Category: Politics

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Blurred Nations and Blonde Bombshells

As the US and Japan issue a terror warning for tourists visiting “Europe” – more specifically the UK, France and Germany an evident shift in the lines of nationality is surfacing in the news. Malta (the nation) woke up for breakfast with Tiffany (the person) – the next top model born in Wolverhampton but claimed by the Maltese nation. The UK born and Maltese bred Tiff has already begun to receive comments from well wishers and one of MT’s regulars (signed Tarcisio Mifsud) urged her:

“to remain a lady with a strong Maltese character and with strong Maltese values. Enjoy it.”

Whether there is much to enjoy is another question. Then again – what are the strong Maltese values? Are they embodied in the Kalkara ’94 video? Or should she be making use of her new found place in the spotlight to echo the latest Vatican ramblings against 2010 nobel prize winner Edwards – father of the test tube babies (the idea – not all of them)? There are now an estimated over 4 million persons who were test tube babies – and the Vatican still wonders whether this miracle is right.

But back to nations and nationalism. Does nationality automatically impart a set of values? Are both nationality and values part of our DNA set up? We get contradictory messages. Germany’s president told the nation that :

“Christianity is, of course, part of Germany. Judaism is, of course, part of Germany. This is our Judeo-Christian history. But, now, Islam is also part of Germany. “When German Muslims write to me to tell me ‘You are our president’ – then I answer wholeheartedly: Yes, of course I am your president! And with the same dedication and conviction of which I am the president of all the people who live in Germany”

Which makes sense really because you cannot suddenly put up mental borders and block out anything new – a new form of religion – simply because it does not form part of your past. Well you could try – but that involves the kind of eradication that goes contrary to the core values which our liberal society holds dear. The problem is that we are still at pains to come to terms with the new realities and identities. Here is the BBC reporting the latest US activity against Al Qaeda in Pakistan:

At least eight al-Qaeda militants – some of whom were German nationals – have been killed in a drone attack in Pakistan, officials have told the BBC. The suspected US drone fired two missiles at a house owned by a local tribesman in the Pakistani region of North Waziristan, the officials said. At least three of the dead were said to be German – of Arab or Turkish origin.

The language of the reporting is interesting. Incidentally the title was ‘German militants’ killed in Pakistan drone attack. “German militants” had to be decorated with inverted commas and further down in the article we get the second clarification: “German – of Arab or Turkish origin”. You can sympathise with the reporter coming to grips with the “Us vs Them” nature of the “War on Terrorism”. He or she could never come to terms with the notion of a German Al Qaeda Militant. The Arab Al Qaeda is a stereotype we are comfortable with (at ease with the label not with the menace of course). Even the curious laxity with which the word Turkish is slapped on, almost as an afterthought, betrays a general compartmentalisation that goes beyond the national.

The ‘Turk’ is to Germany as the ‘Pole’ was to the EU before membership – a mass of people (Turks/Arabs, Poles/East Europeans) in search of work who would bring their own culture along to their new hosts. It is the Turk, mainly, who brings Islam to Christian Wulff’s Germany. It is the Turk who Wulff has to thank for the infusion of cultural and religious diversity and from those letters from “German Muslims”.

The War on Terrorism forced a radical revolution in terminology – most evidenced in the press. It obliged us to create the “Us and Them” mentality and oftentimes we struggle to understand that this is not really a battle of cultures/civilisations but an underpinning new battle of ideologies and that both the redneck yankee and the arab terrorist are just overblown stereotypes that serve to confuse us further in this “war”.

If the Tour Eiffel were under threat there is more of a chance it would be the French equivalent of the UK’s Tiffany. Someone with a French passport bearing an Arab surname – born and bred in Marseilles but with very very strong ties with the people back home (in the Maghreb?) urging her:

“to remain a lady with a strong Arab character and with strong Arab values. Enjoy it.”

Sure. It’ll be a blast!

