Category: Uncategorized

This morning at 0730 hrs the police in Calais encircled the illegal camp known as “la jungle” and began the evacuation of what was left of its population. La Jungle consisted of a run down camp built by refugees and sans papiers as a temporary base before attempting to hop off the mainland and into Britain in one way or another. The majority of the Jungle residents were Afghan refugees from the war on terror.

This is not the first major evacuation in the north of France. A few years ago a Red Cross camp had to be evacuated in a similar manner. The same reasons persist today since these camps tend to attract criminals – or rather the conditions within the camps tend to foster criminals – and people living within the region are not too happy about it. La Jungle was France’s major immigrant problem – and Britain’s too because more often than not the residents of La Jungle were only waiting for the right moment to get across the Channel.

Meanwhile six EU states have pledged to resettle refugees currently residing in Malta’s own “Jungle”. The states that are France, Slovenia, Portugal, Luxembourg, Slovakia and Lithuania. Reporting the talks among EU interior ministers about the immigrant problem, Deutsche Welle highlighted the obstacle of the current recession as a major problem in the talks:

Recession worries outweigh problems of refugees

Countries which are further away from the immigration front line are more concerned with getting out of the economic crisis than taking in refugees –  even though the commission has proposed a 4,000-euro ($5,900) aid package to help countries offset the costs for accepting each migrant. While the EU’s traditional power-brokers, Britain, Germany and France argued that solidarity is important, they also insisted that they are already doing their part. Germany’s Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble pointed out that his country has already taken in more refugees than any other nation in the EU.

Even Luxembourg, the EU’s richest state in per-capita terms, has “limited resources” to take in refugees, “because of the size of our country,” Interior Minister Nicolas Schmit said. Czech deputy interior minister Lenka Ptackova Melicharova stressed, as she debated the proposals with her counterparts, that “there should be no limit to (national capitals’) ability to choose” when, how and if they take in refugees.

During the talks, UNHCR Commissioner Guterres, who attended the meetings spoke out against Italy’s new policy of intercepting and returning refugees to Libya. According to Guterres, the Libyan Jamahiriya is not safe for the returned immigrants.

An amendment to the Animal Welfare Act will soon address a lacuna in the law  whereby the keeping of wild and dangerous animals is not properly regulated. Sources at the Resources Ministry confirmed that this amendment will soon be proposed in Parliament and the Times links this amendment to the finding of the Bengal Tiger earlier this summer.

Interestingly the business of government also includes the occasional filling of lacunae in the law. By their very nature, laws can never be perfect and all encompassing so the occasional touching up of a law in order to cover new or unprecedented situations is normal run off the mill stuff. It does become worrying however when the lacuna-filling trend almost becomes the norm and the government is seen to be unable to come up with a proper programme of legislation that coherently adapts to the demands and necessities of modern times.

Hunting, fireworks, building permits, tax collection and now dangerous animals. The list is getting too long for comfort. What it does show is an inability to engage with social forces who could provide early warning lights to such problems – or even worse an inability to decide which of these warning lights should be given the necessary weight. The problem with governance by opinion poll is that in a country of “a hundred persons with a hundred opinions” you risk ending with contradictory policies. We cannot forget the verted interests of certain “lobby groups” or in some cases (rich) “lobby persons” who might distort the perception of public opinion to the extent of engendering either inactivity or ill-advised activity from the part of the administration.

The state of the administration and government is pretty clear with the knee-jerk policies. What is even more worrying is that the opposition shows no sign of being different. There’s no Nick Clegg in Maltese politics – no new, different programme that is working on the new face of the economy and new social requirements all of which are wrapped within the underlying framework of the priorities of environmental considerations.

What we (k)need is a liberal democrat alternative. What we have is the jerks and their reactions. And I am not apologising for the ludicrous pun.

This article and accompanying Bertoon appeared in today’s edition of The Malta Independent on Sunday.

L’Oreal, the cosmetics giant has commissioned an encyclopaedia that encompasses the history of Beauty. They are not the first and will certainly not be the last to tackle this topic – one can only think of Umberto Eco or Alain de Botton to mention but two titans who tackled the subject. L’Oreal’s encyclopaedic effort is interesting as it is a multidisciplinary effort that spans a hundred thousand years – and if anyone is interested in the works they will be available both in English and in French.

The concept of beauty has definitely evolved over time and judging by the disparities between the statuettes found at prehistoric temples and the waifs that populate the word of fashion today it will continue to do so as times change and people (and their tastes) change with them. I found myself pondering on an interesting question this week when watching another installment of the Clark documentaries (yes, the pace is slow – too much work at the good old Curia). The discussion had moved on to Van Eyck’s extraordinary painting of Giovanni Arnolfini and (what most persons suppose to be) his wife. Ever since my Systems of Knowledge days and my one year stay in Bruges I have always had an affectionate eye for this painting.

I remember Ernst Gombrich’s emphasis on the particulars of Van Eyck’s portrait. The little details in the painting are one of the points that make it stand out in fact – that apart from Van Eyck’s genius hand of course. There’s the pose and dress of the merchant and wife in their reception room (yes, they did have beds in reception rooms in those days). They are dressed in their finest clothes, fine jewellery and all around them are left indices of their social status – a sort of muffled opulence that would be described in today’s terms as a hushed up “bling bling”.

From the ornate chandelier (expensive) to the oriental carpet (ditto) to the oranges (a hard to find fruit in the north in those days) everything about the painting says that Giovanni Arnolfini was a latter day Soros and Gates rolled into one. The wool merchant’s message with this portrait of himself and his dear beloved is clear: Yes, I can. He may not be an aristocrat but he has bought his way into the fine corridors of opulence and this portrait in the northern city of merchants is a testament to that power, signed by none other than the great Jan Van Eyck – who could not resist the temptation to note that on the wall in the painting: Johannes Van Eyck fuit hic. You’ve seen it before on the child’s schooldesk: “Johnny woz ‘ere”, only this Johnny is Johannes and the moment encapsulated for posterity on canvas is one of the most brilliant renaissance paintings we get to witness in this day and age.

You’d think that with the number of aspirant legislators in this country they’d have got the lawmaking business down to a tee. Every candidate that aspires to represent you in the hallowed halls of parliament (and in the future of Piano’s parliament) is also aspiring to form a significant part of the law-making process. Parliament votes on, amends and approves, laws proposed to it by the Executive branch that is wholly made up of individuals that had been elected to parliament in the first place.

The juridical branch of the separation of powers is there to “interpret” the law if I may borrow a phrase from EU Treaty parlance – and to ensure that the law is observed. The tool for the juridical branch is the law as framed and enacted by the other two branches – the executive (government) and the legislative (parliament). So when the Times of Malta publishes an article that states that “consequences of interdiction (are) lighter than thought” in the VAT case we should start asking questions like: How come nobody int he exectuive or legislative has noticed this anomaly?

Not that it will be particularly relevant in the local Maltese scene for a while now but we can continue to draw lessons from the various coalition governments or formations around the European political world if we would like to.

In Germany, Angela Merkel is preparing for the upcoming election. She has recently pledged to shed the uncomfortable coalition with the SDP should she get re-elected. The choice is mainly pinned on economic plans since SDP and Merkel’s party do not see eye to eye on the measures to combat the recession. Merkel did not however rule out another coalition – this time with the pro-market Free Democrats. It’s not the coalition that seems to not work for Angela but the partners within.

Labour Leader Joseph Muscat has awoken from the summer slumber and shows no signs of changing his ways from that of Opinion Poll Sucker. New Labour is not forming into a party with a set of values as its backbone. Rather than a sort of “Third Way” manifesto, Joseph Muscat – a product of the media and marketing PLPN factory – opts to go for the formula of “Our Size Pleases All”. Every news item and every twist must be seen from the point of the “crowd pleaser” scenario – and if that also includes disagreeing with Gonzi’s boys then all the better.

Take his latest pronouncement on the VAT cases. They send the wrong message to those who observe the law says Muscat. He obviously does not have to cross many fingers in the hope that observers do not notice that the law was applied in these circumstances. Is Muscat asking for extra-legal punishment? Even so, as Daphne rightly pointed out (A general interdiction is nothing, says Vince, TMIS 13.09.09), the punishment of general interdiction is not exactly a slap on the back of the hand. Does Muscat even have any idea what the law states and what the implications of the punishment really are? I think he does not even care. What is important is that five minute moment when he is feted as Mexxej tal-Oppozizzjoni on radio and is made to feel that his opinion really counts.

What really matters, as with every PLPN exercise nowadays, is the public perception, and in this case the perception is that he is after the big sharks. It’s the barunijiet story all over again although now it’s Inhobbkom Joseph and not Angry Sant spinning the yarn. Muscat’s Labour had been at it earlier this week on the tuna story. It appears that Joe Borg has lost the battle within the Commission and that the persons who profit from tuna fishing and tuna farms in Malta might be in for a big disappointing ban some time soon. I tend to agree with Mark Anthony Falzon (Not on my sushi, TOM 13.09.09) on that one – the interests of the tuna exploiting community are NOT the interests of the majority of the Maltese…. so why the flying fish did Labour have to urge the government to combat the ban? It does not even make opinion poll sense – or does it?

It’s common sense… stupid!