Category: Constitutional Development

Categories
Citizenship Constitutional Development

Civil Society and its critics

A long read. This post takes a look at the actors and interests in the current debate on the rule of law in Malta. 

This afternoon the European Parliament will discuss a resolution on the Rule of Law in Malta. Point 5 of the Draft Resolution reads that “[The European Parliament] Regrets that developments in Malta in recent years have led serious concerns about the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights including freedom of the media and independence of the police and judiciary”.  Point F of the preamble in the same draft resolution notes that “whereas this assassination led to street demonstrations and civil society protests in Malta calling for justice, accountability and respect for the rule of law”.

Our second parliament (because that is what the EP is, OUR parliament not a foreign institution) is about to discuss the state of the Maltese nation with particular attention to the legal framework that holds it together. Today’s discussion is an important milestone in our nations’ constitutional development and Civil society has been instrumental to get this discussion high on the agenda at both a Maltese and European level.

In May last year the group calling itself “Advocates for the Rule of Law” took out their first full page advert on the Sunday Times. The ad read ” Situations Vacant : Police Commissioner,  Chairman FIAU, Attorney General – needed for the proper functioning of a democratic society #ruleoflaw_MT, #maltaconstitution, #bringitback”.

I will be in Strasbourg for the commemoration of the Daphne Caruana Galizia Press Hall this evening and will also follow the debate. It’s a two hour drive from Luxembourg and it is only right to be there for this moment.  It is because I live in Luxembourg that I rely on feedback from Malta for news “on the ground”. What are the streets saying while one of our highest institutions discusses a motion that practically describes a nation in constitutional crisis? The feedback I am getting is that the effort to “return to normal’ seems to be winning. Four weeks after the assassination that supposedly shook Malta to its foundations we risk seeing Italy’s elimination from the World Cup snatching the frivolous “news cycle” baton once and for all.

So what exactly is happening? How can we have a nation that (at least in appearance) is hell bent on returning to the “u ijja mhux xorta?” normal while at the same time an important part of its institutional set up is ringing alarm bells? To understand this we have to look at the actors in this drama. What part has Civil Society played in this development – and who, above all, are its critics and detractors?

Dramatis Personae

1. The European “Partners”

The dynamic of the European institutions is such that national and supra-national interests meet in a huge chamber where ideas are bounced around. A resolution by the European parliament is not binding in the strict sense of the term for example, however one would be a fool to dismiss it as “international diplomatic spiel” that is void of substance. In the first place the EP acts within clearly defined legal parameters and on the basis of principles that are universally accepted at a European level. That is why today’s resolution begins with the consideration that the EU is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights. In other words, action by the EP is grounded in principle and in law.

The major pitfall at an EU level is that the parliament resolution may be used to further competing national interests. In this particular case we may note that members from certain EU countries might use this moment of weakness in order to attack areas such as Fiscal policy and Gaming. It’s a cheap trick – one that aims to obtain what their respective countries failed to obtain during legitimate negotiations that led to Europe-wide legislation. In layman’s terms, the members of the EP who will be using this debate to put the blame on a competitive Fiscal or Gaming Policy will be deliberately obfuscating the actual matter at hand – something that was already seen in the PANA committee debates earlier on. In doing so they will provide much needed fodder to the defending government who will obviously claim that this is an assault on the country and its well-being (more about that later).

The rest of the EP – those not intent on winning brownie points for their own country’s gain – will be acting with the interest of the Union in mind. The interest that has already seen similar concerns for countries such as Poland and Hungary will now focus on Malta. It is in the interest of the citizens of Malta first and foremost, but also in the interest of the Union as a whole for the Union is only as good and great as its weakest link.

2. The Establishment in Power

By far the biggest actor with much to lose in this debate is the current custodian of government. The massive media machine has long been set in motion with a huge effort in counter-information that is supposed to negate the crisis and convince the people that all is back to normal. It is working. Only yesterday, the head of the establishment in power promised more wealth and more rights for the future. The greatest interest of power is its preservation and the key to preservation of such power is convincing the people that all is well and that the future is bright.

Millions of euros are being spent on this kind of propaganda. Every effort by civil society to call out the emperor’s nudity is countered by an army of official and unofficial counter-information. Last Sunday one of the comment articles in the Times was entitled “They doth protest too much” – it was a suavely written piece at the service of the current status quo. It was also a clear example of the direct attack on civil society based on the age old cliche’ of “divide and rule”. Doubts are sown, motivations are questioned and before you know it you are thinking: Maybe they do protest too much.