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Local Councils Politics

Don't Believe the Hype

Fascinating. There’s only one way to describe the PN handling of the Arrigo spinoff of DimechGate. Fascinating and of course, unbelievable. Literally unbelievable. DimechGate included allegations of improper behaviour (let’s settle on that term) by Nationalist MP Arrigo, implying that he threw his weight around the Sliema Local Council quite a bit. Notwithstanding the pooh-poohing of columnists engaged in other important matters (footnote – 1) who tried to hide the glaring wart on PLPN politics that is the Sliema Local Council there was much there that merited consideration – and no it’s not Lilliputian, it’s the face and result of the “responsible voting” that went on last election (remember the accusations at those who urged for a vote for change?).

So Arrigo is under the microscope and this because, among other things, councillor Yves (Bobby) Cali went on record with the Times pointing his finger at Arrigo’s bravado actions in the council. He subsequently denied having actually said that so the Times published the transcript of what he said (footnote – 2). Then we have a PN MP accused of impropriety (“another one?” I hear you say). Which prompts the service of the PN disciplinarian bodies into action. The question is do they (A – not a footnote) Use the heavy hand of Paul and come down on the MP like a ton of righteous christian democrats and expect such punishments as “immediate resignations” et cetera et cetera? or do they (B – also not a footnote) Do the “Stand by Your man” tactic reserved for such elite politicians as PBO (VAT) and Tonio Fenech (VAT/Stamp Duty)?

It turns out that parliamentary considerations of a numerical kind – better known as the fictitive extra seat obtained thanks to a relative majority of seats thanks to the PLPN amendments – force the PN to deny the known truth. You see, the PN cannot and will not afford to toy with its one-man majority that can bring Humpty Dumpty, all the kings men, all his horses and all his disgruntled backbenchers tumbling down. Which is why when faced with a TRANSCRIPT of factual statements recorded by a journalist and a subsequent denial by the same person who uttered the transcribed words here is what the PN smart machine churned out:

The general secretary stood by the party’s declaration earlier this week when it took Mr Calì’s word that he never made the allegations, insisting that the transcript published by this newspaper was “not faithful to the statement of clarification made by Mr Calì”.

Lordy, lordy.  Do they actually read what they are saying? A transcript of a recorded conversation was not faithful to a statement of clarification. “He said that but he did not mean it… and we choose to believe what he meant not what he said”. Which is why PBO is still secretary general of the party. Because he is a medium and voyant and he can read the minds of his party members better than any other. Funny how the very same party chihuahas who described the attention afforded to the Sliema Council affair as watching “trouble in lilliput” barked (or should I say yapped?) this about Arrigo:

As Robert Arrigo tries to wriggle out of the Nikki Dimech/cocaine addiction/patronage/bribery mess down in Sliema, he must know that his chances of persuading the prime minister, against his wisdom, to make him part of his cabinet are now shot to hell. (…)

The party hierarchy, however, lost the battle to stop him standing for election to the Sliema council on its ticket in 1994, and he contested every Sliema council election after that until 2003, when the party finally relented and allowed him to stand on the PN ticket in the 2003 general election, no doubt because of the ‘all hands on deck’ nature of that election which would decide on Malta’s EU membership.

Because he was allowed to contest then and brought in enough votes to allow him to throw his weight around, he was selected for the PN ticket again in 2008.

– (Robert Arrigo: What a mistake that was – the Runs)

And now the party of values that confirmed the “all hands on deck” approach thru 2008 is having to back Arrigo come rain or shine as trouble is afoot in Lilliput. You know what they say … if you’ve got Lilliputian values don’t cry if you get Lilliputian politicians.

And Paul Borg Olivier ends up denying the hype…. you heard it first from Public Enemy….

