Category: Values

Categories
Internet Rights Values

World day against Cyber Censorship

The 12th of March is the World day against cyber censorship. The tools of the digital age have thrown back the frontiers of darkness and ignorance that have previously been used to keep whole populations in check. Reporters Without Borders and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) are two organisations that are active in the ongoing battle for freedom of information particularly in the battle against the use and abuse of laws to silence or block the digital (cyber) modes of expression. The Arab Spring and the continuous struggle in China both prove that digital activism can be effective especially in countries where the freedom of expression is a luxury. You may be familiar, for example, with the work of Yoani Sanchez – the Cuban dissident blogger who has become a symbol of freedom of expression in a country that was obsessed with control of information.

It is not just the standard totalitarian regimes who have trouble with information. Even the healthiest of democracies might suffer bouts of allergic intolerance to the independent minded expression of ideas. Again, a combination of ignorance that is nurtured by the establishment and abuse of freedoms based on a misunderstanding of their value  would contribute to the fouling of an atmosphere of open expression and intellectual engagement.

On a more local level the recent events on the day of silence might be misconstrued as a formal attempt to gag the new participants in the social discourse. That would be mistaken. The rule of silence (or reflection) might be an archaic rule but is a law of the land just the same. It is not a blanket censorship that exists eternally but a particular moment of silence imposed with what might be a misguided motivation but is a rational motivation just the same. Whether or not the day of silence can still serve its purpose in the digital age of facebook and twitter (or whether it should be extended to such means) is not really a matter of censorship with political ends but really a obvious example of a law that needs updating to take into consideration the modern circumstances. This is all the more necessary in the absence of objective interpretations that could per se have sufficed to fill such a lacuna.

A dangerous situation is created when rules such as the rule of reflection are abused of by parts of the political establishment in order to make whatever political capital they might deem fit. Such a danger is aggravated if members of the executive forces (whose duty it is to protect and serve) and members of the fourth estate (journalists whose duty would be to objectively investigate) become witting or unwitting co-conspirators in such an abuse of the legal provisions.

On this World Day Against Cyber Censorship J’accuse would like to reiterate a fundamental disagreement with the current laws affecting expression during election campaigns in Malta. This includes the rules appertaining to silence on the day before and on the day of elections, the rules covering the “balancing of opinions” on public broadcasting, the rules regulating the funding of political party campaigns and the lack of rules (or lack of application thereof) covering the blatant abuse and violation of digital rights with regards to the collection and reuse of personal digital data.

Happy World Day Against Cyber Censorship.

Blog… and be damned!

 

(illustration is an adaptation of the Reporters Without Frontiers cover to their report on Cyber Censorship)

Categories
Campaign 2013 Values

This honourable judge

Life on the island past the electoral truce has been anything but boring. There are times when the concept of boredom can begin to seem to be an unattainable desirable bereft of the negative connotations that normalcy and monotony might normally carry. These are the kind of times best described as “interesting” in the Chinese curse sort of way. Just as the political parties seemed to be settling into a faux festive period “truce” from the campaign that had never begun we get a wave of news items that keep tongues wagging, the media reporting and above all the parties a-busying.

Top of the list of interesting news items – beyond the extensions of Dalligate and the mafia style executions – is reserved for the judiciary and in particular for two of the members of our judicial bench who are in the eye of the storm. Judge Farrugia Sacco is in the throes of a renewed battle for his seat having had a new attack from the IOC – determined to take steps against those of its members who exposed their institution to the risk of disrepute. Another Judge, Ray Pace, is now in prison awaiting trial with the serious accusation of bribery pending above his head.

It is an ugly period for the legal branch of our separated powers and the two stories have thrust another dagger into the already weak levels of faith that the judiciary enjoyed with the general population. Trust and faith in the law is fundamental within a democracy and this kind of weakness seriously endangers the workings of our constitutional mechanisms. That is also the basic reason why the constitutional checks and balances that should come into play must work with clockwork perfection in order to ensure that the very foundations of the legal system are still intact. Public trust is the one and only priority.