This evening government will amass its forces in order to propagate its counter-information against the “intrusion of the foreigner” – which is an old socialist trick that finds a ready acceptance among a voting populace with an insular mentality. The bottom line for today’s official Newspeak Newsletter will be: This is a traitor’s conspiracy to rally the foreigner against Malta. It will probably work.

3. The Government’s Courtesans

In the times of Le Roi Soleil being part of the King’s court meant everything. Unless you were in favour with the king your titles and nobility did not mean much. Over the years this government has built its own team of courtesans – lobby groups, interest groups, appointees, employees and other dependents – who owe the same government a regular show of fealty. Whenever trumpets need to be blown they are there: at the beck and call to do the governments’ bidding. The assault on the calls for change was boosted by the rallying of the courtesans.

Constitutional reform was brushed away as a ridiculous idea, calls for immediate change such as the resignation of a police commissioner and attorney general were once again given the “motive” treatment. Divide and rule. Assign dubious motivation. Then go for the jugular: civil society is asking for mob rule. The two-thirds majority is an absurd suggestion. Miss the wood for the trees. Nitpick their arguments into submission.

The courtesans are an important part of Muscat’s Gattopardian puzzle of maintaining the status quo. They are intent on getting a share of the illusion of wealth that is being created. As plans of neutering our center of thought unfold with a new law giving control of University to government, as our students celebrate the victory of partisanship over thinking, as our Chief Justice becomes a lone voice in an institutional desert, Muscat’s grip over the courtesans means that he can strangle a good part of civil society into submission. Without that part the dissenting voices of civil society become squeaks and squeals that cannot be heard above the Newspeak noise.

4. The Converted

Civil society in Malta had long lost a huge part of its number. The discerning, questioning, part of civil society – the one that legitimately and constantly demands and asks questions of its representatives and of the custodians of its sovereign institutions – has always been a very tiny minority. The rest of what used to be civil society have been groomed into partisan submission. The general narrative – that the nation is passing through one of its most prosperous and wealthy times ever – suits the large part of the converted perfectly. It includes of course those who have voted for and will continue to vote this government based on the promises of prosperity at all odds. It now includes a large part of those who could not bring themselves to vote this government but were also fascinated by the easily obtained prosperity – and could not bring themselves to question whether this was based on healthy foundations.

The converted have no colour. For a long time we wrongly assumed them to be two huge chunks of red or blue. There was a unifying factor of ego-litics – the politics of the self – that they held in common. The common good, the common wealth is not theirs to worry about. Their party, and through their party their aspirations for the self, is what counts most.

5. The Foot-soldiers of Old

The current constitutional crisis saw civil society (or what is left of it) attempt to reform and rally around the call for change. A weak link in this rallying call was the presence of foot-soldiers of old. These are failed politicians of the past: those who seeing the opportunity to revive a dying political career would jump on the bandwagon in one last Hail Mary attempt. There is nothing wrong in a second start mind you, however the dedication to the cause must be clear and the determination to stand by it at all costs must also be clear. If at every opportunity, the cause is hijacked in an attempt to whitewash faults of the past then the damage to civil society is clear.

Malta’s tribalistic politics is the kind of environment where a civil society that can easily be associated with the aims of one or another of our partisan elements is in danger – particularly in these times of heavy counter-information. This is not an appeal for purity, this is not a call for those who are without sin. This is a call for clear commitment.

6. The Cynics and the disparate movements

The biggest weapon available for rendering the civil society cause redundant is the descent into paranoid accusations between exponents and those who have genuine concerns regarding the finality of the cause. The critics and the cynics have their genuine concerns. The defence put up against such concerns does sometimes border on paranoia. What happens generally though is that the whole point of the need for a clear rallying point is missed.

The biggest fault to date of the current movement for change is its disparate nature. Civil Society Network remains an abstract label without a clear definition. Other efforts are working in their little corner built upon spontaneous action triggered by anger and helplessness. That much has been achieved until now is practically a miracle.

The real civil society – what is left once all the establishment, all the converted and all the courtesans and foot-soldiers are removed – still needs to rally clearly behind a definite long-term cause.The groundwork is already there: the rule of law and the return to a democratic society. What is required is a concerted effort bringing together all the elements of the real civil society who are prepared to take the struggle to the long haul.

Civil society has too many obstacles before it and cannot afford to be bogged down by incompetence and division.

The people united can never be defeated.

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
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.