Category: Library

Categories
Constitutional Development Politics

Silvio Schembri, Lies & 1984

Silvio Schembri – a member of Joseph Muscat’s government – was born in 1985. He could not remember 1984 , the year, and quite frankly I doubt whether he read the book. If he has, then I doubt he learnt any lessons from Orwell. While going through facebook last night I came across a post by Silvio Schembri. He was reacting to David Casa’s expose’ of recent events and more particularly to what he obviously perceives as the “threat” of EU scrutiny.

In his verve to shoot down whatever Casa said, the Honourable Schembri stated “Hon. Casa, you can ask the PN during whose tenure (in government) Pilatus Bank was given a license to operate.” Interesting I thought. Only it is not correct. This is a clear case of whitewashing of facts and a simple check would show that Pilatus’ license was issued on the 3rd of January 2014 – in full Joseph Muscat swing. I decided to gently point this out to the Rght. Hon. Member of Joseph’s government. “LIAR” I commented. I used block caps because that was what the fawning acolytes were using at that instance. I used the word “LIAR” because it was the right word to use as an objective assessment of the facts at hand. Schembri was wilfully stating a wrong fact – that in my books is a LIE.

I saved the screenshot for safety. For safety and for the simple reason that I knew that it would not be long before Silvio Schembri would do what members of our political community are so good at when faced with incontrovertible facts that they have been caught LYING. Sure enough Silvio Schembri removed my comment and my pic which included definite incontrovertible proof that he was LYING.

Schembri’s LIE is still on facebook. It is not just fake news. It is a LIE.

When challenged by others on the same thread Schembri came up with this explanation:

1984. Because we can.

Categories
Mediawatch

Manuel Mallia’s Rule-By-Law

 

Speaking in parliament last night, ex-Minister Manuel Mallia took a swipe at whoever had anything to do with the leaking FIAU documents. In a scene befitting pre-1989 East Germany, Mallia told parliament that the leaker of the report as well as anybody having access to it (including the PN) should be prosecuted because they are guilty of a crime having violated the confidentiality of said documents. “The documents of the FIAU needed to be kept secret because the unit’s investigations were sensitive and disclosure of information would undermine those very investigations”, Dr Mallia said.

What we have here is a clear example of “rule-by-law” where the strict letter of the law is used to silent dissent and to annihilate any possible means of rendering the powers that be accountable. Manuel Mallia’s threats, for threats they are, do not come in a vacuum. They must be put in the context of the dismissal of former FIAU official Jonathan Ferris and of the FIAU Head of Compliance. They must be put in the context of the admission by most of the national press that they have been forced to revise archived reports under threat of expensive litigation. This must also be put in context of the lack of collaboration reported by the European Parliament PANA committee

In any other context but this, this matter would be considered as Whistleblower territory. In any other context the content of the leaked document would be of much graver concern, the consequences of the failure to act upon the content of such documents would be the focus of a responsible government. This is not another context. This is Malta of L-Aqwa Zmien – rule by law is misconstrued as rule of law, anything in the power of government to hide, to shut down criticism, to avoid proper scrutiny, to annihilate any dissonant narrative is fair game.

We are living in a time of Rule-By-Law. This is also why the calls for a return to a system of rule of law are being made.  In contrast to rule-by-law (rule by means of norms enacted through a correct legal procedure or issued by a public authority), Rule of Law implies also the safeguarding of fundamental rights and freedoms – norms which render the law binding not simply because it is procedurally correct but enshrines justice. It is the Rule of Law, thus understood, that provides legitimacy to public authority in liberal democracies.

Meanwhile Manuel Mallia’s witch-hunt had better expand internationally: Green MEP Sven Giegold’s website contains a link to leaked FIAU documents.

 

Categories
Constitutional Development

The Literal Faculty – the rule of law and its critics

 

Dr Kevin Aquilina (signing off as Dean of the Faculty of Law) penned an article in today’s Independent. In this article entitled “Demicoli v. Malta – Part two“, Aquilina decides that by calling for the resignation of both the advocate general and the police commissioner, civil society organisations “have taken it upon themselves to charge, prosecute, give evidence against, convict and punish, through dismissal from office, both the Commissioner of Police and the Attorney General”. Having equated the call for double resignation to the action of a subversive kangaroo court, Kevin Aquilina concludes that civil society is in breach of the rule of law that it claims to want to sustain.

Dr Aquilina misses the wood for the trees. The call by civil society is for the removal of the AG and PC, that much is true. What Dr Aquilina either misunderstands or willingly misinterprets is that due process must and should be followed in both cases. Civil society is asking for nothing more and nothing less than the application of the law to cases where prima facie evidence points glaringly that it should be applied – but isn’t. Dr Aquilina tries to put the ball wrongly in civil society’s court. It is not.