Farrugia Sacco

Which brings me to the role of our political parties. We first had the Farrugia Sacco debate. In this respect the “Ceasar’s Wife” argument that I had touched upon in the Dalligate saga comes back with full force when considering how to proceed with a member of the bench who has become embroiled in such an issue. The key concept in the “Ceasar’s wife” principle is the idea of “having to be above suspicion”. This is not a question of actually being guilty but of having to appear beyond the mere suspicion. In this light, and without even making any further considerations on what actually went down in that hotel room where the Olympic tickets were held, Judge Farrugia Sacco should have long tendered his resignation in order to deal with the ghosts and suspicions peacefully and individually without carrying this baggage around in his role as a judge.

Is it so straightforward? Yes. Did we need the Ombudsman writing to the President? Not really. Even before the Commission for the Administration of Justice was involved Judge Farrugia Sacco should have done the right thing of his own accord. By refusing to do so he should have forced the hand of our politicians in parliament who are the guardians of an important constitutional mechanism with which they have been entrusted: the process of impeachment. Which is where my first beef with Joseph Muscat arises. His position on the Farrugia Sacco issue is that we must wait for the Commission for the Administration of Justice to do its work before actually impeaching the judge. Like hell we do.

Joseph Muscat’s attempt to distinguish between politics and the judiciary is an amateur approach to our constitutional politics and a dangerous situation whereby the leader of the opposition is openly reneging on his DUTY towards citizens to act as ultimate guardian of our constitutional rights. A judge in Farrugia Sacco’s situation loses his legitimacy to sit in open judgement of others in no matter what area of law. If he cannot see that of his own accord then it is up to the politicians to act as guardians of our prerogatives as citizens. Once again Muscat is doing what he does best – acting as Pilate and washing his hands of a decision that he is duty bound constitutionally to guarantee. Weak.

Pace

The Ray Pace matter seems to have brought Muscat to his senses. Suddenly the judiciary is no longer a matter for the Commission for the Administration of Justice. Admittedly the case seems to be more open and shut given the context though there is no reason to distinguish between the two when it comes to the Ceasar’s Wife test. In this case the issue of whether Ray Pace is above suspicion is more glaringly obvious – the arraignment and arrest make a decision in this respect all the more straightforward.

What did impress me was the attempts – as of early morning – by Evarist Bartolo to turn the issue into a political battlefield. He posted a link to a report of the arrest on facebook with the words “Ara f’hiex gabuh pajjiz” (Look what they have brought the country to). Incredible. To begin with it is obvious to any free thinking individual that when appointing a judge you can never foresee his turning to the dark side (to use Star Wars terms). How Ray Pace’s alleged actions are imputable to the current government and its policies beggars belief. Sure enough Evarist deleted any comments I made on the particular status – no worries I have snapshots on my iPad (once bitten, twice shy – right Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando?).

Thankfully the Labour party could not do otherwise than agree to an eventual impeachment of Ray Pace. Muscat did add that a new Labour government would review the methods of appointment of judges. No harm there right? Definitely not. Given that a rebel MP recently made it part of his personal agenda to point out inconsistencies in the field of the judiciary it should not come as too much of a surprise to any of us that sooner or later Labour would jump on that particular part of the wagon. A knee-jerk reaction it remains though and I very much suspect that we are in for a bit of patchwork and tweaks that would still accomodate the PLPN manner of appointments.

And here is another crux. I posted a status on facebook pointing out that given their record Labour would best reform the system by staying out of the appointments system. Of course the world is full of literal minded partisans who would be eager to point out that the same system that gave us Farrugia Sacco (Labour) and Pace (Labour) also gave us Arrigo (Nationalist). Which makes it allright then does it not? My point was meant to be sarcastic – Muscat’s party does not have much of a record to go on when it comes to appointments and the fact that the nationalist party too has had its fair share of nutty appointments is neither here nor there.

Judiciary

Do you remember how recently a government proposal to increase salaries for the judiciary was shot down by a labour party? The Labourites had had a sudden attack of “consistency” by arguing that if the MPs (political) could not get a raise (will we ever forget the 500€ raise?) then neither could the judges and magistrates (judiciary). Because obviously the Muscat idea that politics and judiciary should not be mixed did not apply at the time.

