Category: Mediawatch

Categories
Mediawatch

The barbarians and the gates

gates_akkuza

If you ever stopped to read the writing on Floriana’s Porte des Bombes (Heaven forbid that you did stop, it is after all in the middle of a main road) you would have read the inscription “Ad maiorem popoli comoditatem” which is latin for “For the greater comfort of the people”. The events of the past few weeks have led me to reflect whether our national efforts at public building is in fact heavily conditioned by what the people want. Most times we are busy adorning roundabouts with random decorations from phallic symbols to kitsch statuettes and cacti and luzzi. Those who had a taste of what passes for power on the island seem hell bent in dedicating memorials to themselves which explains a proliferation of busts and statues – which would be ok if we had a sense of proportion.

Gates though. That’s a tricky one. The history of City Gate also includes anecdotes as to how the main consideration in one of its reincarnations was that Carnival Floats should be able to pass through the entrance. One of the city of gentlemen’s entrances had to bow to the needs of the burlesque community. When a supposed architect was at the helm of the nation we could do no better than boxing in the main entrance with a series of shoddy arches, an arcade of libyan-arab shops and travel agencies and of course a housing estate. Ad maiorem popoli comoditatem indeed.

This time round the people are still trying to get their heads around the presence of a major architectural installation and plans. Most of the people fail to think with their own heads and come to their own conclusions. Instead, the Piano Plans have to bear with the fact that their genesis and development coincided with the first part of the Taghna Lkoll plan that involved the creation of a general sentiment of unhappiness and discontent. Let’s call it the Tort ta’ Gonzi phase. It was a phase in which anything remotely connectable to the government of the time was somehow deemed as wrong and almost as a punishment of the people. A couple of billboard personalities (ye old two dimensional figures) lent their faces to this quest and hey presto … the “Cheese Grater” and “Roofless Theater” were born.

Add to that pre-electoral schemings and promises to the hawkers of Valletta and the stage was set for the barbarians to take over the latest version of the gate. Have we improved much from the time when the prime consideration for a new gate was whether a carnival float could get through it? Not really. Our Prime Minister is adamant that there is nothing wrong with the location for the monti. This time he has reserved the populist decision to the look  of the stalls but not to the location.

The sad thing is that this should never have been a decision of the people. Not in the case of the aesthetics and urban planning it isn’t. But this is Malta where the size of statues of saints and carnival floats will determine the width of the street, the height of the lampposts and the shape of a gate.

You would be worried if the barbarians had got to the gates. The thing is you look around you and you notice that they have been everywhere all along. It will only take a bit getting used to won’t it? After all under Taghna Lkoll, everything goes. You just have to be a little more optimist and a little less negative.

Categories
Mediawatch

Shooting the Red Cross

shooting_akkuza

The internet side of the Maltese world seems to be unanimous in its disapproval of the design for the Monti stalls. Some government “perit” was commissioned to ‘design’ these stalls that will be placed in the open space between the new parliament building and the open theatre in Valletta. The designs had barely been announced ad urbi et orbi that everyone and his brother became an expert design critic and a fully qualified assessor for the use of materials in open spaces. You did not even have time to shake off the suspicion that much of the noise being made came from the same quarters who had only a while back massacred anything that was labelled Piano, the anger at the flimsy designs was an uncontrollable tsunami. It was so easy, it was (as the Italians would say) like shooting on the red cross.

Let’s face it, the whole “Monti in Parliament Square” business is yet another spin-off of Taghnalkollist policy. There is no longer an attempt to hide the way the monster (or if you insist, like Musumeci, you can call it a “Movement”) thinks. The hawkers – like the hunters, the speculators, the utility bill payers – had been promised summat in the run up to last election. Meanwhile, the City Gate project and anything to do with the rehabilitation and improvement of Valletta was seen as a Nationalist party heritage – and therefore something that could be metaphorically defecated upon with the bene placquit of the Prime Minister. As a little tag along there is the other fact that anything that incenses the Maltese electorate is a valid enough distraction and smokescreen from the real shit that is afflicting the Bowel Movement.