The failure to act on the FIAU report has been cited as the glaring failure on the part of the AG and the PC. It is one of many practical examples that can be presented to the Public Service Commission (in the case of the police commissioner) and to parliament and subsequently to the Commission for the Administration of Justice (in the case of the attorney general).

Far from mob rule, the civil society demands translate into a call for the application of the rule of law. Civil society are pointing out that the failure to fulfil their institutional duties by both the PC and AG requires a remedy – remedies that are available at law and have hitherto not been applied.

Of course both the police commissioner and attorney general deserve a due process as guaranteed by law. Of course they would obtain due process should the law be applied. The problem, Dr Aquilina, is that the law is not being applied. The problem is that certain prerogatives are not being used. The problem is that in doing so the whole system that depends upon the proper application of the rule of law becomes a shambles and a farce.

Seen in that context, accusing civil society of advocating mob rule and not the rule of law makes the accuser part of the problem and not part of a possible solution.

Malta needs less Shylocks and more Ciceros.

Categories
Constitutional Development

The revolution will not be televised

 

On the rule of law and constitutional reform

Our parliaments have begun to discuss the state of the rule of law in Malta. I use the plural form because it is not only our national parliament that has begun to debate this but also our other parliament, the one that sits in Strasbourg. The President of the European Parliament is as much the president of a Maltese institution as is Anglu Farrugia.

All too often, whenever somebody like Antonio Tajani speaks you can sense people thinking that they are being spoken to by a foreign authority – the mentality of indħil barrani (foreign interference) creeps in. This misunderstanding is an almost harmless example among many that underpin the poor assessment and consequent weak expectations that “we the people” make and have of our institutions and their constitutional duties.

The main consequence of all this is that as a collective we become lousy arbiters of the use of the sovereign power with which we have empowered our institutions. As a fledgling nation we have seen our institutional set-up gradually adapted to suit a gross misconception – that the ultimate sovereign power that needs representing is not the people as a whole but bipartisan interests. In simple terms, the more the basic laws got rewritten, the more this was done to encapsulate a system of alternation and to redefine principles such as “fairness” and “justice”.

The result would be, for example, that a “fair and just” appointment under our laws is one that is acceptable to the two parties that became the only players in a system once modelled on a more representative idea: the Westminster model. As if that were not enough, the constant tinkering with our basic laws resulted in an executive on steroids – a government that would lead by virtual dictatorship for five years – that would also practically neutralise the representative organ of the state.

An overpowered, unaccountable executive, a neutered house of representatives and finally a judicial, watchdog and policing network that risks being brought to the heel of the executive that appoints it without any sense of meritocracy or transparency. That is the state of the rule of law that should be discussed in our parliaments. That is the spring board for constitutional reform that should have long been on the national agenda, but instead it kept being hijacked in the supreme interests of the survival of the two behemoths of Maltese politics: the nationalist party and the labour party.

Watching last Monday’s debate in parliament I could not help but think that we are about to relive yet another moment of cosmetic changes.

Delia, elected on the strength of a “the-party-is-above-everything-else” message hitched onto the “civil society” demands in an apparent display of goodwill to discuss any necessary changes. The thrust of his message though still let off a whiff of the appropriation (and watering down) of national causes that we have seen all too often from nationalist circles.

Labour, on the other hand, while leaving the door open for some kind of constitutional reform, bent over backwards in trying to explain that the rule of law is already alive and kicking in Malta. The collective denial of the patently obvious is in line with the daily Potemkin Village approach that their government’s propaganda machine seems intent on portraying. Under a Labour administration of L-Aqwa Zmien, the revolution will definitely not be televised.

Civil society has made its first calls that are not so much a call for blanket reform as for clear signs of change. The replacement of the AG and the police commissioner is still couched within the old principle of “justice and fairness” – approval by the two princes in parliament. A real constitutional reform must target more profound changes – a more representative parliament with a stronger monitoring role, an accountable executive and an independent network of judicial, monitoring and policing structures.

Calling upon the political parties to do what they do worst is counterproductive. A real constitutional convention would be made up of a cross-section of experts from civil society with the parties as equals among others and not as the leaders of such a project. The DNA of a new constitution should not be framed in terms of the needs of two parties but with the idea of a Malta 2.0 in mind, where the rule of law does finally reign supreme.

We need a Malta where we are all servants of the law so that we may be free.

* This article appeared in the Malta Independent on Sunday on the 5th of November 2017. 

 

https://youtu.be/qGaoXAwl9kw

Categories
Citizenship Constitutional Development

The New Normal

 

In another guest post, Eleonora Sartori reflects on the messages from yesterday’s demonstration.

The new normal

In Canto III of the Inferno, Dante Alighieri describes the sighs and piercing cries of woe of “the miserable spirits of those who lived neither infamy nor praise”. These are the so-called “ignavi”, from Latin “ignavus”, i.e. someone who is not active nor diligent. They are placed together with “that worthless choir of Angels who did not rebel, nor yet were untrue to God, but sided with themselves.”

Given that the ignavi never dared take a stand for what they truly believed was right, but merely passively supported the strongest, they are subject to the poetic punishment of “no hope of death”. In fact they are condemned to an “unseeing life” where both Mercy and Justice hold them in contempt.

Their desolate condition is so tremendous that even Virgil, Dante’s teacher, suggests that Dante abandons them to their hopeless faith by saying the famous words: “Let us not talk of them; but look, and pass” (non ragioniam di lor, ma guarda e passa).

I recalled this scene after watching yesterday’s demonstration of the Civil Society Network. Many Maltese citizens (and I’d like to stress that they were citizens) were protesting in the streets, marching with banners or with tape on their mouths as a symbol of attempts to silence free speech. Even though a very big manifestation had already taken place two Sundays ago, at the very heart of Malta’s capital, they decided to march again on the streets, this time in the surroundings of where Mrs Caruana Galizia was brought up.

During the speech written by Jacques and so well delivered by Antonio, Jacques stressed that “Qiegħdin hawn biex inwasslu messaġġ fejn ngħidu li ilkoll kemm aħna nirrifjutaw li dan huwa THE NEW NORMAL. Li nirrifjutaw li dan huwa BUSINESS AS USUAL. » (yes, I am learning Maltese and yes, it is a beautiful language, though I only end up practicing it through politics nowadays ).

Why am I mentioning this particular bit of Jacques’ speech right now?

Because one of the first Maltese expressions that I’ve learnt when I started my second semester of Maltese was “Rajt ma rajtx, smajt ma smajtx”. An expression whose meaning I think only a Mediterranean mind fully grasps: the idea of pretending not to have seen nor heard for the sake of staying out of trouble. The idea of ignavia. The idea of omertà.

Those citizens protesting yesterday where calling for justice, but most important of all, were asking their countrymen and women to play a more active role in what’s happening in the country right now. Pia Zammit called for people to be engaged in what needs to be done right now to restore the Rule of law in Malta and honor Daphne’s memory by calling for more justice and transparence at all levels of the Maltese society.

And how can you start this tremendous job?

I think surely by not letting anyone around you forget or undermine what’s happening in your country. Daphne’s murder – because we’re not talking about someone’s death, we’re talking about someone’s murder – marked a turning point that cannot and has not to be forgotten.

However, there are those who are trying to make you go back to the passive status of the “ignavi” by calling this situation “merely exceptional”. They want to you to feel that after all business can and actually HAS to go back to usual, because there are other priorities on the agenda and it’s better that people forget this ridiculous quest for the Rule of Law.

And how do they achieve that?

First, they attack you. They call you whores, traitors and assassins if you decide to give up precious days of your life and devote them to protesting outside the PM’s office in Castille. They degrade you by stressing that you are nothing but mere random people whose place is not in the streets, calling for more justice, but back to where they belong – he wrote “Strada Stretta” (he even misspelled it) but even my poor command of Malti allows me to understand that he implied the former prostitutes’ district.

According to this logic, you people are tamed creatures who are useful because you possess the right to vote. Once the ballot is cast, forget about accountability and the sovereignty of the people. It’s them who take the lead. And by undermining your actions and the potential of these actions they make sure that you fully understand where you belong.

Secondly, instead of directly attacking you, they try to defend themselves and make you go back to your place by using a more subtle language. A language – in this instance it was used by your PM during last week- that can both threaten those who want to stand up and exercise their freedom of speech (“All those trying to make political mileage out of the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia would see it blow up in their face”) and bluntly state what the country’s priorities are: business as usual, i.e.“The murder of blogger Daphne Caruana Galizia triggered off a difficult moment for Malta, but it should not be allowed to derail the country’s long-term plans.”

Let’s read it again: “IT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO DERAIL THE COUNTRY’S LONG-TERM PLANS.”

When I read this last sentence I was petrified. Seriously, is he saying out loud that it is the murder’s fault if you, the sovereign people, are now marching in the streets and that, by doing so, you are derailing the country from its never-ending Aqwa Zmien?

It’s because of these attitudes and the use of such a language that you all need to keep up the good work that has already been done over the past two weeks and go back to monitoring what is done by those who have the obligation to represent you.

Jiena smajt u rajt, u intom?

Categories
Constitutional Development

Diskors Dimostrazzjoni Socjeta’ Civili

This is the speech that Antonio Tufigno read on my behalf at the Civil Society Demonstration today.

X’intom tagħmlu hawn? X’inġbartu tagħmlu għal darba oħra madwar din l-għajta għall-Ġustizzja? Għadkom ma xbajtux? Għadkom ma għajjejtux? Ħarsu waħda fuq il-lemin u fuq ix-xellug tagħkom. X’ġew jagħmlu hawnhekk dawn in-nies illum? X’inhi din is-socjeta’ civili? Għalfejn dal-kjass, dan l-istorbju kollu? Għalfejn dawn it-talbiet? Għalfejn qed ngħidu li hawn min għandu jirrizenja? Aħna jew m’aħniex f’bidu ta’ rivoluzzjoni? U rivoluzzjoni f’isem xiex u min?

Ġimagħtejn ilu seħħ assassinju oxxen. Inqatlet bl-iktar mod premeditat mara qalbiena, omm kuraġġuża u kittieba sbukkata. Ġimagħtejn ilu seħħet skossa kbir fis-socjeta’ Maltija u minn dakinhar xejn ma jista jerga’ jkun l-istess. Is-socjeta civili qamet mir-raqda twila li kienet ilha fiha. Kienet ilha ma tridx temmen u ma tridx tisma’ li l-qafas ta’ pajjiżna sejjer lura bil-ħeden.

Lura mhux f’sens ekonomiku għax dik l-illużjoni hemm għada. Le, mhux f’sens ekonomiku. F’sens ieħor. Għax filwaqt li qed ngħixu fi żmien is-surplus ekonomiku qed nassistu żmien id-deficit civiku u socjali. X’intom tagħmlu hawn? Staqsejtkom. Ħafna minnkom issa draw ilissnu l-kliem “Saltna tad-Dritt” – il-famuża “Rule of Law”. Issa li qomna mir-raqda qed nindunaw u nitgħallmu li din tfisser ugwaljanza quddiem il-liġi…

Li l-liġi hija l-istess għal kullħadd …

u li min hu fdat bit-tmexxija tal-pajjiż huwa marbut u suġġett għall-istess liġijiet daqs kull wieħed u waħda minna.

U għaliex qed nitkellmu dwar dan issa? Għaliex kellu jkun assassinju kiefer ta’ ġurnalista biex nibdew nitkellmu dwar riformi ta’ pajjiż? X’inhu in-ness, il-link, bejn ħaġa u oħra?

Matthew, Andrew u Paul – t-tfal ta’ Daphne – qalu li ma jridux biss ġustizzja penali – jiġifieri li jinstab min hu ħati tad-delitt specifiku – iżda jixtiequ riżultati iktar wiesgħa – iktar dejjiema. Jixtiequ li l-pajjiż jirritorna għal stat fejn id-dritt jirrenja – fejn kull wieħed u waħda minna iħossu cittadin liberu u cittadin li m’għandux minn xiex jibża’..

Sabiex isir dan it-tibdil, sabiex jintlaħqu dawn il-miri hemm bżonn li tqum fuq tagħha s-socjeta’ civili. Hemm bżonn li dan il-moviment magħmul minn kull wieħed u waħda minnkom ikompli jikber u jitgħallem u jemmen dak li qed jipproponi.

Għalhekk qiegħdin hawn. Qiegħdin hawn għax l-istat naqasna.

Naqas magħna lkoll. L-istat fis-sens wiesgħa tal-kelma m’għadux iservi lil pajjiż iżda kull ma jmur qiegħed iservi biss lic-crieki ta’ poter.

L-istat naqasna għax tħalla isir, jew jissawwar, sabiex jaqdi l-bżonnijiet tribalistici ta’ dawk li jifirduna. Falla għax il-kostituzzjoni u il-liġijiet tagħna baqgħu jitbagħbsu sabiex jinqdew l-allat foloz u sakemm spicca intesa’ ic-cittadin.

Għalhekk qiegħdin hawn. Għax sabiex titqajjem kuxjenza dwar dawn il-problemi hemm bżonn li l-poplu – li s-socjeta’ civili – jiftakar li huwa s-Sovran.

Iva sovran. Fis-saltna tad-dritt, dik li tiggarantilna li il-liberta’ – il-poter bażiku – jinstab fil-poplu. Dak il-poter jiġi fdat lill-politici għal peridjodu ta’ żmien u huwa dmir tagħhom li jużawh fl-interess tal-ġid komuni.