The Footnotes
(1) Such as convincing the world that since the law on VAT and income tax makes no sense with regards to maids/cleaners/whateva then we are free to break it at will until a more sensible law is in place. Go figure – you’d actually think these people are experts on VAT (and its payment).
(2) and boo to you conspiracy theorists – the Times DO have priorities and this shows clearly that the moment they are backs against the wall being accused of lying they will forget their other loyalties

Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Ad Maiorem Partiti Comoditatem

First we had a hopeless car-free day with some ministers and MPs going through the whole charade of forgoing their favourite mode of transport (and status symbol) once a year and now we have this. It speaks volumes about the sincerity of certain political messages by both parties. Bollocks to Car free Days. You know what – bollocks to the whole business of environmental conscience. Bollocks to it all so long as I can park my car as lazily close to the Parliament as possible.

Part of Merchants Street in Valletta, which has been turned into a pedestrian zone, has become a car park for Members of Parliament and ministers. The decision was taken last week following consultation between the whips of the two sides of the House and the Valletta local council, which agreed with the proposal since it would free up other parking spaces that could be used by shoppers and residents.

The icing on the cake must be “since it would free up other parking spaces that could be used by shoppers and residents”. Here are a few J’accuse off the cuff notes:

1) All the drilling into the spanking new Merchant Street lava stones (how long ago since the inauguration for the greater comfort and pleasure of the people?) for what in practice amounts to a temporary parking spot. Upon completion of the new house of parliament (Pace Piano) the Ministers and MPs on both sides of the plagued house will surely want the parking bays to be shifted closer for their greater convenience. What short-brained bulldozering of any kind of sensitivity could come up with this sort of mass cock up in PR? The kind that reasons that “if we do this together – both sides of the house agreeing – then we risk losing an equal number of votes – and we both know that we won’t coz people are people you see.

2) Then there’s this very Maltese thing of having to have the cars PARKED as close as possible to the parliament. To set an example, and if they really have to drive to and fro their meetings of mass hand clapping (see yesterday’s sitting reserved for eulogies before they adjourned for the long weekend)  why not have a Parliamentary Park & Ride? Identify/block a parking area within reasonable distance from Valletta and then just drop off your car there. Use the 1€ electric cabs for christssakes! Naaah. That would not work would it? Better block off the entrance to the Market with a parade of ego-heavy MP cars and show the people that their representatives cannot be bothered to make the effort.

The whole issue just falls in line with the myriad others that demonstrate the facility with which faux eco-policies of the PLPN kind are unmasked. After the “lilliputian” discoveries in Sliema – you know “we serve our MPs and Labour councillors serve their MPs” – I am still wondering what more will it take before the people open their eyes the next time they vote.

Government for the people by the people… now that’s becoming one hell of a joke.

Addendum (with a nod to a Mr. P. Galea) – listen out at 1.30

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Labour's Redprint

From Ed to Joseph with love (inhobbok)… Here’s a summary of the main parts of Ed Miliband‘s new vision for New New Labour. It is advisable to familiarise oneself with these visions and terminology for you can expect Joseph Muscat and his Merry Band of Progressives to pilfer them like there is no tomorrow. (A bit like GonziPN and Sarkozy’s slogans). Not that the borrowing of a good idea is wrong – if it is a good idea that is – but that JM and his Merry Men will have no idea of whether or not the vision will work for Malta. They will just be happy to find something that sounds serious, looks marketable and contains the kind of populist promises to win over the ever so enigmatic “middle class“.

From today’s Independent here is Ed Miliband’s vision all set out for Muscat and his idea banks to clone:

New leader’s policy vision

Spending cuts

“I am serious about reducing our deficit… I won’t oppose every cut the Coalition proposes… But what we should not do is make a bad situation worse by embarking on deficit reduction at a pace that endangers our economic recovery.” This formulation is designed to help win back Labour’s credibility on the economy while giving Mr Miliband some wriggle room to amend Alistair Darling’s policy to halve the deficit over four years. Critics will accuse him of trying to have it both ways.