Piano’s plans were never at the heart of this government. It will reluctantly inaugurate each part as it is finished but we had already seen how – thanks to the strategic positioning of the Taghnalkollist style kiosks the steps on each side of the gate had already been downgraded a notch. We had already been told that the planned garden in the moat had to be abandoned for “lack of funds” (only to find out that the First Lady of the Taghna Lkoll Movement had sidelined the same amount of money to refurbish gardens in some Palazzo to host high teas). The Monti move is only the Taghnalkollist cherry on the cake. It is wrong on a number of levels:

  1. It is an aesthetic blasphemy. It goes against everything that the Piano plans had for the entrance to Valletta. Where there is space let there be clutter.
  2. It is yet another corollary of Taghnalkollism. A cluster of hawkers in obnoxious stands cluttering the entrance to Valletta are to Taghna Lkoll as Futurism was to Fascism. In this case there is no manifesto of artistic endeavour that is being followed – simply the mantra of “Ok Siehbi” (anything goes) combined with a middle finger raised to the whole Piano plan.
  3. It also exalts a product that is anything but Maltese or traditional. Contrary to the belief of the few defenders of the plans to site the china-product peddlers in Parliament square, what is being sold is just as important a consideration. Fake football gears, bargain panties and iphone covers have no part to lay in a square that has been planned to be full of symbolism.
  4. Which brings me to the damn cross. Wizards of hermeneutic studies have already pointed out that the red cross has nothing to do with the Knights or Maltese history. Should that have been the only beef then it would have been passable. The problem is that the shoddy thinking behind the whole design is so transparently poor of any cultural content (and yes, I do say this with a high brow attitude) that it is enough to make grown men cry (apparently some did).

In all probability Muscat believes that he is cocking a snook to all things and ideas nationalist by allowing a monster market to flourish at the foot of the majestic project that has risen at Valletta’s entrance. What he is actually doing is paving the way for yet another of the many living monuments to mediocrity that have been blessed by this government and its party of lackey appointees.

The Bowel Movement now has its own artistic trademark to proudly show off. All you need is to misappropriate and misrepresent anything that is wrongly or rightly considered part of the national cultural heritage, slap it onto tacky structures and give it the PM’s blessing. He may claim to not like the design (in a highly predictable u-turn move designed to make him sound ever so decisive) but he will bless the befouling of a monumental masterpiece because that, my friends, is what Taghna Lkoll is all about.

Illum il-pjazza tagħna u nagħmlu li rridu.

See also: Muzikarti

Categories
Mediawatch

Governing Idiots to a Degree of Perception

governing_akkuzaThe Google Translate app (for both Android and iOS) is a thing of beauty. It works just like some instrument out of Star Trek. You can point your camera at any sign and it will instantly translate it into your language of choice. The guys at Google will be hard pressed though to work on something similar that could translate Government-Speak. The Taghna Lkoll government has done it again. After Joe Mizzi’s unfortunate statement with regards to the traffic congestion situation in Malta (It’s not traffic, just perception) we now have Muscat’s government telling us that the fact that people are buying more cars means that everyone is happy with the current fuel prices.

This comes at a time when the Nationalist Party has upped the ante on the issue. In fact the PN has just launched a new site www.dieselupetrol.com  that purportedly calculates how much more expensive the Taghna Lkoll fuel is than on the continent. Progressive and liberal Muscat went into counter-measure mode. First of all anybody trying to access the dieselupetrol.com from within any of the MITA government network would find a blocked page – the government censors having decided that it qualifies as spam. Just days after Muscat flew to gay Paris to march chin first among the #JeSuisCharlie and to remind the world that his government stands shoulder to shoulder with the champions of freedom of expression, his own government engages in a bit of Chinese Sourcery… shutting down access to a website that criticises it.

That is not enough though. Muscat still does not control the whole interwebs so he has to send out other feelers to the ever grateful minions wallowing in his paradise world of promises and taghnalkollisms. So now Muscat has told everyone that if they really were not happy with fuel prices then they would not be buying cars. It’s not Marie Antoinette’s fabled “let them eat cake” but a twist on that theme. If they really did not like paying for fuel then they could walk. What idiots they are. Why are they buying cars if they cannot afford to pay the fuel? they must like the price of fuel then, no?

Why indeed Joseph. They should be catching the bus now shouldn’t they? At least in that case they would be oblivious to the fact that, even though the new scheme claims to be cheaper for the commuter, in the long run it is actually the taxpayer’s pockets that are needed to fork out the multi-million increase in subsidy that will be swallowed by the Autobus de Leon.

Joseph Muscat is safe in the knowledge that the polls show that he still has the minions in thrall. They will thank him for the bills with which he is burdening the nation. Some will naively say that the economy is still doing good and that is why the minions like him. Fools that they are they swoon supportingly at every word of GovernmentSpeak.

“There is no truth. There is only perception” – Gustave Flaubert.

 

Categories
Hunting Mediawatch

It’s not about what Simon Says

simonsays_akkuza

Diplomacy, they say, is the art of letting someone have it your way.

I rarely agree with Joseph Muscat and I don’t always agree with Simon Busuttil and when it comes to the referendum for the abrogation of the turtledove and quail hunting regulations I am in agreement with neither of them. It’s not so simple as a YES or NO vote though. The gigantic chessboard that was set in motion once the constitutional court found no objections to the petition for an abrogative referendum is full of diplomatic minefields, political manoeuvrings and vested interests. And notwithstanding the incredible murmur that hit the web once his press conference was over today it really is not at all about what Simon Says. Then what is it about?

It’s about hunting

In essence it should be. The aim of the referendum is an attempt to end spring hunting “once and for all”. That is what the NO camp hope to achieve. I have explained the technical reasons why the result of the referendum must be seen more as a political achievement than as a legally binding result. Put simply the more people vote for a ban on hunting the more the political parties who run the daily show will get a message (and a sort of protracted mandate) not to do anything to facilitate spring hunting again. At least for the time being. So what is needed is numbers. Big ones. It’s a vote with your feet moment. And that is where there might be the first problem. This is the first issue requiring a referendum about which lots and lots of people quite frankly don’t give a damn. It does not touch their pockets, there are no electricity bills to be lowered and probably they are more irritated by the whingeing of the “tree-hugging greens” than anything else. Is there a large enough section of the population who might bother to turn up at the polls simply because they hate the kind of bullies that rally behind a gun and a bullets on a protest in Valletta? Je ne suis pas convaincu.

It’s not about a derogation (really)

There is so much confusion on this point that even Simon Busuttil slipped on a nasty banana shortly after his press conference explaining his position. “I am voting for a derogation that WE negotiated” he said. No you are not Simon. Neither is Joseph for that matter. See, the “derogation we negotiated” that everyone is talking about is an altogether different derogation that was negotiated by the Fenech Adami government and concerned trapping. The derogation referred to in this referendum is the reason why we have the legal notice that some of us are now hoping to abrogate and it was not the result of negotiating skills of any pro-hunting Maltese. It is a mechanism that exists in the Birds Directive and – much to everybody’s chagrin – will continue to exist no matter how you vote and what the result is in the next referendum.  If anything I had been hoping that Simon Busuttil would say that his position was in favour of a proper use of that derogation – as against the carte blanche interpretation that has most recently been given by Joseph Muscat’s government or as against the interpretation given by the Gonzi government in 2008 when arguing before the European Court of Justice. It was a chance for Simon to show a real change in attitude by one of the parties – no lies to suck up to the hunters -the simple truth: we will work on the derogation when the conditions exist to apply it. Given that those conditions are very strict and exceptional because they are set within a framework based on real conservation it might have even made many bird lovers happy while reassuring those who are still testing Simon that their new leader does not bow to the men with guns.

But it’s not about the parties

In the end though it should not be about the parties. As I said, the PLPN had long abrogated any idea of leadership in this field. Their track record is atrocious and anyone waiting to hear what the PL or PN had to say before making his mind up about what to vote for in the referendum would be absolutely off the plot. Joseph Muscat tried every trick up his sleeve in order to appease hunters. First we had the slackening of conditions for hunting, licensing for hunting etc. Then it was obvious he tried to avoid the possibility of a referendum as much as possible. Finally when the referendum became inevitable he hoped and hoped that he could get away with an isolated referendum away from Local Council elections. When that idea caused a ruckus and backlash he succumbed and threw in the Ace up his sleeve. He backed the YES vote personally and automatically had that translated as the official Labour Party position. Labour had reneged on its promise to keep out of the campaign and had been forced to back the hunters by its scheming leader who was still underwriting the cheques he had issued before the election. Muscat now had one more wish – that Simon turn this into a PL vs PN move in the hope that he could translate this into a double trashing: a victory for the hunters and a beating of Simon by default.

Which is where you can begin to see Simon Busuttil’s position from a newer, better perspective. First of all Simon was right to first wait for the party to take a position of its own. I would have preferred it to stop at that. Probably what happened next is the result of Labour’s trying to egg Simon into an open battle and to taint the referendum with yet another partisan war. Simon would have none of that. There was the danger that he would be labelled a fence-sitter (unfairly, if we agree that waiting for the people’s decision was the right thing to do). There was the problem of consistency – given how the PN’s position had not exactly been anti-hunting in the past. So Simon has opted for the stalemate insofar as Labour is concerned. He has chosen to neutralise the Labour vs PN battle by throwing in his personal opinion on the side of the derogation (admittedly he wrongly claimed this is the negotiated derogation).

It’s a smart move really because this turns the referendum into anything but PL vs PN. Busuttil has sacrificed the possibility of measuring his popularity to the hope that the voters think with their own mind and transform this into a battle of the people or civil society vs the establishment. I would have liked a clearer position with regards to what kind of spring hunting Simon Busuttil was committing himself in favour of but given the red and blue manner of thinking for which this electorate has been groomed, Simon’s “sacrifice” for the greater good of a clear non-partisan vote turns out to be admirable. The proof of the pudding will be whether Simon’s party will act like Labour and do its utmost for the YES vote to be carried or whether the PN will limit its pronouncements to today’s leader position and allow the people to decide.

It’s about a clear statement

Which brings me back to where I started. The most important factor in this result will be the statement of the people. This is an issue upon which both parties gunning for leadership of the country (pardon the  pun) have long compromised their souls in the past. Theirs is not a position of vision. The true representative party will  be the one that takes note of a referendum result and works upon that for the future of hunting. As I said, confusingly for many people, the derogation will still remain a possibility within the Birds Directive. How and why parties in government decide to make use of it (if at all) will depend on the clarity of the vote come 11th April. Only a resounding No will tie the hands of scheming politicians like Muscat or will give a clear mandate to Simon Busuttil in the future to use the derogation wisely and within the clear and strict conditions within which it is framed.

Go out there and vote clearly. The truth is that this referendum is about what you think and what you believe.

 

Categories
Citizenship Constitutional Development Mediawatch

Expression is free

expression_akkuzaOn his way to the Philippines Pope Francis conceded yet another few comments with regards to the Charlie Hebdo massacre in France. It’s the Pope speaking – don’t forget he was considered for a long time to be infallible. Bergoglio is a great communicator and has won back many sheep to the fold of Catholicism thanks to his attitude and humility. I don’t know if it is the euphoria of the moment or the relaxed atmosphere of a casual interview during a flight but Bergoglio’s qualification of the freedom of expression made me cringe.

“Imagine my assistant insulted my mother”, he said, “then he would be risking a punch.” Really Francis? Since when is that the standard Catholic answer? Whatever happened to turn the other cheek to begin with? But I am not here to tell Francis what his religion teaches as to how to react to violence or insult. What worries me is that there is little different between Bergoglio justifying a punch for an offence and an Imam in London claiming that the Charlie Hebdo journalists asked for it. It’s no different from the reaction in some quarters that called for a limit to the freedom of expression to be set at the prohibition of causing offence.

Right now it is tough for citizens of the nations that are run by the western democratic paradigm to reconcile their ideas of liberty with that of Charlie Hebdo’s freedom to insult and offend a cult. Can an opinion be damaging? Can it be allowed to be damaging? If I believe that stories like the immaculate conception and resurrection are absolute hogwash am I allowed to lampoon them in cartoon fashion? What does the freedom of expression say about that?

Well, in France the courts have already had to deal with this kind of question. There is a difference between the use of the freedom of expression to parody, mock and, yes, even offend on the one hand (which is allowed) and the use of the freedom of expression to incite hatred or call to violence. The reasoning is that nothing is sacred when it comes to the boundaries of freedom of expression. There are of course mechanisms to protect persons who feel damaged by another’s expression. You can see the right to protect against libel and calumny of course. But when it comes to mocking religious figures – there is no limit. Mock and be damned.

Why then are people arrested if they tweet or post on the internet in support of the attackers of Hebdo’s offices? Are they not expressing their opinion too? Well yes they are but they are also justifying the crimes by their acts. In France it is called “apology of terrorism”. It is seen as a step towards incitement to violence and hatred and that is why it is not allowed.

The difference is sophisticated. It requires a level of intellectual engagement that is not available to all. Living in a liberal democratic society requires that kind of sophistication. It takes a level of intellectual engagement to control the savage instinct of resorting to violence when one feels offended and instead to dismiss the efforts at lampooning as puerile schoolyard humour. Life in a western liberal democracy is not for everyone. Many would prefer to be shielded from offence by governments that censor and prevent caricature. Theirs is not the promised land of the west. They would prefer to be able to punch, flog, whip, punish a lampooner than simply look away and not take notice of anything that so deeply offends their sentiments.