Qiegħdin hawn għax dawk li fdajnilhom il-kuruna tas-saltna tad-dritt naqsuna lkoll. Naqsuna kull darba li ippermettew li jitmermru l-istituzzjonijiet li xogħlhom kien li jipproteguna. Naqsuna kull meta ippermettew li tissikket kull tip ta’ kritika jew oppozizzjoni. Naqsuna kull meta ħadu sehem dirett f’azzjonijiet sabiex jissiktu l-kritici. Naqsuna meta biegħu il-valuri tagħna lkoll sabiex igawdu il-ftit.

Qiegħdin hawn, fl-aħħar, għax kellha tkun xokk lis-sistema bl-assassinju atroci ta’ Daphne Caruana Galizia. Issa ma nistgħu nonqsu la lilha u lanqas lil dak li ħadmet hi ukoll għalih.

Qiegħdin hawn proprju fil-belt fejn trabbiet biex l-ewwelnett ma ninsewx lil Daphne u dik il-ħidma tagħha li biha għenet biex jinkixfu l-problemi ta’ pajjiżna.

Qiegħdin hawn biex ma ninsewx. Għaliex nonqsu aħna mir-rispett lejn Daphne jekk inħallu l-memorja tagħha tintesa wara ftit żmien u jekk ma jsir xejn sabiex tinbidel is-sitwazzjoni preżenti li kienet ukoll il-kaġun li waslet għal mewtha.

Qiegħdin hawn biex inwasslu messaġġ fejn ngħidu li ilkoll kemm aħna nirrifjutaw li dan huwa THE NEW NORMAL. Li nirrifjutaw li dan huwa BUSINESS AS USUAL. Li nirrifjutaw li kull min qiegħed jgħolli leħnu dwar il-bżonn ta’ bidla jiġi sistematikament attakkat bħala traditur jew bħala partiġġjan. Li nirrifjutaw l-akkuża li xi roadmap ta’ xi politiku qed jiġi sabotaġġat b’din l-għajta għall-Ġustizzja.

Qiegħdin hawn bħala l-ewwel pass ta’ bidla importanti għal pajjiż li jrid jreġġa lura lejn is-saltna tad-dritt, bħala pajjiż fil-qalba ta’ l-ewropa b’vokazzjoni li jkun l-aqwa – iva – imma l-aqwa xempju ta’ liberta’, demokrazija u ġustizzja.

Qiegħdin hawn għal-vjaġġ twil. Il-bidla mhix ser issir minn jum għall-ieħor. Għad irridu nikkonvincu ħafna nies dwar kemm din il-bidla hija siewja għal pajjiżna, għalina u għal uliedna. Intom ilkoll li qiegħdin hawn tistgħu tkunu xhieda iżda anki attivi f’din il-bidla. Nista’ ngħidilkom li magħkom hemm ħafna Maltin u Għawdxin li, bħali,  jgħixu barra – Maltin ta’ Londra, Maltin ta’ Brussell, Maltin tal-Lussemburgu, Maltin tal-Isvizzera. Maltin li baqgħu marbuta sew ma dak li qed jiġri f’pajjiżna u li għandhom ħafna x’jikkontribwixxu għal din il-bidla.

Jien fost il-ħafna li kibru jaqraw il-kolonni ta’ Daphne fil-gazzetti u li ġejt ispirat minnha sabiex nuża l-pinna bħala arma politika.  Forsi irreciprokajt ftit din l-ispirazzjoni meta permezz tal-blog tiegħi, waqt iljieli ta’ diskussjonijiet jaħarqu fuq l-istess blog fi żmien l-elezzjoni tal-elfejn u tmienja, Daphne iddecidiet tiftaħ blog tagħha. The rest, kif jgħidu, is history.

Jien ukoll għadni immur  fuq il-blog tagħha b’mod awtomatiku sabiex nara x’inhu jiġri f’pajjiżi. Il-vojt li ħalliet warajha huwa enormi. Ma rridux ninsew li dan il-vojt inħoloq għax kienet tikteb. Għax ma beżgħet minn xejn u ħadd.

Ippermettuli insellem lill-familjari kollha ta’ Daphne f’dan il-mument. L-ebda kliem ma huma biżżejjed biex jimlew il-vojt li qed tħossu. Ma hemm l-ebda mod aħjar kif nirrispettaw il-memorja ta’ Daphne ħlief li nissuktaw f’din it-taqbida għall-Ġustizzja.

Aħna is-socjeta’ civili. Il-poplu magħqud qatt ma jkun mirbuħ.

GRAZZI.