nos poussins. Et quand advient-il des chasseurs repartis bredouilles ?  Pas de victoire, pas de peau !!! Sans doute doivent-ils rembourser tous ces malheureux qui ont payé avant d’obtenir la peau.

À nous les poussins ! C’est l’essentiel…..

Categories
Politics

Measuring the hypothetical

There is one area where Muscat’s Labour will definitely not go wrong  and that is recycling. Unfortunately the kind of recycling that we are talking about is less of the environmental kind and more of the Nikita Alamango pass-the-financial-times kind. The latest idea to be grafted off the international progressive menu is that of A Fair Society – a most noble and brill idea when in the right hands.

Take, for example, Andrew Sciberras’ blog post that lists what his idea of a Fair Society should entail (A Fair Society). It’s the kind of list that we could very easily back (bar my misgivings about taxing anybody’s well-earned income heavily – I’m not one who gets excited about taxing success to pay for failure). Yes, Andrew’s list merits much more than a fleeting discussion and the main reason is because it includes definite positions and proposals that you may agree with or agree to disagree with (and hopefully propose alternatives).

Not for Joseph’s progessives though to take a concrete position on any of the proposals – whether Andrew’s or let’s say Franco’s. Even less is it for Joseph’s progressives to come up with positions of their own that they could suggest as their bag of values for voters to decide upon. What we HAVE heard till now in terms of concrete proposals are the two general ideas about further education for plus sixteens and the package of suggestions for disabled persons and their entourage.

In both cases Joseph’s progressives have come up with suggestions that cannot really be translated into actual legal measures. At most you can call them “encouragements” that are similar to “tax breaks” in the commercial world. You cannot coerce parents of a disabled person to set up a trust fund. You can suggest it to them and create the mechanism. I will leave it to the better informed and specialised to comment on the pros and cons of a policy that claims to promote independent living for the disabled without actually being able to do much about it.

The same argument goes for the 16 pluses who opt out of the educational system. Mark Anthony Sammut has done a good job of deconstructing Joseph Muscat’s ideas about young people being in studying, training or employment (Joseph Muscat’s Job Guarantee). Much of what Muscat was “proposing” in this field already exists in the form of further education and training opportunities. Once again the “policy” idea turns out to be tanto fumo niente arrosto (as they say in the noble language of philosophy, politics and L’espresso magazine).

Which  brings me to the furore of the grand new scheme underlying “The Fair Society”. Joseph Muscat and his progressives have discovered “social impact assessments”. Here is how the Times reported it:

The Labour Party will be committing itself to undertake a social impact assessment every time a major economic policy is to be introduced, Labour leader Joseph Muscat said this evening. Closing a policy seminar on social justice organised by the Labour Party with the theme A Fair Society, Dr Muscat said the assessment would be held to provide an overview of how the proposal would affect various sectors of society, especially vulnerable people.

Wow. Impressive. Now where have I heard that one before? Let me introduce you to a new friend: Mr. Regulatory Impact Analysis. I’ll ask Mr Wikipedia to introduce him better:

The role of an RIA is to provide a detailed and systematic appraisal of the potential impacts of a new regulation in order to assess whether the regulation is likely to achieve the desired objectives. The need for RIA arises from the fact that regulation commonly has numerous impacts and that these are often difficult to foresee without detailed study and consultation with affected parties. Economic approaches to the issue of regulation also emphasize the high risk that regulatory costs may exceed benefits. From this perspective, the central purpose of RIA is to ensure that regulation will be welfare-enhancing from the societal viewpoint – that is, that benefits will exceed costs. RIA is generally conducted in a comparative context, with different means of achieving the objective sought being analysed and the results compared.

Here’s another thing. RIA’s have been used in the European Union for the past decade having been introduced by the Commission in 2002. In 2005 and 2006 as you can read in the linked Wikipedia article – “the Commission updated its approach to include economic, social and environmental dimensions, thus moving in the direction of Sustainability Impact Assessment.” (See for more detail: Craig Robertson’s EIPA paper on RIA in Europe). The inter-institutional agreement strengthening impact assessment across the main institutions (including Parliament) was signed in 2006. Well, well… looks like somebody learnt a thing or two out of his stint sitting in the parliament of the European Union. Yep that same European Union that he advised everybody to vote against.

Now here’s the final point. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the introduction of a national system of impact assessments – whatever you choose to call them (social, regulatory, sustainability). It’s actually recommendable. It’s a lovely field of law and I know that a former colleague of mine at the Court of Justice – now a Jean Monnet Chair at HEC University in Paris – is specialised in the field. The thing about impact assessments is that they have to have policies and legal programmes to assess.

You see, Joseph Muscat was telling us that he has got nothing yet insofar as policy is concerned but WHEN HE DOES EVENTUALLY HAVE SOMETHING (and hopefully he will) he will measure it for its impact on society. He will see whether it is fair. We sincerely hope that the idea of a Social Impact Assessment will not be dropped but rather promoted. On the other hand this is no reason to bring out the trumpets and fanfares and finally announce that Labour has a policy to speak of.

Labour has simply told us that it has a new ruler/measure. And whether it opts to measure in inches or centimetres, the measure of its ruler would currently point to zero insofar as concrete policies and proposals are concerned.