Low pay

“I believe not just in a minimum wage but the foundation of our economy in future must be a living wage.” A future Labour government could force employers to pay a “living wage” of about £7.60 an hour, rather than the minimum wage of £5.80 an hour. The move would be opposed by employers, but Mr Miliband will point out that their warnings about huge job losses before the minimum wage was introduced proved unfounded.

High pay

“The gap between rich and poor does matter. What does it say about the values of our society, what have we become, that a banker can earn in day what the care worker can earn in a year? Responsibility in this country shouldn’t just be about what you can get away with.” Mr Miliband supports a High Pay Commission to investigate the gap between top and bottom pay levels in the private and public sector.

Welfare

“There are those for whom the benefits system has become a trap.” Mr Miliband will oppose “arbitrary” benefit cuts proposed by the Coalition. But he is sympathetic to “tough and tender” reforms drawn up by James Purnell, the former work and pensions secretary, which were not supported by Gordon Brown.

Crime

“When Ken Clarke [the Justice Secretary] says we need to look at short sentences in prison because of high re-offending rates, I’m not going to say he’s soft on crime.” Mr Miliband’s support for Mr Clarke’s “prison isn’t working” approach marks a break with New Labour’s tough stance on crime.

So the living wage risks becoming a battleground for the next three years as Joseph Muscat will continue to harp on about the notion. Where will the money for the “living wage” adjustment come from Joseph? Will the taxpayer subsidise the employers to pay the employees? Or will the employers be expected to magicke the extra dosh out of thin air in order to pay for the years of abuse of the impoverished middle-class workers?

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Mediawatch Politics

PerjuryGate – Justine's Dilemma

There’s one more thing that’s been at the back of my mind in this Chris Said saga. It took Justine Caruana quite some time to distance herself from the perjury challenge that was made by her client. We then got Roberto Montalto explaining to the press that “his client’s decision was not a personal vendetta against Dr Said but simply a necessary step in his battle to gain custody of his only child”. It is not that easy to separate the political from the legal in this matter given the position held by Chris Said and given the way the Labour leader tried to gain whatever political mileage could be had from the issue at the first opportunity.

The nagging thought I have had relates to both the legal and the political side of the matter. I need to give you a hypothetical case for you to see this clearer. Imagine (just imagine) we were talking about theft or (heaven forbid) a more grievous crime such as murder. Imagine (just imagine) that we had a similar case but instead of perjury, a Parliamentary Secretary is being accused of theft or murder. Now imagine you were a lawyer whose client is claiming that the PS is guilty of one of these crimes and that you also happened to be a member of parliament for the opposition party.

You’d have two options available:

(1) In the first option you would be the one to strongly pursue the allegation because (a) you believe it and (b) it is your duty both towards your client as well as towards society to uncover the criminal acts of a representative of the people currently entrusted with governmental responsibilities.

(2) On the other hand you may feel that the accusation is actually not well-grounded and that being identified as the initiator of such an accusation would not have very good repercussions on your political career in the long term – so you make sure that you are not identified with such an accusation.

Legally this argument is not relevant since it is a lawyer’s duty to inform the client of his options and repercussions of such options but in the end he will take whatever action (within the boundaries of ethics) that the client requires.

Politically though the argument is important. In tis cynical age, there is much mileage to be made by a politician who actually uncovers the misdeeds of another politician. The graver the accusation the greater the duty of the politician to uncover it if he or she believes that this is the truth.  Even without the cynicism though there is much to be said in favour of the politician uncovering this kind of truth as a duty towards society. Politically this is the work of the servants of the people, ensuring that anybody else posing as as servant of the people is not tainted with a criminal record that could put into question his ability to handle his public duties.

So the nagging thought I have is this. We have Joseph Muscat trying to gain short-term brownie points BEFORE the actual case is decided by tut-tutting at Gonzi’s rashness to back his PS. At the same time though, we have Justine Caruana who is extremely eager to create an ocean between herself and the case in question – we are led to presume that this is because she is not entirely convinced that Said is actually in the business of the crime of perjury.