There seems to be a general consensus, even within the practitioners in the field, that our judicial system is due a major overhaul. The criteria for judges and magistrates appointment remain the number of years in practice. When a non-court practitioner was once proposed for the bench, court practitioners were up in arms claiming that his years of practice did not count – an odd reason if there was one. From what I can gather the conventional way to become a magistrate/judge until now has been to manifest your intention in the right circles and hopefully… if you were insistent enough and of the right hue… you would get your turn eventually.

The system has produced many a good magistrate or judge but it has flaws. It is haphazard and based on the wrong criteria. I am also told that in some cases what was needed to get onto the bench was a track record of an attempt at running of parliament. Once you got your brownie points in that field then you would have proven loyalty and a position on the bench would follow. Again. It is not the rule and is not across the board. The problem lies in the lack of clarity and in the lack of modern, clear criteria as to why a person should make it to the bench.

In other nations, like Germany, you actually study to get to the bench – not to become a lawyer first. Interpreting and applying the law requires a different set of skills than pleading before the court. Academic knowledge, logical and linguistic skills as well as good analytical methodology and organisation form part of what could be a key set of indicators in the future. A place on the bench should not be a prize for time served – let alone loyalty.

The kind of reform that is required is the real area where politics and the judiciary should definitely not merge. The legal world in Malta is not in a nice state. The kind of reform that is required is a big learning curve across the board from the courts, to the faculty of law and its product, to the support services to the long arm of the law that are the police. Education is a key factor – education to start with and education in the continuing sense.

Unfortunately I have to end this long post with the usual pinpointing of the heart of the problem. Our legal system has also been affected by the rot that is the PLPN method. Appointments and laws through the years are made with the parties and their survival in mind. It is incredible that in this day and age we can think in terms of “their” or “our” judge. It is mind boggling that judicial appointments have to be thought of in this manner and the legal community has much to feel at fault about in this respect. I am not unaware of the irony that our parliament has a heavy representation of lawyers within it and that this being the case it will be even more difficult to find people prepared to think out of the box.

When Muscat wakes up to the reality of the matter and stops thinking in populist terms, when Gonzi’s PN quit the faffing around and decide to grasp the bull by the horns I should hope that a huge debate will ensue and that within an appropriate forum, with the appropriate experts, the much needed reform of our Judicial & Legal systems is embarked upon with earnest.

Remember. We are all servants of the law, that we may be free.

Categories
Local Councils Politics Values

Forgotten Sons

Nikki Dimech has been condemned to one year in jail. The plight of the damned Nationalist Sliema Councillors seems aeons away now. The Sliema council ills were the first clear external signs that all was not well within the PN structure. We look back to the meetings between Paul Borg Olivier and the ill-fated councillors with a new perspective now. Dimech would be painted as the rotten apple immediately hung dry by the very party that had judged him suitable for the job. Of course with such a wide net of local council elections parties are bound to choose a bad apple or two every now and then but it is the manner in which hands are washed that is impressive.

The party structures are geared to win elections but are much less well equipped when it comes to supporting and monitoring the party representatives on the councils. The PN reaction once the court judgement was announced is puerile to say the least. “We were right”, they thundered in their press release, änd Labour was wrong for criticising how we dealt with Dimech”. That’s all it is really with them. A matter of black and white. Readers will get so easily distracted with this pot and kettle business. They will forget that people like Dimech were backed by the party structures, they were placed on an electoral list to win the votes for the party and to have councillors in place to maintain the party network that is fed on votes – come what may.

Dimech’s prison sentence may be a personal condemnation on a young man who is still in time to recognise his wrongs. It is also an indictment on a party candidate system that is lax and based on the wrong priorities. Dimech and Debono – two by-products of this system have badly backfired in the face of the PN. Are there many more lurking in the background waiting for the dividends of the next election?

The PN would do well to take note.

Categories
Values

L-Ewropa ta’ Toni u Fred (II) – In-* Tagħna

Mela Tonio issa sar Kummissarju Ewropew u s-Saħħa għandha prominenza kbira fil-portfoll tiegħu. Id-dagħdiha u skambju ta’ kliem bejn elementi liberali u konservattivi laħqet il-quċċata tal-attiża nhar l-interrogatorju parlamentari tal-kummissarju deżinjat sabiex ftit wara waqqhet fuq fommha meta għadda mill-eżami tal-vot. Tħallu lil ħadd jitnejjek bikom. Il-proċess ta’ skrutinju innifsu kien neċessarju u leġittimu – biss biss a bażi tal-pożizzjonijiet li kien ħa Tonio Borg meta kien għadu politiku f’Malta. Jekk wieħed jinsa għal mument l-ammont kbir ta’ informazzjoni bażwija li iddawret dwar il-konservatiżmu Malti xorta waħda jifdallu ħafna fuq x’hiex jagħrbel dwar Tonio Borg u l-potenzjal tiegħu.

Tonio jirrapreżenta element politiku importanti fil-qofol Malti. Huwa element politiku li inbena tul iż-żmien reazzjonarju demokristjan waqt il-perijodu tal-gvern soċjalista fis-sebgħinijiet. F’dak iż-żmien id-determinazzjoni u viżjoni demokristjana kienet tinvolvi għanijiet ċari li ma jistgħux jiġu sempliċement diminwiti fi kristallizzazzjoni tas-suq ħieles u liberta. Xogħol, ġustizzja, liberta u ftit wara solidarjeta ma kienux għadhom saru il-munita dgħajfa jew “catchwords” li drajna bihom illum. Kienu sisien sodi għal pjan soċjali ġdid wara l-falliment tas-soċjaliżmu a-la-carte Mintoffjan. Kellha tkun soċjeta illi wieħed iħossu kburi li jifforma parti minnha u li jista jaspira għal (kwalita ta) ħajja aħjar.

Tonio kellu sehem f’dak il-moviment. Dak il-moviment wasal biex għaraf ir-rieda (u l-bżonn) ta’ sħubija fil-proġett Ewropew u kien parti fondamentali (iżda mhux unika) sabiex din il-ħolma isseħħ. Post Malta fl-Ewropa, ma’ l-Ewropej. Ma kienx hemm dubju. Issa u mhux imbagħad. Fuq dak ma kienx hemm dubju lanqas. Imma l-ġgant tal-libertajiet qisu tnikker u ddewwed u mal-ewwel ħjiel ta’ diskors usa’, mal-ewwel bżonn ta’ elaborazzjoni tal-għanijiet soċjali sabiex il-“just society” tolqot iktar nies u drittijiet – qisu bħal donnu beża. U kellna l-ewwel trasformazzjoni. Minn ġo Malta imsieħba fl-Ewropa żammejna sod ma “tradizzjonijiet” u “valuri” Maltin mingħajr ma azzardajna inħarsu jekk kellhomx bżonn xi aġġornament.

Il-partit li jridha li xpruna il-poplu fl-Ewropa sar l-istess wieħed li tella barrieri u ħitan biex mhux l-Ewropa kollha tidħol għax mhux kollox jgħodd. Għalhekk Tonio ma ħeliex wisq ħin qabel ma beda jikkwota trattati u eċċezzjonijiet. “Iva” stħajjiltu jgħidilhom, “ħaddanna l-Ewropa imma l-ewwel u qabel kollox inħaddnu l-prinċipji tagħna… erm tiegħi”. Hekk qalilhom fil-fatt. Hemm kompetenzi u kompetenzi u mhux kull ma hu fl-Ewropa se jidħol f’Malta. U din kienet tweġġa aktar minn kull metamorfosi li seta’ kien hemm bejn Tonio ta’ Malta għal Tonio ta’ l-Ewropa.

Tweġġa’ għax kienet ammissjoni fil-miftuħ li l-mod ta’ kif il-ġenerazzjoni reazzjonarja tas-sebgħinijiet qiegħdin jiffaċċaw il-pass li jmiss huwa wieħed difensiv u magħluq. Malta tagħna u timxi bil-pass li rridu aħna. Ma hemmx diskussjoni. Ma hemmx ftuħ għal utopja ta’ djalogu u sinteżi ta’ ideat. Tiftakruha l-Ewropa ta’ Kajjin u Abel? Kajjin u Abel ilhom li telqu… imma minflokhom għandna l-Ewropa ta’ Malta u l-Ewropa l-oħra.

Tonio komdu jiffirma li se joqgħod għal li jgħidulu – anki jekk b’xi mod tmur kontra l-kuxjenza u valuri tiegħu stess. Kellu jiffirma inkella kien jibqagħlu dubju jgħadduħx fil-klabb tal-Ewropej. Eddie Fenech Adami – missier id-demokristjani reazzjonarji tat-tmeninijiet qallu li kieku ma kienx jiffirma. Kien ikun iktar konsistenti Eddie – għallinqas hekk naħsbu aħna. Għax Tonio b’għemilu u b’ħidmietu baqa jsaħħaħ l-inkwiet li għandna. Li verament għandna żewġ “Ewropa” – dik tal-Maltin u dik li Tonio tant ħabrek biex daħal fiha issa.

 

Categories
Euroland Values

L-Ewropa ta’ Toni u Fred (I)

Xtaqt nibda billi inkellimkom dwar Tariq Ramadan. Huwa doċenti universitarju ġewwa l-universita ta’ Oxford fejn huwa professur ta’ l-istudji iżlamiċi kontemporanji (Kulleġġ ta’ St Antony ġewwa l-istitut ta’ l-istudji orjentali). Ramadan ma hux biss professur universitarju għax hu ukoll persunalita medjatika bi preżenza qawwijja fuq il-mezzi tax-xandir dinjija (mis-CNN sa Al-Jazeera sa TV Iranjani) fejn sikwit ikun preżenti jiddiskuti l-islam fis-soċjeta kontemporanja – b’mod partikolari fis-soċjeta ewropea.  Ħafna misilmin Ewropej iħossu li Ramadan huwa rappreżentant den tal-kawżi u drittijiet tagħhom.

Jekk tfittex ismu fuq youtube issib ħafna interventi tiegħu f’dibattiti u programmi televiżivi u personalment insib li huwa tajjeb li wieħed josserva dawn l-interventi tiegħu biex ikollok perspettiva differenti ta’ kif persuna ta’ twemmin li ma hix nisranija (s’issa t-twemmin dominanti Ewropew) tħabbat wiċċa ma sitwazzjonijiet fejn il-prinċipji, valuri u morali tagħha ikollhom jinsiltu minn ġo soċjeta li trid jew ma tridx kull ma jmur qed issir iktar u iktar eteroġeneja. Ara per eżempju dan il-vidjo qasir:

F’sens liberal-demokratiku ma tistax ma taqbilx mal-konklużjoni kemmxejn relativista ta’ Ramadan. “Live and let live” tinstema soluzzjoni tajba ħafna għall-għawġ kollu imma ikun hawn min jgħidlek (bir-raġun) illi s-sinsla tradizzjonali tal-Ewropa qed jitherrew b’dak il-mod. Tħarsux biss lejn kwistjoni ta’ omosesswalita. Rajt lil Ramadan jiddiskuti l-obbligu tal-velu u d-dritt li nisa misilmin jilbsu il-velu anki fil-pixxini pubbliċi. Ħin minnhom waqt li kien qed jiġi interpellat b’mod pjuttost vivaċi minn ġurnalista qalilha ħaġa li għalijja kienet familjari ħafna. Qal: “Allura biex inkunu liberali u tolleranti b’bħalek irridu nobbligaw lil kullħadd jgħum mingħajr velu?” Hemm hi. Arma komuni dan l-aħħar, nasba li taqbad lill-liberali dgħajjef fl-argumenti imma ferventi fil-proselitizzazzjoni… bl-iskuża tat-tolleranza jispiċċa isir iktar intolleranti.

Imbagħad jgħidlek Tariq li l-Lhud kienu ilhom għexieren ta’ snin bil-ħinijiet differenti għan-nisa filgħodu fil-pixxini pubbliċi imma “ħadd ma qajjem għagħa fuqha”. U jidħlu elementi oħra ta’ tipi oħra ta’ diskriminazzjoni u ta’ tolleranza u l-kobba tibqa titħabbel.

Fil-verita il-kwistjoni qiegħdha f’għażla ta’ soċjeta. Il-kuntratt soċjali impliċitu jimplika qbil fuq tip ta’ soċjeta li trid titfassal. Diskussjonijiet dwar normi u valuri li huma neċessarji għas-soċjeta għandhom jitqiegħdu f’dan il-qafas iktar wiesgħa. X’irridu mis-soċjeta tagħna? Fejn hi sejra bħalissa? B’liema valuri irridu inrawmu lit-tfal? Jekk trid eżempji estremi issib kemm trid bħall-iSpartani antiki li kellhom sistema tagħhom ta’ l-ewġenika. Trid soċjeta li tindokra lil membri tagħha jew waħda li toħloq biss il-“level playing field” utopiku biex imbagħad titlaq lil kullħadd f’tellieqa?

Din id-diskussjoni (u għażla) ma ssirx biss meta tinħoloq soċjeta ġdida b’għanijiet ġodda iżda hija waħda kontinwa. L-irwol ta partiti politiċi u membri tagħhom huwa li jkunu katalisti f’din id-diskussjoni. Li qed jiġri hu li l-valuri u prinċipji tilfu l-importanza tagħhom u saru sekondarji għat-tellieqa għall-poter. Wisq drabi ikollhom isiru kompromessi tal-kuxjenza (jekk ikun għad baqa kuxjenza) u kull ma jmur d-diskussjoni formattiva – dik li ssawwar is-sisien li fihom titrawwem is-soċjeta ma hix qiegħdha issir. Issir biss metadiskussjoni b’dak li jissejħu “catchwords” illi huma tifkira imbiegħda (souvenir) ta’ żmien ieħor meta l-valur kien sovran u l-bniedem kien verament uman – verament umanista.

Diskussjoni ma hix ġlieda biex timponi jew tolleranza relativista li iddgħajjef imma proċess soċjali meditattiv u ta’ żvilupp li jwassal għat-tisħiħ tal-membri kollha a prescindere mit-twemmin u ħsieb individwali tagħhom. Allura iva, meta Tonio Borg iqum fil-parlament u jħeġġeġ lill-membri kollha sabiex “iħaddnu t-twemmin tagħhom” huwa mhux biss xieraq imma neċessarju. Imma dak huwa l-ewwel pass biss. Li tagħraf li twemminek ma hux universali u li tkun lest tiddiskuti, tinvestiga u tistħarreġ l-aħjar mezz kif bi twemminek u forsi ukoll bl-input ta’ twemmin ħaddieħor ittejjeb il-qagħda soċjali huwa t-tieni pass.

Dak il-pass kif se naraw ma hux ħafif. Huwa pass mimli riflessjonijiet, ftuħ għal ideat u iva… fejn hemm bżonn… kompromessi.

 

Categories
Mediawatch Values

Conscience, liberally speaking

François Hollande has found himself in quite a fix. His government is currently pushing the kind of law that is very easily labelled as ‘liberal’ (and consequently carries all the baggage that you might identify with the word these days). It’s France – the epitome of laïcité – and you’d expect the citizens of the republic to be either enthousiastes or at the most nonchalantes about the adoption of a law that has been dubbed “Marriage pour tous” (marriage for everyone). Yep. The biggie in France right now (apart from the herd of elephants in the corner called Angela Merkel, the Economist and the failing economy) is the new law that finally legalises same-sex marriages.

The debate is not so simple. Protests this weekend led to up to 100,000 catholics hitting the streets. In some cases we had violent scenes against the French version of FEMEN who had bullied the protesters in their usual topless garb with the words “IN GAY WE TRUST” writ all over their angry boobies (like angry birds but sexier) and spraying “Holy Sperm” out of cannisters. The religious organisations – still unable to get to grips with the very basis of laïcité are vociferous in their criticism. It’s not just the Malta of Tonio Borg that has obvious trouble coming to terms with certain concepts.

What was really intriguing were François Hollande’s declarations yesterday. Faced with a backlash from the mayors of many municipalities who found the idea of having to bind two persons of the same sex in marriage appalling he came up with a controversial solution. We still have freedom of conscience. He said. They are free to step back and nominate a delegate in their stead. He said. The possibilities of delegation can even be widened. He said. (In the likely scenario of a whole commune of representatives – from deputy mayor to cleaner of the Hotel de ville – refusing to preside over a lay marriage he is suggesting that they nominate “a valid outsider”).

Really François? How bloody socialist of you. Seems to me that the socialists of the 21st century are all bla and no substance. The proverbial men without balls (and women without…. oh you know… balls). What is the bloody point of asserting a right within a lay constitution only to say that there is a freedom of conscience involved and that the official person appointed by government to sanction that right might step out because he does not like it? Is the socialist movement asserting that it is a right or is it not? I’d love to see the gay mayor of Juan-les-Pins (disclaimer I don’t know whether he really is gay) refusing to sanction a heterosexual marriage… claiming that his conscience dictates otherwise. Where does this stop? What civic rights and duties could we thenceforth forego on the basis that we are conscientious objectors.

You know Monsieur Hollande, my conscience does not see paying exorbitant taxes in too good a light. I think I’ll take a pass and leave the tax form empty…. In today’s jargon messy Hollande deserves to have one big WTF? tattooed across his chest and paraded all along the Champs Elysées.

***

So while Hollande was busy crafting an escape vehicle for all the officials in his country whose conscience barred them from performing certain duties within their “portofoglio”, his colleagues within the European Socialist Party were taking a vote with regards to whether or not back that great Conscientious Politician Tonio Borg. In the end the Nays had it. Sure, socialist leader Swoboda seems to have quite a fancy for Tonio (not that kind Mr Borg) but for two-thirds of the grouping, Tonio had not provided enough guarantees. What guarantees I hear you ask? Well, the socialists in Europe expect Tonio Borg to never raise a conscientious objection to whatever projects the Commission embarks upon based on the laws of the treaties.

At the end of the session Maltese Labour MEP Edward Scicluna had this to say on facebook (where else?):

“An hour long humiliating experience I, as a Maltese, could have done without in group meeting today. Irreparable damage to our reputation. […] Condescendingly Malta pigeon-holed as the most backward and intolerant in Europe. This as a positive reason why EP should approve Borg.”

Apart from the fact that we have yet another example of garbled nonsense from yet another politician it is hard to decipher whether Scicluna is angrier at the fact that the Socialists were being condescending to Malta or whether he is angry at the fact that they seem to be intent on rejecting Borg’s nomination. Scicluna is a socialist himself so it would not be too big a deal were he trying to give the impression of both. They’re a strange breed these socialists – and they’re about to do another of their “free conscience” moves by allowing their europarliamentarians a “free vote” : which basically translates into “we cannot make head or tail about what we really want so best leave it to the disparate group to send a garbled message”.

***

Finally yesterday was also the day when the Church of England’s synod session continued. Hot on the agenda was the introduction of female bishops in a church that has already embraced the concept of lady priests (that’s not a cross-dressing father but an honest-to-god female with a dog collar). The “House of Laity” (The synod is tricameral, consisting of the House of Bishops, the House of Clergy and the House of Laity) fell 6 votes short of approving the motion that would allow women to be appointed Bishops. Both the House of Bishops and the House of Clergy had obtained the 2/3 majority necessary for the motion to pass but this fell at the final house – the one where the lay members of the church are represented.

The vote against women bishops included some women’s votes and this was a huge disappointment for the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams. The new Archbishop Justin Welby has also described the vote as a disappointment. Interestingly, the Bishop of Christchurch (New Zealand – where female bishops have been ordained for decades) Victoria Matthews described the result of this vote as “the product of fear”.

***

21st century Europe might be afflicted with economic problems. Beneath these problems lies a deeper moment of crises that is shaking the foundations of our moral and political compasses. Much of what happens around us today is a result of this struggle that is afflicting or effecting the collective conscience of the Old World.