Category: Mediawatch

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

 

Categories
Mediawatch

The Queen of Pop and the National Subconscious

This weekend a whole nation sat glued to the TV screen watching what is arguably one of the largest crowd pullers on prime time TV. This nation loves to think it is at the centre of the known universe and was clearly aware that other nations were peeping in to steal the show. Superbowl XLVI in Indianapolis did not fail to disappoint and the New York Giants took home their fourth trophy – the Americans still kid themselves is a “world” trophy notwithstanding the fact that bar Canada no other country really bothers with the sport.

Having said that, the audience enrapturing effect of the Superbowl is such that the few hours it is on TV are also the hours that attract millions of dollars of advertisement with companies splashing out for a few seconds of “world” viewership. It has long become a ritual to compare the best ads specifically made for the Superbowl breaks and this year’s ads featured such greats as Clint Eastwood. The item that we found was worth most attention though was the half-time show – this year it was up to the Queen of Pop to entertain the general public and oh did she do so.

There she was pulled onto stage by hundreds of muscled men in full Egyptian attire and Madonna sat in the middle of it : a Liz Taylor for the fledgling teenies. Crisis? What Crisis? The Superbowl ad breaks and half time are a celebration of capitalism and its successes. Advertising mingles with pop entertainment and celebrates all its successes. Here was the survivor of Pop’s Royal Couple (thirteen days older than King Michael but boy was she alive and kicking) threatening to unleash musical extravagance as the audience reached for their Bud Lights. The spectacle was grand as it always is and bar the quasi-fall off one bit of the scenery there were no errors or wardrobe malfunctions (Janet style).

What about the music though? Well we might have had LMFAO backing Miss Ciccone for a little while but the repertoire of songs chosen by Madonna Louise (or for her to sing) was a flashback to greater days of economic growth and prosperity. Vogue with all its strutting and parading of fit bodies and flashy names coupled with Like a Prayer when love and hope almost guaranteed that we all had a right to bit of Hollywood. Let’s face it. This was not Lana del Rey’s  depressive Born to Die or Lady Gaga’s celebration of decadence and Judases. Whether consciously or subconsciously a choice to reminisce of brighter days had been made.

Those days are long buried under the reality shattering explosions of the twin towers of 9/11, under the financial disasters from Enron to Madoff and back. We might have wasted a whole decade reeling from the effects of such heavy strikes at the capitalist world. We’d love to relive the dream that began in the 80’s and ran riot in the 90’s though. For now all we have to link to that dream is the voice of the Queen of Pop. And that too… was the Superbowl.

Just like a dream, you are not what you seem
Just like a prayer, no choice,
Your voice can take me there.

Categories
Mediawatch

A Time to Gag

Anglu Farrugia will cry crocodile tears at the Labour Party General Council. Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando will resort to reporting “evil bloggers” on his Facebook wall. Franco Debono will include a new law regulating evil attacks in his program of legislation (which program, having its hours counted, threatens to be the largest amount of laws proposed in the shortest time). General appeals and not-so-subtle implications will be made that the PM should do something about the bloggers and columnists who are resorting to “personal attacks”. And we all get carried away.

Your average listener or reader will not hesitate to chime in with the scarcely researched tautology of “Yes, there should be some form of decency, we have gone too far”. But have we? Or rather – what kind of legislation and control are these paladins of democracy seeking? While the general public showed the predictable kind of ambivalence when the laws dubbed as the New Censorship laws were published the sweeping statements about controlling other fields of expression than the arts multiplied.

First. A note about the new laws. They have nothing to do with such issues as libel and slander. What we have there is a new system of rating theatre and cinema that includes an element of self-discipline. This approach is highly commendable from a libertarian point of view because it emphasises (and exalts) the individual capacity to take responsible decisions. The theatre producer is invited to “censor” his own piece before any official scissors come into play. Self-control, self-censorship – an ability to assess what is and what is not acceptable in wider society : that is the heritage of an intelligent, emancipated and responsible society. Are we ready for the show?

Well, insofar as the political arena is concerned it looks like it is going to be tough. I am of the opinion that the current laws (if we DO have to look at legislation rather than policy first) are more than enough. It is a combination of publish (responsibly) and be damned. Defence in libel includes the “exceptio veritatis” (exception of truth) – the defence that is based on the idea that whatever was said about someone can be seen to be the truth. This is sometimes the reason why somebody who claims to have been libelled fails to go to court for fear of the “libel” being proven to have been the truth.

The “exceptio veritatis” is also itself controlled. While proving that a statement that is being scrutinised for libel or slander might stand strong if it is proved to be true, the truth is not a useful defence in the case of invasion of privacy. Stating that a Minister hosted a party with drugs freely available is defensible with the truth exception – i.e. if the fact is proven to be true. Saying that a Minister has the backside the side of a lorry it is an invasion of privacy and the mere fact that it is true (though even there – the exaggerated hyperbole is such that even the truth is obviously non-existent) will not suffice as a defence.

The fact of the matter is that libel, slander and defamation laws when applied constitute a solid last resort in the battlefield. On the other hand calling for more regulation is a perverse counter-productive move that demonstrates an ignorance of the law and, sadly, an intent to revert to the times of “Indħil Barrani” when our laws were tailor made to serve the interests of whoever needed to gag uncomfortable elements.

Check out again the Newt Gingrich video (top right) starting from 2’20”. Gingrich is asked a very uncomfortable question during a prime primary debate. It is an issue that is very private and Gingrich’s reaction says it all. “I would not like to answer it but I will”. Gingrich goes on to tackle the method of questioning and shoots some repartees of his own towards the press that has peddled the story. There and then. No courts. No gagging orders. Pure and simple intelligent response. And then the question is left to the voters to judge and value. Will voters give more importance to the story of Newt wanting an open relationship or to the fact that Newt was considered enough of a heavyweight to warrant a relentless barrage of mediatic coverage of the fact?

Which brings me to the question of politicians and privacy. Unfortunately the risk of reneging on most of what is private in their lives is a risk that politicians (and footballers, and actors, and prominent businessmen) take in a calculated manner more and more. When campaigns are built on family values and when consorts and children are used in campaigns to be paraded as some form of assets to the main storyline then we should not be surprised that the vultures in the press will be probing to examine whether this too is a facade. When you commit errors during a campaign and these are highlighted, parodied and caricaturised you’d be stupid to claim that these are personal attacks.

Our democracy does not need gagging orders and stricter regulation. Our democracy needs intelligent citizens and … if it is not asking for too much … intelligent politicians.

Categories
Mediawatch

The State of Censorship (a preview)

Stop “personal attacks”. That was PM Gonzi’s appeal to the nation. “Appeal” is a keyword there. It says a lot about “oligarchies” and “power”. The newly announced censorship provisions (that incidentally deal with a fraction of what we refer to as censorship and expression in daily parlance) are not even law yet but many jumped the gun drawing conclusions between the PM’s appeal and the new laws.

So. Last night I watched “The Devil’s Double” a movie based on the true story of the real-life double of Uday Saddam Hussein. There was Uday, son of the Iraqi dictator lording it all over  Baghdad. He did what he liked and that included driving up to school gates and picking up 14 year old girls to take home and rape. In Hussein’s Iraq the only rule was “do not mess with the Hussein family” or they will mess you up.  It was not funny. In essence if Uday did not like you he turned into the horrible nightmare of Ahmed the Dead Terrorist – without the laughs. “Silence…I keel you”.

And Gonzi “appeals” to the nation. To everybody. For he cannot do more than that. He should not be able to. I cannot fathom what supposedly intelligent beings like Saviour Balzan could mean when they come up with the legal lie that Lawrence Gonzi has some power to shut people up. And by people I mean the obvious targets like Daphne Caruana Galizia. What rubbish. What delusional stupidity. I’ll have more to say and to explain as to why all this is rubbish later. Meanwhile I will ask you to watch the video that is in the top corner of this post (right). Forward it to 2’20” and watch the exchange between the debate host and Republican Primaries Candidate Newt Gingrich. J’accuse will comment on this later in the day and explain what it has to do with much of what is happening in our wider political-media circles.

For reference here is Saviour Balzan’s latest rant:

Categories
Mediawatch

We are like dictatorate state

The abysmal levels to which we have descended insofar as the language of Shakespeare is concerned provide much food for thought about our nation. It’s not just pronunciation in the manner of a Maltese Arsenal fan during an impromptu interview outside the Emirates Stadium. It’s not a flustered Miss Malta doing her best to sound like a woman of the world who juggles between sushi lessons and saving the Japanese nation from the tsunami aftermath. It’s a general “alazobbizmu” that has taken over when it comes to stringing a few words in English. The cult of “u ijja fhimtni” (bah… so long as you understood) has long overtaken the “chip on the shoulder” reply of “I’m Maltese and not born in London” which is also an enigmatic reply.

The UK might have started the slow and painful separation process from the EU project. English as it is spake in the outlying lands of Europa is in for a jolly funny ride. Here is Mario J Spiteri commenting on Bocca’s column and providing us with more than one candidate for funny t-shirt slogans.

 Mario J Spiteri

Today, 15:31
Oh Dr. ABC, like PN had done last week at their HQ. Shame on you dear with all respect, you should be sorry for insult the intelligence with your contribution. YES if you want to hide that now we are the same when PN was, one cannot show that he/she is Labourite. We are not a totalitary state. Well you’re showing properly that we are like dictatorate state with the peaceful angels (devils dressed in angels vest)

Bumper sticker 1: SHAME ON YOU DEAR WITH ALL RESPECT

Bumper sticker 2: SORRY FOR INSULT THE INTELLIGENCE

Bumper sticker 3: WE ARE THE SAME WHEN PN WAS

Bumper sticker 4: WE ARE NOT A TOTALITARY STATE

Bumper sticker 5: YOU’RE SHOWING PROPERLY

Bumper sticker 6: WE ARE LIKE DICTATORATE STATE WITH THE PEACEFUL ANGELS

 

Categories
Mediawatch

Daqqiet ta’ Harta

Tad-daqqiet ta’ ħarta! and Ma jistħux min Alla li ħalaqhom!

These are the expressions that first come to mind within the first two minutes of watching this Labour oriented production (see “Inkontri” clip below). Sure, we have seen a tacky revival of “Tal-Barrani” and “Raymond Caruana” nostalgia from the PN corner of our dumbass political duopoly. I say tacky because although I can understand the argument that “It’s about what has never been said” the result of this PN propoganda campaign is both divisive and alienating. It’s the latest effort at demonisation of all things Labour Past following the infamous “Taste” and “Zokk u Fergħa” campains that risked torpedoing PN’s last campaigns.

Had the PN been left to their own devices then I really believe that this whole “let’s remind the people what it was like to live under Labour 30 years ago” business would have backfired. We would have thought that people did not need reminding. We would have thought that bringing up these matters now would only be a callous attempt at cheap scare-mongering best practised on second-rate blogs. We would have been wrong.

It seems that the people do need reminding. They need reminding because you actually get seemingly intelligent individuals asking “What’s wrong about the eighties?” or shooting off about what a great time the eighties were. For Wham, Duran Duran and Sam Fox maybe. But not for most of us. Hell, I might not have been at Zejtun or sitting at a table with Raymond Caruana but something tells me that going to “school” in your best mate’s garage is not exactly Normality Inc and to people from my generation that is what the eighties was about.

So Labour saw the campaign and did not like it. So they had to come up with their own version of suffering. It’s a bit like the Monty Python “Four Yorkshiremen” sketch  – only none of the sides are joking. So you think life under Labour was bad? Let “Inkontri” tell you how bad life under Eddie was then…. And here it is a video that made me want to fast forward to the next election and stick a huge number one next to whatever PN candidate is lucky enough to be first on the blue list.

This is not revisionism – revisionism involves twisting the truth.

This is a lie.  A blatant lie.

All of it.

See for yourself and tell me whether you too get that ” Tad-daqqiet ta’ ħarta! and Ma jistħux min Alla li ħalaqhom!” feeling.

Inkontri

Barrani

Monty Python