Category: Mediawatch

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Fools for love

The 6c price hike in fuel announced by Enemalta and effective today risked being a very nasty April Fools joke. Apparently it wasn’t. Fuel prices will go up in Malta, much as they are doing in the rest of Europe and the world. Only in Malta though will the blame be lain squarely at the feet of GOnZiPN. A quick run through facebook yesterday gave me a concerted effort from Labour MP’s and apparatchiks all complaining that Gonzi is adding on to the misery suffered by the Maltese families.

It’s useless arguing with a Labour diehard who is desperate to blame Gonzi for anything. Apparently Gonzi waited for the local council elections to be over before announcing the price hike. Sure. So did David Cameron, Jean-Claude Junker, Angela Merkel and the rest of the European leaders. Not to mention Barack Obama in the US. Can you picture Cameron sitting patiently waiting for the last results from the San Lawrenz count to peter out before making his move on the cost of fuel in British petrol pumps?

“Are the Saint Lawrence results in yet George? Can you be so kind and ask Cruddas to get another bottle of that Moet while we’re waiting'” Meanwhile, in the real world here’s an Essentiel article from Luxembourg explaining why the price of fuel is going up everywhere: “Porquoi l’essence flambe en Europe?“. See Edward Zammit Lewis, Chris Cardona, Evarist Bartolo? I am not motivated by a penchant at defending the current government, I am just intrigued by what Labour is proposing to do in the same circumstances.

Will Joseph Muscat give us the wild promise of subsidised petrol? Do his Labour fanatics know that voting for a government that subsidises fuel means voting for a government that will have to find a way to pinch the money for that subsidy from their pockets? Of course they don’t. Or if they do become aware of that then they will let loose with a volley of non sequiturs starting with “Mela Sant kellu ragun bl-Isvizzera fil-Mediterran”. Blind fools. The lot of them.

Luxembourg has just reached a record high price for fuel. In Britain a threatened strike by petrol pump owners led the general public to become brutally aware about the importance of alternative modes of transport. To us at J’accuse the brutal truth  that is exposed by the price hike in fuel is the actual relative cost of the botched attempt to reform public transport with the Delia-Gatt Arriva Plans. In times like these your car becomes a luxury to be used sparingly. Buses become popular if their service is efficient. In Wallonia – the French-speaking part of Belgium, recent figures suggest a doubling of the public service commuters (mainly buses). From 200,000 to 400,000 users in one year.

A smart opposition would put its finger on the real problem. Now, more than ever a proper and fully functional transport system is needed. Incentives from workplaces for employees to use buses would help – a workcard that covers the bus trips for example. Of course you cannot have buses running late or running never. But opposition is not about being smart. It’s about stoking the flames of anger and relying on the cheaply available fuel of blind faith.

Opposition is built on fools for love.

 

AA Ireland Chart of prices in beginning March 2012.
 

Categories
Mediawatch Uncategorized

Bland about Mintoff

When author Immanuel Mifsud was last in Luxembourg he attended a Q&A session. Someone in the crowd began her question to the author with the phrase “I’ve never read any of your books but…”, I cringed and switched off after that. I had resolved not to talk about the “Dear Dom” movie until I got to actually see it – which I hopefully will this April if it’s still running after the 4th. This post is not about the movie itself but about reactions to the movie and was prompted by Yana Mintoff Bland’s comments to the Times.

In a nation that is defined with reference to “the other” where narratives are painted in dual tones and where national holidays are as divisive as ever it is hard to keep to the objective plot. The issue here is whether Pierre Ellul’s Dear Dom commits any injustice towards Dom Mintoff – the politician. By examining that issue you are also perforce obliged to tread the dangerous ground of puncturing “the Mintoff myth” – or the mythology that centres around the greater image of the man who can boast among his nicknames “Salvatur ta’ Malta” (Saviour of a nation).

From what I could gather from the blurbs and promos, Ellul’s work is a sort of letter addressed to the ageing leader that ends up becoming a carousel run through his political career. But what is Yana Mintoff Bland complaining about? Dom’s daughter is now a candidate for the Labour party in one of the districts where her dad’s myth continues to shine (notwithstanding the “traditur!” interlude).  The heading of the Times article  (Yana Mintoff: Family speaking to lawyers on Dear Dom film) leads one to presume that Mintoff’s family is preparing to sue Pierre Ellul (or Falkun) – at least most people do not “speak to lawyers” just for kicks.

I see two problems here. First of all Mintoff Bland’s grievances are with the bias that is apparently evident throughout the film. Mintoff Bland however seems to emphasise the character depiction of Mintoff as in his power-driven motivation as well as the idea that he is vengeful and angry. Interestingly there are very few allegations on the part of Mintoff Bland that are based on what would be a misrepresentation of facts. While she may not like the way Mintoff’s character and motivation is portrayed she has little to say about whatever facts are pictured in the movie. Whether a documentary’s judgement on somebody’s character could be subject to a challenge in the court of law is highly dubious.

There is another issue that is glaringly contradictory. On the one hand Mintoff Bland would argue that Mintoff Snr never got a chance to reply to Pierre Ellul’s letters and more importantly that he would have done so. On the other hand Mintoff Bland seems to be prepared to take legal action in the name of her father. Which would not make much sense unless her father was incapable of doing so himself.

These two issues lead  me to conclude that the only reason Mintoff Bland is kicking up a fuss is to attract media attention and to appear the paladin defender of the myth that has been built around her father.

When I think back to the bio-flicks I have seen from “The Iron Lady” through “Invictus“, “Malcolm X” and “the King’s Speech” I realise that behind every politician there is a human with human traits. This humanity is defined through interaction with others and the producer of a bio-flick will inevitably set his or her angle or agenda or theme throughout the documentary. It is not to be judged as good or bad but rather with a measure that bears in mind that history and the documentation thereof is rarely, if ever objective.

You can read twenty books about the life of Fidel Castro and you are guaranteed to get twenty different versions.  It’s not because it’s Castro. It could be Lenin, Kennedy, Mao, Jesus (hell, there’s not one official biography of J-dude but four – Matthew’s, Mark’s, Luke’s and John’s) or Gandhi. Paul Ellul’s movie should be taken for what it is – a perspective on the life and works of one of Malta’s noisiest politicians from the twentieth century.

Like Castro before him, Mintoff’s hard-headed reply could probably be implied without even watching the film…

“La historia me absolverà” … then again, maybe it won’t.

Categories
Euroland Mediawatch

April’s Democratic Fool

Some smart alec at the European Commission decided that the best day to launch the European Citizen’s Initiative would be the first of April. As far as I know the April Fool tradition permeates most EU countries and if there are any which do not ‘celebrate’ it then they must surely have heard of it in being ‘celebrated’ in other countries.

The first of April is not a good idea to launch any kind of initiative and it is particularly inapt for the launching of an initiative that supposedly strengthens the democratic elements of an ailing European Union. So what is the ECI? If you follow the link provided earlier you will find out that the ECI opens up new possibilities for European citizens who could “force” the Commission’s hand into thinking about proposing new legislation.

Basically 7 EU citizens based in 7 different EU countries will be able to set up a committee (a “citizen’s committee”) that will then proceed to formulate a statement of intent and attempt to collect 1 million support signatures. The main obstacle (apart from getting the attention and support of 1 million EU citizens (electronically or on paper) is that the proposal must be in an area in which the Commission is already empowered to legislate.

It’s not easy. Organisations cannot technically form part of the citizen’s committee (so one would assume that pan-European organisations cannot suddenly become unique promoters of causes). On the other hand the initiative shows a lot of trust in electronic collection and promotion of the statements. Democracy does get to cross onto the net. Additionally the potential demos is increased – you do not have to be eligible to vote in your own country to take part in an ECI … you just have to be over 16.

A successful initiative that collects 1,000,000 signatures gets to be properly considered by the Commission and also gets the ear of the European Parliament. Furthermore the Commission, although not obliged to actually propose legislation, must provide a Communication addressing what it plans to do in response to the citizen’s initiative and must give reasons for every action or inaction.

The daunting size of the amount of signatures and the non-enforceability at the end of the tunnel must not discourage EU citizens. There are many positive signs in this new instrument – first among which is the acknowledgement of electronic democracy within the mechanisms of law making. Think ACTA – think how fast public support was whipped over the net. Does one million seem such a huge figure now?

Baby steps. I just wish they did not opt for the first of April for the launch.

Categories
Mediawatch

Have I Got News for You

I have recently been getting a creeping feeling that I am the only person in the world that listens to certain Maltese radio stations. It’s not just that, because I also think that they only operate when I tune in and stop speaking/playing music the moment I switch station. How do I know it? Easy. Because the DJ speaks to ME. Just me. It’s either that or his or her grammar is limited to the second person singular.

How else to explain phrases like “Se indoqqlok id-diska l-ġdida ta’ Beyonce”? or “Għandna premju għalik li qed tisma bħalissa”? It’s irritating. I know, given the benefit of internet streaming radios why the hell am I torturing myself with Bay Radio’s Breakfast with Drew when I could be listening to RTL, RTBF Classic 21, or London’s Heart or even Waikiki Radio? It’s just that every now and then I do feel like listening to a morning drive show from home and possibly catch up with the news on the hour. So I have to submit to being spoken to directly by a DJ and I begin to worry whether he can see me getting dressed in my bedroom. Rather invasive isn’t it this language business?

And that’s not all. I have an aversion to the conversion of the pronunciation of placenames to English. How does Birkirkara get to be pronounced Bear-Kuhr-Kah-Rah? And Imrieħel suddenly becomes Emm-ray-hell. Is it cool? Does it make the place sound more cosmopolitan? What’s the deal? Why?

So please Mr DJ. I don’t know you. I am not on first name terms with you and do return to using the plural. If not for the sake of imagining an audience that numbers more than one then just think of me as the King – the one who deserves a royal plural. Whatever you do, the English “accent” (especially some conjured up cross-mix of brummie/eastender) was never, ever intended to be applied to the sweet arabic sounds of Maltese.

(This post is being republished to test WordPress to Facebook handling of comments.)

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
Mediawatch Politics

Franco Bonaparte?

Last time that I hinted at a link between Franco Debono and a historical figure I was told off in private by one of the blog’s more finicky readers. Well, mea culpa if Franco does not quite fit the “Generalissimo” label but the Rebel MP has now taken to quoting another general for his purposes. The Times asked for Debono’s comments in the light of this mornings Leadership Debate being hosted by that same paper and Franco was happy to oblige. The crucial statement is as apocryphal as modern day PLPN politicians can get – leaving as much leeway for interpretation as Saint John’s Apocalyptic scriptures:

The crisis will only be over when the oligarchy is dismantled, the elitist rule of ‘planet clique’ comes down to earth and democracy is strengthened. Even certain quarters of the business community have been complaining for some time about this clique mentality.

Whatever happened to the four riders of the apocalypse and how exactly will “planet clique” come down to earth? Is this a new religion? More specifically has Franco been reduced to speaking in riddles in order to be able to keep us hanging on to his every word? Joseph’s Labour still pin their hopes on stability but in truth they don’t care whether Franco goes this way or that. Joseph’s reading is clear: there is stability whatever the PM says (or does). Muscat has bought himself a joker by claiming that if Franco turns back to the fold of government (what Labour are calling a U-turn even though he never actually voted against government) he will have been “bought” so his opinion does not count.

The nationalist party is in denial too. It doesn’t care whichever way about this minor hiccup in Malta’s political history. It is buying its time till the leadership “election” to fill the vacancy that does not exist. That way we get to ignore Franco at least till the resounding “Gonzi, Gonzi, Gonzi” echoes in the halls of Dar Centrali once the result is out. Then Franco will be given the choice to either follow or get the fuck out. Simples. Next we will have the Local Council elections dragging on to Sliema’s 10th March date which will give us the opportunity to mentally masturbate about figures that have absolutely no bearing on a future national election result. As a a people we are amused and easily distracted by these controversies.

Back to Franco. He makes an interesting assertion in his Times interview.

Dr Debono, a prominent criminal lawyer who has been campaigning for Constitutional reforms, said that after the French revolution one of Napoleon’s greatest conquests was not military in nature. It was the establishment of meritocracy where careers were open to talent. It was the call to dismantle privileges enjoyed by the nobility and the oligarchy. Meritocracy was even more important in a small country like Malta, he said. These are the foundation of our European culture and identity.

I wish the Times would cut the crap of the “prominent criminal lawyer” bit. Franco has been practising criminal law as long as I have been practising European Law – and I’ve spent seven of those years at the European Court of Justice. Should that make me a prominent European lawyer? The only prominence Franco gets – irrespective of his qualities as a lawyer – is the limelight currently afforded to him by circumstance, failing that he’s about as prominent a criminal lawyer as any other recent graduate from the law course (yes… barely 12 years is recent).

Emperor Napoleon the Meritocratic

As for the reference to Napoleon’s meritocratic destruction of the nobility… really Franco? Your knowledge of history borders on the criminal. It took Napoleon Bonaparte a few years to decide that the Republic was not such a good idea after all and to Crown himself Emperor  (in May 1804 before a hapless Pope Pius VII). Oh he did get the senate to vote a law to that effect… it stated in a very PLPN style:

“The government of the Republic is vested in an Emperor, who takes the title of Emperor of the French.”

There you go. Napoleon then proceed to meritocratically install his family all across Europe in the main royal households. Here’s a wikipedia refresher point about the House of Napoleon:

Throughout its history, the dynasty, as well as being Emperors of the French, held various other titles and territories including; their ancestral nation theKingdom of Italy, Kingdom of Spain, Kingdom of Westphalia, Kingdom of Holland and the Kingdom of Naples. The dynasty was in a position of power for around a decade until the Napoleonic Wars began to take their toll. Making very powerful enemies such as Austria, United Kingdom, Russia andPrussia, as well as royalist (particularly Bourbon) restorational movements in France, Spain, the Two Sicilies and Sardinia, the dynasty eventually collapsed under its own weight.

Not looking so anti-clique now are they Franco? What can we say…

THE CLIQUE SHOULD DIE, LONG LIVE THE CLIQUE