They would resort to laws and bullying to silence where possible. If the law does not help them in that sense, if it is too liberal then they will exploit the weakness of the politically correct age and claim that this is about islamophobia, antisemitism, irreverent anticatholicism. “Je ne suis pas Charlie” they will tell you but they miss the point.

Because being Charlie does not mean having a predilection for infantile, sexually oriented humour and for easy (too easy) quips about prophets popes and saints. Being Charlie means having a sophisticated understanding of living in a society where others are free to express themselves in accordance to our charters and where the right kind of reaction is one of intellectual engagement not judicial or physical bullying and savagery.

Being Charlie means hearing yet another Yo Mama joke and not having the instinct to punch the joker in the face. Because being Charlie means understanding that the joke is always on you. And that’s as subjective as it can get.

Categories
Constitutional Development Mediawatch

Blasphemy the redundant

blasphemy_akkuzaThe first edition of Charlie Hebdo since the unfortunate events of last week is out tomorrow. The world has been given a preview of the front page which depicts a tearful prophet holding up a placard with the “Je suis Charlie” slogan. The background is in green – the colour of Islam – and the title is “All is forgiven”. The plan is to distribute the special 16 page edition (3 million copies are being printed) in at least 25 countries. It has been translated into four languages, including Arabic.

There is still a major problem though. To many muslims the mere depiction of the prophet is blasphemous. Charlie Hebdo’s irreverent treatment may be shielded from blasphemy laws in most of France (see next paragraph why most and not all) but when it tries to go worldwide in places such as India the issue of blasphemy might be raised all over again.

In the Alsace-Lorraine region they have a minor problem. On paper, blasphemy is still illegal under an article inherited from the German Criminal Code of 1871 when the region was transferred from Germany to France in 1918. I say on paper because when the League for the Justice defence of Muslims tried to have the law applied before a French court the court declared that the blasphemy law had become redundant due to “desuetude” which in layman terms means non-use for a very long time.

The truth is that outside the worlds where sharia or religious laws infiltrate or are one with secular laws, there is no place for a law on blasphemy. It is redundant. This applies all the more strongly in most liberal democracies where the basic charter of fundamental rights or variants thereof are applicable. Just before the attacks on Charlie Hebdo a group of representatives of the major religions (curiously the word “cultes” is used in French) had petitioned Paris to abrogate what the Archbishop of Strasbourg described as “an obsolete law”.

Blasphemy is inherently inapplicable in a secular state. The difficulties abound especially when it comes to the forces of law and order who are supposed to perform on the spot assessments of what could or could not be blasphemous in order to eventually effect an arrest. Blasphemy is in fact not restricted to one religious belief by definition (even the Maltese law on blasphemy that subsists to this day extends protection to all approved religons). So how on earth can your average policeman, called upon to intervene on a supposed commission of an act of blasphemy , assess the situation without being extremely well versed in the tenets of each and every religion which could be offended?

In truth the issue of offense  – which is the other side of the coin of the freedom of expression and which could constitute the barrier or eventual limit to such expression – is sufficiently treated and dealt with in other, wider provisions that deal with that very freedom of expression. Blasphemy is redundant, useless and archaic.

The other problem faced by  Western Liberal Democracies (my capitals) is that they must be able to explain the register of rights and duties that are expected of citizens wanting to partake of their civilisation and society. These rights and duties are codified in rules that form the backbone of society and that everyone is expected to abide by. The rules are enacted by representatives of the people with the sovereign will  entrusted unto them in open elections. They are applied by the executive branch and interpreted by the judiciary. This civic process ensures that we live in a system of rule of law with clearly defined rights and protection. Cives Europaeus Summus ut Liberi Esse Possimus – we are citizens of Europe (read Western Liberal Democracy) and thus we are free.

In a Western Liberal Democracy you do not take up arms and kill somebody who has insulted you or your beliefs. You react using the tools, rights and laws that are as accessible to you as they are to others. That is what is meant by integration too. You can be a fanatical muslim, an orthodox christian or one of those insufferable atheists pouncing on anything religious at any opportunity. You are expected to behave like a model citizen in order to integrate in the society that welcomes all and gives them a myriad of freedoms so long as they do not hurt others.

It’s simple really. A basic set of tenets that both Yeshua of Nazareth and Mohamet might have subscribed to. It is a society that allows you to be strong in your beliefs while respecting those of others – no matter how irreverent they may seem in your eyes.

Ours is a society where to resort to violence, bullying or savagery in order to impose one’s views is abhorred. In fact it is considered blasphemous.

#jesuisciveseuropaeus