Can we presume that she believes that his was a genuine mistake that opened a window of opportunity for Mr Xuereb and his new lawyer to try their luck with a very wide interpretation of the law? Incidentally, the luck starts and ends with the right to institute proceedings for perjury – i.e. no need of very high level of proof at that stage pace the Criminal Court – once the actual perjury proceedings start Mr Xuereb’s lawyer might find that judges will require stronger arguments than “this is not a vendetta”.

The nagging thought is that if Justine were certain that the perjury proceedings would be successful (having been Mr Xuereb’s lawyer throughout the civil side of proceedings) she would be squarely behind her client in that step too – if not legally as his representative (for whatever reasons she may have) then politically. There is nothing wrong with Justine Caruana the politician distancing herself from the proceedings – nothing at all. She is fully entitled to do so. In doing so though, the political message she sends to many (and that she should have insisted upon with her dear leader) is that behind this cloud of smoke there lies nothing much. At least nothing that a politician acting in good faith would deem worth pursuing in the courts of law and taking up in the political forum.

There. Now we wait for the courts to get moving on Tuesday.

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

The Leap of Faith

Many are rushing to “apologise” to MP Justyne Caruana for the rash judgements they had made with regards to her potential role in the resignation of Chris Said from the post of Parliamentary Secretary. It’s an interesting development and one that requires a leap of faith. The association began yesterday when the press conference called by Chris Said in order to announce his resignation. A journalist (PBS? Times?) asked Chris Said whether the fact that Justyne Caruana was the lawyer for the person accusing him of perjury meant that this case had a political element. Chris Said replied that he would let the people decide.

Over twelve  hours passed in this day and age of internet and immediate newspaper updates before Justyne Caruana issued a clarification explaining that she was not the lawyer who presented the perjury challenge. Interesting. Or as we say on this side of the looking glass… curiouser and curiouser. Now without in any way questioning the factual side of the statement by the labour MP for the greater isle: i.e. that she was only the representative in the civil case but not in the cases alleging perjury we require a leap of faith. This leap of faith is that the civilian represented by Justyne Caruana in the civil domain of his legal battles is fully empowered with the knowledge of legal niceties related to a the laws and regulations that apply to lying under oath – or perjury.

To be more exact this client of Justyne Caruana’s would have to have had the insight, knowledge and quick wit to move for criminal proceedings di sua sponta, or of his own volition. For you see. Not only is the matter for which Chris Said is being accused infinitesimally technical – and far beyond the auspices of relevance to the ultimate outcome of the civil case – but it is also a legal conundrum visible only to the legal eye with which are endowed the most litigant and perfidious of practitioners of my not so humble trade. In other words you would have had to have been party to the civil proceedings in your lawyering capacity and to have spotted the possibility of creating a devious obstacle to the opposite lawyer concerned – full knowing that the ultimate effect of this case (for it is blatantly obvious to even the non-legal eye) will in no way impinge on the civil rights being claimed by the client concerned.

In other words. Between the moment Justyne Caruana’s client pounced on the opportunity to tackle Chris Said with a frivolous claim of perjury (we all know those facts) and the moment he got himself a lawyer to move on to the criminal stage of perjurial accusation there must have been an informed, intelligent and qualified person who must have pointd out this legal avenue afforded by Article 541 of the Criminal Code – his lawyer in the civil case for example? Are we allowed to doubt the client’s capability to do so of his own accord?

Worse still. (Ho-hum). Are we not allowed to consider the (admittedly) circumstantial fact that the perjury proceedings came within a short period of the hullaballoo in parliament when Chris Said was deemed to have slighted the pregnant Justyne by having misheard her vote? As at the time of Plategate J’accuse insists on motive and sincerely wishes that a couple of investigative journalists (preferably not of the bondi travesty kind) take up the challenge and look further into this mess. It deserves it.

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta