Category: Values

Categories
Politics Values

The Wasted Vote

So you voted PN last election? You got Lawrence Gonzi and Austin Gatt. You got David Agius and Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando. You got Edwin Vassallo and Tonio Fenech. You got Tonio Borg and Karl Gouder. You got the party that is anti-divorce on paper but can wake up one morning and spring a private members bill surprise. You’ve also got Joe Saliba to thank for those sleepless nights conferring profession after profession on Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando – from dentist to farmer to press card bearing journalist. Don’t worry though… if you’ve got a liberal streak in you there’s always Cyrus Engerer and Frank Psaila’s plan for a “social liberal” face to save the day.

So you voted PL last election? Well actually you voted for Alfred Sant’s MLP but we know where that one went. After the tears subsided what did you get? You got Joseph Muscat and Adrian Vassallo. You got Owen Bonnici and Marie Louise Coleiro. You get Marlene Pullicino and Gino Cauchi. You get a party that wants to be liberal and progressive but fails to take a simple stand on divorce. You get the inventor of the “free vote” that means that whatever the flying flip you wanted to elect in parliament has no point anyway – because the individuals’ conscience is paramount. So was it pro-divorce Muscat that you were thinking of or was it anti-divorce Vassallo?

Have you really ever sat down and wondered what your vote translates to once the noise of the last carcade subsides, once the last billboard of empty propaganda is removed and once the last article of the spinners of hate is condemned to the bottom of your dustbin?

Funny. Last I heard, not voting PL or PN would turn out to be a “wasted vote”.

“I’m sorry, but in your desperate attempts at convincing yourselves and anyone else who is listening that if XXX becomes prime minister you have nothing to do with it, you are on your own. If you had the slightest bit of political savvy or psychological nous, you would know that you are setting yourselves up as hate objects…”

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Politics Values

Flashback: Cliques & Politics

I was going to post something different to this but it can wait. While researching my intended post I came across this post on J’accuse back in May 2008. My concern here remains the sucking out of values from within our main political parties – due mainly to their attempt to be everything for everyone. The result is Liquorice Allsort parties – the Mix and Match without much substance when it comes to accountability and representation. The dangers of having BOTH parties in parliament with this kind of mentality can never be sufficiently stressed.

The post below was written at the time of Labour’s reflective period just before the New Messiah was anointed Mexxej. I had tried to analyse the role of cliques and factions in the formation of a party – and why our concept of cliques and factions is all based on power and has little to do with ideology, values and substance. Because at the end of the day what counts for the PLPN politician is getting the power… not what they do with it.

 

Of Cliques and Factions

First appeared on J’accuse on the 28th May 2008

Cliques: Loud and Damaging

A salient point in the Labour Party report on the reasons for the defeat in the last elections is the existence of “klikkek” within the party. The word “kilikkek” translates to English, quite literally, as “cliques”. A “clique” is described as “a small, exclusive, group of people” – the operative word being “exclusive”. The Online Etymology Dictionary gives the following result for the word “clique“: “1711, from Fr. clique, from O.Fr. cliquer “to make a noise,” echoic. Apparently this word was at one time treated as the equivalent of claque.”

Today’s Times editorial dwells on the fragmentation and self-destructing party dynamic of the different party cliques. The editorial points out:

“Hardly any party or organisation is immune to internal trouble or the inbreeding of cliques but, when the pull of such trouble or cliques strengthens itself to a proportion that affects the central unifying force, it often leads to derailment.”

The sentence is a veiled defence to any argument that states that cliques cannot possibly be the only problem because everybody under the sun knows that the Nationalist Party has been equally afflicted by “cliques” – in their case power bases intended to consolidate the position of certain groups of individuals with the party. No doubt, the Times is once again performing its duty as unofficial apologist of the boys in blue but there is another implied truth in this statement that goes beyond apologist editorials – one that Labour sympathisers and reformers would do good to notice.

Cliques within a political party are not a local phenomenon and exist elsewhere. What is interesting is the way they have evolved within the Labour party, gnawing away at the very foundations and backbone of what is necessary for a party to function. To exist even. The problem with a clique is the reason for its formation. An exclusive group of persons intent on extending its power base for its own benefit does not have the interests of the party as its main priority. It exists to ensure the survival of the individuals – more than that it strives for a successful placing as high up in the hierarchy as possible.

The basic principle behind a clique is “help yourself and the others in the clique” – almost akin to a Masonic Agreement. In the political world a clique is not identifiable by a common political cause – let us say for example those in favour of making the introduction of more social rights like divorce. It is solely restricted to a power-hungry movement or sometimes to a movement formed to oust another one (think Gordon Brown though not exactly).

The MLPN are most prone to have cliques during election campaigns. The competition in districts is restricted between candidates of the same party insofar as certain “guaranteed” votes are concerned. That cliques occur in such circumstances are inevitable. It is also possible that clique-forming could occur within the dynamics of the party – normally compensated with the formation of shared power-centres one for each large or dominating clique allowing for a certain balance.

Factions: Purpose and Substance

What we have not heard about in the Labour Report is “factions”. A political faction is no new discovery. Political factions are omnipresent, especially in large parties. Some apologists would have us believe that the Nationalist party is an umbrella party that has different factions including what must be a very silent “liberal” one. There is no doubt in my mind that something of the sort does exist within the PN though the way the party functions does not allow for much transparency in that field (of ideological factions – call them nuances if you like) – given the one-way traffic at the PN general councils they seem to be very far from having an open and honest debate about the ideological differences that exist.

A faction is not a defection or a whistleblower on alleged corrupt practices. It is a healthy (though sometimes problematic) existence within a party that has a set of priorities based on different political ideas. Different from what? It may be different from the mainstream or more probably there may be different factions with different ideologies competing to push them at the head of the party agenda. A faction does not work to split the party (that is only a last resort when agreement seems to be so far from being reached that the only solution is the creation of another party). Factions debate (and yes, in this macchiavellian world of points of order, right of speakers to vote and party organisations sometimes use “underhand” tactics) in order to get their agenda as part of the party agenda.

Here is Wikipedia’s description of a political faction (my underlining):

“A political faction is a grouping of individuals, especially within a political organisation, such as a political party, a trade union, or other group with a political purpose. It may also be referred to as a power bloc, or a voting bloc. The individuals within a faction are united in a common goal or set of common goals for the organisation they are a part of, not necessarily shared by all of that organisation’s members. They band together as a way of achieving these goals and advancing their agenda and position within the organisation.”

As I said, even the work of factions can turn out to be deleterious to a party’s health. Long power-struggles between internal factions can still diminish the party’s appeal to the electorate. Factions also require individuals playing the role of the “leader” or as wikipedia calls them “magnets” around whom the faction forms. Factions have one substantial advantage over clique. Their substance is based around a set of goals, an agenda, that is more often than not political in nature. They bring to the party a level of debate about principles, ideas and policies that are absent from cliques.

Some parties prefer their factions to act internally. That is an organisational choice depending on the effects any struggle between factions may have on the public perception of the unity within the party. Let us not get waylaid by the debate of “going public” or not although it has its own merits. At this point my reflection centres on the problems of the Labour party as highlighted by the report.

Coupled with the call by the report drafters for the Labour party to be less scared of “intellectuals” (as they call them) and of engaging in debate, this issue of the cliques must be of primary concern to whoever wants to reform the party into a working viable alternative. The temptation is to iron out all differences and create a uniform party where individuals must get, if you excuse the vulgar Maltese expression, permission for every fart. The practices of the Labour organisational structures seem to point in that direction – permission to speak, permission to think and permission to exist as a Labourite.

This is a reaction to trouble caused by cliques and the ugly image they portray. Power for power’s sake is an ugly trait of Maltese politics, from the smallest movement within a party to the hegemony of MLPN on national politics. The risk is that in reacting to this report, the wheat is thrown away with the chaff and what is left is a factionless but spineless Labour party that might as well be a management organisation of sorts – managing fifty percent of the disillusioned electorate and expert only at producing reports explaining failures. That is not what the average Labourite wants, that is not what this country needs.

*****

* Picture: Jean de la Lune (fanfare)

  • Dans les armées, une clique désigne également une fanfare ou une musique militaire. Dans un régiment, elle correspond à un groupe d’instruments : tambours, clairons, caisses claires, trompettes, etc. Par extension, une clique est aussi un ensemble de musiciens civils, jouant ces mêmes instruments et interprétant des musiques militaires ou des musiques rythmées entrainantes.
  • Une clique est aussi un terme péjoratif pour caractériser un groupe restreint qui a pris le pouvoir dans une région, ainsi
  • la Clique du Château était un groupe de riches familles au Bas-Canada au début du XIXe siècle,
Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Politics Values

Literature in the Court

The AG’s office has appealed against the Realtà decision that had acquitted Mark Camilleri and Alex Vella Gera. Insofar as reporting and public reaction is concerned we are back to square one – a general feeling of disgust and anger at the fact that this kind of case still exists in this day and age.

James Debono explored the angle of “political responsibility” in his blog on Maltatoday and struggled to create a causal link between the mechanics of the application and interpretation of the law by the judicial branch and the pursuance of the law by the executive. In any other case having the government weighing in on the AG’s decision to appeal would have led many an observer to cry foul. In this case the absence of any such pressure is enough to indict the government with the accusation of drifting “to the loony right”.

There’s a less emotional and more rational line to be patiently analysed beyond the confusing smoke of war. That line sees the Realtà case as a test case for the definition of the concepts of “obscenity and pornography” in our courts. We are not the first and will not be the last society to examine these standard and the laws continue to evolve ever since Edmund Curll was convicted in 1727 for publishing Venus in the Cloister or The Nun in her Smock under the common law offence of disturbing the King’s peace (see Wikipedia below).

In many ways the AG’s appeal was inevitable. The original judgement, although positive insofar as the anti-censorship movement is concerned, did not exhaust all questions on the matter. It is not just the the definition of what is obscene that remains fluid but also the exception that is allowed – in this case literature for the public good:

[…]Izda oggett ma jitqiesx li hu pornografiku jew oxxen jekk dan ikun fl-interess tax-xjenza, tal-letteratura, ta’ l-arti jew tat-taghlim jew ta’ xi ghanijiet ohra ta’ interess generali, u sakemm dan ikun tghall-gid pubbliku. – Criminal Code, article 208(3)

The Magistrate’s Court found that Li Tkisser Sewwi does not in any way fall under pornography or public obscenity definitions “ghaliex bl-ebda mod ma jista’ jitqies li l-iskop jew l-ghan tal-kitba huwa li jqanqal eccitament sesswali jew li jikkorrompi qarrej ordinarju”. (in no way can it be considered that the aim of the writing was to sexually excite or corrupt an ordinary reader). It also found that “the fact that writing is shocking or provokes disgust in the reader does not qualify it as obscene or pornographic”. The Court further found that the prosecution had failed to prove any damage caused by the writing.

The Realtà case is an acquittal for failure to prove that the writing in question qualifies as obscene or pornographic. It leaves many questions open. What is obscene and pornographic? More than that, by finding an absence of pornographic or obscene characteristics the Court did not need to engage with the question of when pornography or obscenity is (in the words of the abovequoted article 208(3) exception) “in the interest of (…) literature (…) and considered to be in the general public’s interest”.

The AG’s appeal might oblige the Appeals Court either to tackle the issue or to confirming the Magistrate Court’s decision. In both cases we could only have more clarity on the state of the law in question. Appealing to the government to intervene – or laying the blame for the appeal at the foot of the government skirts the question and avoids clear answers.

If any pressure is to be made on any part of our system of the state, it is on our legislature – and its lack of reactivity to define further the standards of obscenity and pornography that are “acceptable” in our society. I fear that this kind of question will not only stump the loony right but also the false left in this country of ours that has hitherto proven to be very comfortable with cheap talk but unable to grasp the bull by the horns and suggest concrete action.

We may have a loony right government but we also have a fake left machine that is still to discover that its core of pro-British, religious conservatives will prove to be the downfall of all its progressive rhetoric. Then again none of this might happen if the Appeal Court’s interpretation satisfies all and sundry. Who knows… the mechanics of the separation of powers could actually work!

From Wikipedia:
Laws on obscenity and sexual content

Obscenity law in England and Wales is currently governed by the various Obscene Publications Acts, but obscenity laws go back much further into the English common law.

The conviction in 1727 of Edmund Curll for the publication of Venus in the Cloister or The Nun in her Smock under the common law offence of disturbing the King’s peace was the first conviction for obscenity in Great Britain, and set a legal precedent for other convictions.

A defence against the charge of obscenity on the grounds of literary merit was introduced in the Obscene Publications Act 1959. The OPA was tested in the high-profile obscenity trial brought against Penguin Books for publishing Lady Chatterley’s Lover (by D. H. Lawrence) in 1960. The book was found to have merit, and Penguin Books was found not guilty — a ruling which granted far more freedom to publish explicit material. This trial did not establish the ‘merit’ defence as an automatic right; several controversial books and publications were the subject of British court cases throughout the 1960s and into the 1970s. Last Exit to Brooklyn, a 1964 novel by American author Hubert Selby, Jr. was subject of a private prosecution in 1966.

There is a substantial overlap between legal erotic literature and illegal pornography, with the distinction traditionally made in the English-speaking courts on the basis of perceived literary merit. Purely textual pornography has not been prosecuted since the Inside Linda Lovelace trial of 1976. However, in October 2008, a man was charged, but later cleared, under the Obscene Publications Act for allegedly posting fictional written material to the Internet describing kidnap, rape and murder of pop group Girls Aloud. In late August 2005, the government announced that it plans to criminalise possession of extreme pornographic material, rather than just publication.

Almost all adult stores in the UK are forbidden from having their goods in open display under the Indecent Displays Act 1981, which means the shop fronts are often boarded up or covered in posters. A warning sign must be clearly shown at the entrance to the store, and no items can be visible from the street. No customer can be under eighteen years old. The Video Recordings Act 1984 introduced the R18-rated classification for videos that are only available in licensed sex shops, but hardcore pornographic magazines are available in newsagents in some places. The Ann Summers chain of lingerie and sex shops recently won the right to advertise for workers in job centres, which was originally banned under restrictions on what advertising could be carried out by the sex industry

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Politics Values

Reality Bites

The Times reports that Alex Vella Gera and Mark Camilleri, respectively the author and the editor in the Li Tkisser Sewwi saga, have been acquitted of publishing pornographic and obscene material. So much for “censorship” then. It’s not like the fuss was not necessary, it’s not like there was no need for a discussion as to why a University rector might feel the need to involve the boys in uniform because of his fears about the content of a piece of writing.

This is a huge wake up call to all those who have been yelling about fascist governments and censorship. J’accuse pointed out, time and time again, that the law is there to be applied and that we could not yell censorship unless the courts of law actually thought that the law on pornography applied to the content. We will have the fury of literati bearing down upon us again but the naked truth is now written in the court judgement handed down by Magistrate Audrey Demicoli. Stories like Li Tkisser Sewwi are not considered pornographic or obscene under Maltese law.

So what are we left with? An overzealous rector and a police force that once again gets trumped in court (pole dancers, obscenity and pornography – all in a days work). On the other hand there will be less excuses for the illuminati of this world to yell “censorship”, “oppression” or “fascism” at some trumped up ghost.

Ironic as it may seem* reality does bite every now and again.

*phrase sponsored by PG’s tips.

Also on the subject:
Mark Biwwa’s : Violence and Obscenity Maltese Style

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Rubriques Values

I.M. Jack – the one about satire

Today’s Times editorial invites readers “to get serious about laughter” and is an appeal to learn how to laugh about ourselves once more. I read a good article by David Quantick in the UK Independent yesterday in which he welcomed the return of political satire on prime time TV. ‘Twas the post-Thatcher 90’s that killed it you know – and the inability of satirists to let go of the facile spoofing of personalities and return to the dark minefield of satirising issues.

Seriously Funny

We’ve seen it all. The long arm of the law applied to carnival (priests, Jesus and his disciples), to what classifies as “comedy” on TV (Bla Kondixin‘ VIP Xow’s (thanks PG) shoe throwing stunt) and more. If the Maltese are relentless in their beliefs then there is little room for humour quoth the Times editor. M.A. Falzon, writing in the Times two years ago today had attempted to translate the local version of satire to “nejk” – a realm of “banter, jokes and jestful blasphemy” that “rarely makes it into the public sphere”.

Falzon suggested that the reason we find it hard to write (or understand) “nejk” in English is that English generally means serious business with little room for humour. Maltese – with all its “nejk” – is limited to the vernacular – always according to Falzon (and he does worry that “Linguistic nationalists will eat me alive for this”).

I’m not too sure about Falzon’s theory though there is some truth in the fact that the Maltese concept of “comedy” (and not necessarily satire) might differ radically from that of the Anglo-Saxons or French to mention but two others. Incidentally the other field that has been at the receiving end of the grossly overblown and outdated baton of the law is the field of literature. The point of overlap in the venn diagram seems to be a shady area of “taste” that somehow is qualified in terms of either “obscenity/vulgarity” or “immoral/unholy”.

In both cases what is now being waved around as a case of “Censorship in Malta” is really an outdated reaction to provoking events that could (and have been) be seen as being immoral – obscene – vulgar – unholy/blasphemous if taken from a conservative point of view. Whether that means that we are witnessing a real censorship of the “political” kind with the Maltese equivalent(s) of Solzenhitsyn rushing to exile is questionable. True there is an archaic law and perception that needs to be challenged – one that exalts a fictitious mentality of close-mindedness, religiosity and prudeness and does not take in the alternate reality of “nejk” within which we really live.

Does this seem funny to you?

Are we capable of being satirical? Is there space to caricaturise our politicians and their decisions. Can we even caricaturise ourselves in our everyday life to the point of subtle satire? We think that it is more than possible and that it is already being done in spurts. We mostly do not know how to react to it. The impression of a communist style politburo censoring every vague thought is a false one. As I said elsewhere J’accuse has never been censored no matter how critical it has been of the PLPN establishment.

Ignored? Yes. Attempts at character assassination? Of course it’s how business is done. But censored? Nope. Nyet. Sorry. And neither has any of the other variety of columnists/non-columnists been told not to speak their mind. I’m quite sure of that. We do not have censorship in Malta. We have the retarded (sic) application of archaic provisions that is distracting us from a possible development of our literature (maybe).

It’s literature that might not even intend to be funny. Take Vella Gera’s “Li Tkisser Sewwi”. I’m sure Alex never intended to be in the limelight (he says so himself) and never expected this kind of reaction (he said so too). He just woke up one day to find that his particular mode of expression is -according to the police, still to be seen by the court – considered as either obscene or vulgar in the eyes of the law that regulates our society.

Is it censorship? No. I don’t think so. I think it is the result of a society that is uncomfortable with itself when it looks in the mirror. What does that say about the future of satire in Malta.

It says it is possible. But that we have a long, long way to go. It goes beyond politicians or expected saviours (Oliver? Why Oliver?). It goes straight to the heart of what literature can be all about. Provocative, illuminating, and often a satirical exposé of the state of a nation. Warts, cunts, penises and all.

Funny that. He said “exposé”.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Politics Values

New York's Catholic Paladino

You know you’re growing old when you remember Governor Cuomo Snr. His son, Andrew M. Cuomo is running for Governor of New York on the democrat ticket. In an all-Italian (origin) showdown, Cuomo’s republican opponent is Carl P. Paladino – conservative to the bone and very proud of his Italian and catholic origins. The gubernatorial battle is turning out to be a curious export of the tensions in the old continent as Padalino’s conservatism is pitted against Cuomo’s more liberal (a European description) approach. Padalino is proud of the winks and smiles linked half-jokingly to the implications of having Italian ancestry in this part of the world while Cuomo is wary of the image of political Sopranos.

Back on the campaign trail Padalino’s no holds barred attitude could land him in trouble and yesterday’s speech to a gathering in Brooklyn was of the incendiary kind. Curiously Padalino’s message contained the dilemma that currently has no borders in the western world – from Belgrade, to Valletta to New York, the cohabitation of religious values and liberal rights are suffering the sort of tension that can best be described as dangerous. Here’s the New York Times reporting Paladino’s speech to Orthodox Jewish leaders:

The Republican candidate for governor, Carl P. Paladino, told a gathering in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, on Sunday that children should not be “brainwashed” into thinking that homosexuality was acceptable, and criticized his opponent, Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, for marching in a gay pride parade earlier this year. Addressing Orthodox Jewish leaders, Mr. Paladino described his opposition to same-sex marriage.

“I just think my children and your children would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family, and I don’t want them brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option — it isn’t,” he said, reading from a prepared address, according to a video of the event.

And then, to applause at Congregation Shaarei Chaim, he said: “I didn’t march in the gay parade this year — the gay pride parade this year. My opponent did, and that’s not the example we should be showing our children.” Newsday.com reported that Mr. Paladino’s prepared text had included the sentence: “There is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional homosexual.” But Mr. Paladino omitted the sentence in his speech.

An hour after the speech, Cuomo’s team denounced the statement as being “stunningly homophobic” and that it was a glaring disregard for basic equality. Paladino’s campaign manager duly responded by denying assertions that Mr. Paladino was antigay, and noted that Paladino employed a gay man on his campaign staff. (Isn’t that charitable of him?)

“Carl Paladino is simply expressing the views that he holds in his heart as a Catholic,” Mr. Caputo said in a telephone interview. “Carl Paladino is not homophobic, and neither is the Catholic Church.”

I’m beginning to think that the problem is not the catholic church (or God) in whose name these obscenities are regularly perpetrated. It’s ignorance. How, for one minute Paladino could believe that the phrase “dysfunctional homosexual” could be seen as anything but a homophobic statement is beyond my ken. His taking refuge behind the hazy notion of “the Catholic Church” to justify his attempt at fuelling the conservative vote is pitiful and – here’s the word again – medieval.  Caputo (Paladino’s campaign manager) worryingly appended the following sentence to his justifications: “the majority of New Yorkers agree with him” while adding that the campaign had done its own polling. That’s ok then is it? I mean this is not San Francisco but hey,  waddayaknow?

While Andrew Cuomo polled voters to get an insight on how far the Iti-Mafia-Pizza stereotype is stuck in the New Yorker mentality (and this with the aim of getting rid of it), Paladino was busy checking whether New York really likes its poofs. It’s his Catholic duty (God bless his soul) and he told the Orthodox Jews that he is on their same wavelength (for heaven’s sake) – he’d never march in a gay pride event and he criticised Andrew Cuomo for doing so.

If that’s what a Catholic Heart can contribute to a community then bring on the infidels…..

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta