Category: Uncategorized

Categories
Campaign 2013 Uncategorized

The Hidden Hand, Fundamentalist Liberals and other tales

Something strange happened in parliament yesterday. George Vella meant to congratulate Tonio Borg for his appointment to the post of Commissioner and apparently did so. In doing so though he came up with some weird theory about a “hidden hand” that could have been behind John Dalli’s resignation (so he did resign?) and the opposition to Tonio Borg. I have developed a pavlovian reaction to any kind of conspiracy theory that involves “hidden hands” or “evil cliques” or “axis of terror” so George Vella does not kick off to a good start with me on this point.

It gets worse though. I am not about to speculate on whether or not the “hidden hand” really exists and what the purpose of this veiled limb might really be because I’d rather concentrate on the metamessages that filtered through before and after Tonio’s victorious vote in the EP.

Labour’s National Interest

George Vella’s “hidden hand” theory was wrapped in the sweet progressive packaging of a collective Labour message dubbed “Fl-Interess Nazzjonali” (in the national interest). There was some interesting reading to be had there. Leader Joseph had committed the pack to backing Tonio while explaining that it would not be an easy affair – presumably because he had some insider info as to what would be happening to Tonio Borg’s CV in the run up to the vote. Which can only mean one thing – that Labour’s men knew of the ideological baggage problematics that would surface during the grilling and in the run up to the vote.

So what did progressive labour do? It is not a given fact that Labour should have joined the wolves baying for Tonio’s blood simply because it is supposed to be “progressive”. That definition of progressive plays into the hands of the “liberals are intolerant bigots” crowd in any case. There had to be a reason though why Labour actually wanted to back Tonio Borg’s nomination. It could have been easier after all joining the sceptic wing of the socialist grouping who kept requesting commitment after commitment from the nominee. Instead Labour joined the Borg Backers. They claimed to be ashamed of the belittling of Malta and its portrayal as a backward nation – not too clear whether they were disappointed because this was the stark reality or simply because calling Malta names is just not done.

So when it came to saying why they backed Tonio they came up with what Wilfred Owen called “The Old Lie” – national interest. Mintoff must be applauding in his tomb. In other words Labour does not have a principled position on Tonio Borg. Labour just wanted Tonio Borg’s vote to go through “għax Malti”. A bit like the rush to get likes for some obscure international competition simply because we should back people who are  Maltese you know.In the end Labour just showed that it has absolutely no clout within its europarliament grouping and that once again it is a party that is unable to stand up for a principle whenever necessary.

Free votes. Thank God they don’t cost money.

The Nationalists and Fundamentalist Liberals

While the Labour party hid behind the “babaw barrani” or as he is to be known henceforth “the hidden hand” to hide their spineless antics, the nationalist party upped the ante in an area in which it is an expert. We witnessed over a few weeks the demonisation and character assassination of anything remotely liberal. By grouping the bungling idiots who upstaged Tonio Borg’s “grilling” with misinformed questions with those who are genuinely concerned with Tonio Borg’s suitability the nationalists adapted their “zokk u l-fergha” campaign to the present set of circumstances.

Suddenly requesting a commitment from Tonio Borg with regards to certain points which remained open to doubt after his grilling made someone “a liberal bigot”. Rubbish. They were entitled to request whatever commitments they deemed necessary. Once Tonio signed them they should have also got on with it and voted him in. They had his written word after all. That Tonio still has to deal with his conscience in those particular circumstances where he will be working on programmes that are not compatible with his beliefs is neither here nor there. So long as he does the job it’s fine. At most he can hold his nose while dealing with the shit. Or resign. Either that or he should have done as Eddie Fenech Adami advised him and never signed that list.

But back to the nationalist’s new chimera. They are fast transforming the image into one reminiscent of the baby-eating communists of the early post-war. Liberals, they’ll rape your children and sleep with your pet cat if you’re not too careful. Liberals, they’re intolerant and don’t know where they left their manners. We know it’s a load of rubbish but the PN machine is in full swing to shoot down these upstarts who might differ from them on more than one point of principle.

The funny thing is that ideally many of these liberals who are in a silent minority potentially form part of the critical mass of swing votes. Even funnier is the fact that no matter how much of a battering they will get from the PN, come election day they will be faced with the usual “wasted vote” dilemma and before you know it it’s a nice number 1 next to Manuel Delia et al.

Middle Fingers

You’ve got to admit. It’s a weird political world that we inhabit. Our progressives are busy warning us about the foreign hidden hands that militate against our national interest. Our conservatives are busy accusing those of a mildly more liberal opinion of being intolerant and fundamentalist. As all this goes on the parties agree to bury the hatchet to pass a very conservative IVF law, still have not got anywhere on the question of same-sex marriages and will be darned before they admit that their house is not open to the normal sort of liberal democrats.

Meanwhile the spin machines will easily oblige with a few articles here and there balancing the need to shoot at Labour with the need to emphasise at how useless the bunch of wishy washy liberals is. All the while they fail to get the joke.

And the joke is on them.

note: attached image is an early one from the notorious shtf collection that has suddenly become topical again

Categories
Uncategorized

The State of Our Unions

Chris Said must not be too happy with the reception that has been afforded the Civil Cohabitation Partnerships Bill. The MGRM and AD as well as the Civil Rights group Aditus have all slammed one aspect or another of the bill. It must be said that the greatest hype has been around the expectations that had been instilled among the gay community with regards to a move that would finally constitute the adoption of a gay marriage law in Malta. Not being an infallible sentient being I am not sure whether I am getting all the signs right but I do have more than a modicum of suspicion that there is more than a strong tinge of confusion in the matter from all parties concerned – either wilfully and in line with particular agendas or unwittingly and underlined by a particular level of ignorance of what the law is about.

On PACS and othe civil partnerships

Let us begin with the abstract – away from the hustle and bustle of what is the current line of thought in Malta. The first point that must be clearly established is that a law on civil partnerships and a law on gay marriage are two very different pieces of legislation. The fact that the former (a civil union law) could facilitate the life of gay couples (and that is an understatement) does not in any way make the two any less different. The clearest and most straightforward example is France and French law where thankfully the confusion that may be brought about by the religion inspired forms of marriage is virtually non-existent.

Since the 15th November 1999 France has what is called a PACS -translated in English as a civil solidarity pact. By definition it is an agreement between two adults (see: no mention of gender or blood relation) who enter such an agreement with the purpose of jointly organising and administering their lives. It changes their situation in the eyes of the law: couples are said to be pacsé on their status description and they stand to be considered as a unit in different situations such as fiscal calculations and entitlements as well as presumptions in the case of inheritance. PACS was introduced in France when marriage was on the downturn and was definitely not exclusively considered as a marriage solution for gay couples (in 2012, 94% of PACS were between opposite sex couples). It goesd without saying though that the concept of a civil union or a recognised cohabitation includes the possibility of same-sex couples.

PACS was never intended to replace or come close to the concept of marriage – the civil concept mind you. Most civil unions are intended in this manner.

Same-sex Marriage

Very different from PACS is the legislation of gay marriages. If we look at our Wikipedia fact machine we will see the following verbal venn diagram:

Currently 22 of the 51 countries in Europe recognize some type of same-sex unions, among them a majority of members of the European Union. Eight European countries legally recognize same-sex marriage, namely Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. An additional fourteen have a form of civil union or unregistered cohabitation. San Marino only allows immigration and cohabitation of a citizen’s partner. Several countries are currently considering same-sex union recognition.

Do note the difference. 22 countries recognise some type of same-sex unions. Of these eight recognise same-sex marriage. The additional fourteen have a form of civil union or unregistered cohabitation. Malta’s Bill would add it to the latter fourteen. It has nothing to do with the formal recognition of gay marriages. Even after the Cohabitation Bill is passed we would still be aeons away from any form of legal sanction of marriage between same-sex couples.

So what’s happening in Malta?

I have it on quite a reliable source that on the eve of last election a deal was struck between a panicking Nationalist party and the MGRM. The deal was simple: MGRM would block vote for PN and PN would enact a cohabitation law. That got some uber necessary votes away from the PL (the hopeful vote) and the AD (the protest vote). Let’s call this the Xarabank deal for want of a better description. Now we know how the PN legislative agenda has been disrupted ever since the divorce surprise but the Bill had to be shoved through as promised otherwise the next election would find the PN with its pants down… and we don’t want any of that do we?

So we have a cohabitation bill being drafted at gunpoint so to speak and whatsmore – as Raphael Vassallo pointed out – being piloted by a former head honcho of the anti-divorce movement. What we end up with is a bill that seems to be blatantly discriminatory and fails to produce the goods insofar as the goal of a solid civil unions law is concerned. It’s the second (non-couple) part of the law that has drawn much attrition – mainly for what are being described as discriminatory conditions.

The bill fails to take into consideration the situation of siblings sharing the same household – failing to factor in recent ECJ case law in this regard. It also ignores completely the tax issues relating to the civil union – practically neutering one of the most important aspects of the law. These criticisms – and, if they are proven to be true, the criticisms aimed at the different time-frame for the recognition of civil unions depending on the type of union – are not only founded but very important if any bearing is to be had on the final version of the law.

There is though the issue of “family” and “gay marriage” that has been thrown into the discussion by most of the groups reacting to the bill. Such talk is highly misplaced. Fine tuning the Cohabitation Bill is not only good but imperative. The criticism and constructive suggestions should be confined to the declared aims and intentions of the bill. Same-sex marriages is definitely not one of them. Don’t get me wrong –  it will never be too soon for a discussion and process to be opened in order to have a same-sex marriage law in Malta. It is important to recognise the difference though and not to be drawn into facile conclusions.

The Cohabitation Partnerships Bill does seem to need more than a bit of fine tuning. It would be unfair and very underhand of all parties concerned should the remit of such a bill be extended to the introduction of same-sex unions. Such an introduction does not deserve to be made surreptitiously. Rather. It should be made openly, consciously and following an open national consultation – possibly including a vote (unless all our parties include the proposal in their next manifesto – in which case we will just be voting in the government that would turn the proposal to legislation).

If the country was deemed mature enough to debate, vote upon and ultimately enact a divorce law then there should be no reason why the same should not hold true of same-sex marriages. I for one believe it’s inevitable.

Change. You want it? Vote for it.

 

Categories
Mediawatch Uncategorized

Bland about Mintoff

When author Immanuel Mifsud was last in Luxembourg he attended a Q&A session. Someone in the crowd began her question to the author with the phrase “I’ve never read any of your books but…”, I cringed and switched off after that. I had resolved not to talk about the “Dear Dom” movie until I got to actually see it – which I hopefully will this April if it’s still running after the 4th. This post is not about the movie itself but about reactions to the movie and was prompted by Yana Mintoff Bland’s comments to the Times.

In a nation that is defined with reference to “the other” where narratives are painted in dual tones and where national holidays are as divisive as ever it is hard to keep to the objective plot. The issue here is whether Pierre Ellul’s Dear Dom commits any injustice towards Dom Mintoff – the politician. By examining that issue you are also perforce obliged to tread the dangerous ground of puncturing “the Mintoff myth” – or the mythology that centres around the greater image of the man who can boast among his nicknames “Salvatur ta’ Malta” (Saviour of a nation).

From what I could gather from the blurbs and promos, Ellul’s work is a sort of letter addressed to the ageing leader that ends up becoming a carousel run through his political career. But what is Yana Mintoff Bland complaining about? Dom’s daughter is now a candidate for the Labour party in one of the districts where her dad’s myth continues to shine (notwithstanding the “traditur!” interlude).  The heading of the Times article  (Yana Mintoff: Family speaking to lawyers on Dear Dom film) leads one to presume that Mintoff’s family is preparing to sue Pierre Ellul (or Falkun) – at least most people do not “speak to lawyers” just for kicks.

I see two problems here. First of all Mintoff Bland’s grievances are with the bias that is apparently evident throughout the film. Mintoff Bland however seems to emphasise the character depiction of Mintoff as in his power-driven motivation as well as the idea that he is vengeful and angry. Interestingly there are very few allegations on the part of Mintoff Bland that are based on what would be a misrepresentation of facts. While she may not like the way Mintoff’s character and motivation is portrayed she has little to say about whatever facts are pictured in the movie. Whether a documentary’s judgement on somebody’s character could be subject to a challenge in the court of law is highly dubious.

There is another issue that is glaringly contradictory. On the one hand Mintoff Bland would argue that Mintoff Snr never got a chance to reply to Pierre Ellul’s letters and more importantly that he would have done so. On the other hand Mintoff Bland seems to be prepared to take legal action in the name of her father. Which would not make much sense unless her father was incapable of doing so himself.

These two issues lead  me to conclude that the only reason Mintoff Bland is kicking up a fuss is to attract media attention and to appear the paladin defender of the myth that has been built around her father.

When I think back to the bio-flicks I have seen from “The Iron Lady” through “Invictus“, “Malcolm X” and “the King’s Speech” I realise that behind every politician there is a human with human traits. This humanity is defined through interaction with others and the producer of a bio-flick will inevitably set his or her angle or agenda or theme throughout the documentary. It is not to be judged as good or bad but rather with a measure that bears in mind that history and the documentation thereof is rarely, if ever objective.

You can read twenty books about the life of Fidel Castro and you are guaranteed to get twenty different versions.  It’s not because it’s Castro. It could be Lenin, Kennedy, Mao, Jesus (hell, there’s not one official biography of J-dude but four – Matthew’s, Mark’s, Luke’s and John’s) or Gandhi. Paul Ellul’s movie should be taken for what it is – a perspective on the life and works of one of Malta’s noisiest politicians from the twentieth century.

Like Castro before him, Mintoff’s hard-headed reply could probably be implied without even watching the film…

“La historia me absolverà” … then again, maybe it won’t.

Categories
Mediawatch Uncategorized

The Common Good Nazis

Austin Bencini has been busy spinning the “hurt” every single anti-divorce lobbyist must surely have felt when their position on the Common Good was equated to that of the Nazis. How bloody typical. “Twegga‘” (it hurts) is a common adjective in our Don Camillo and Peppone political parlance. It is a technique favoured by the politician who was dying for an excuse to avoid the subject matter and discovers that the opponent might just have thrown him a lifeline with some vague and spurious accusation. Twegga‘ is the political discussion equivalent of the footballer faking an injury and squirming on the ground in the hope of conning the referee into an undeserved send-off.

So there you have Bencini and the anti-divorce parade taking a break from the God Will’s It theories to switch to the sympathy approach. “We have been unjustly accused of being Nazis”. Not. From the little I have read of the yawn-inducing exchanges between the army for marriage and the battalion of the second marriage nothing could be further from the truth. It’s no as though the fact that equating the Nazi arguments for the common good to those of Austin Bencini will change anything from the actual substance of the debate. But Austin does not care about that does he? He cares about labelling his opponents as liars while squirming on the ground faking a career-threatening injury.

Now where’s the referee?

Categories
Uncategorized

Battleships

There are unconfirmed reports of a Libyan naval vessel in Maltese territorial waters. The reports that appeared on Al Jazeera are doing the press rounds as we speak. This follows reports earlier today that the AFM are on “stop leave” as well as separate reports that there has been an official demand from Libya that Malta return the two fighter jets.

Our bellicose neighbour might have found time for some sabre rattling while our neighbour to the north confirmed yesterday that it had dispatched vessel “Elettra” to the international forces off Libya. It is time for some important decisions for the Maltese government. This is not the time for a government that relies on flimsy press statements condemning “violence” but for one that takes a stand.

Our parties have become used to the idea that “doing something” about an issue means issuing a press release – take their ridiculous habit of congratulating Eurovision contest winners. Well this is definitely not Eurovision though there is no doubt that all eyes are on Malta.

Categories
Uncategorized

Why Free Vote is not a position on Divorce

I’ve been active on Facebook today trying to spread the J’accuse list of indictments on the divorce debate in Malta. At one point I was trying to post links to the note on the wall of any politician who ventured onto Facebook to discuss divorce. One of my posts was on Evarist Bartolo’s wall as the labour MP had added another “parable” about a married man who has seen the light and will not be an obstacle to divorce for other people. Varist is one of the Labour MP’s who tries hard to give the impression that the PL actually has a position on divorce – so I asked him. I asked a simple question: What is Labour’s position on divorce? No answer from Bartolo of course, although I did get accused by some guy that I was some kind of mouthpiece for Lou Bondi (!).

In any case, at one point I got to have an interesting discussion with Marlene Mizzi who pointed out that the PL’s stand on divorce is actually the free vote fin case of a vote in parliament. I’m reproducing the rest of the exchange (till now) here in the hope that this kind of discussion can provoke more comments on this issue.

Marlene Mizzi:

‎@JRZanmmit: this insistence for some to keep asking the PL to ‘take a stand’ reminds me of those who who are deaf not because they cannot hear, but because they do not want to listen.

The PL HAS taken a stand in the divorce issue and that is to give their MPs a FREE VOTE. It would be very contradictory for this statemnet to be credible with the PL simultaneously stating it’s position for/ against divorce.
The PN on the other hand has taken this incredible stand where declaring itsefl agaisnt divorce but also giving its MPs a free vote .Ara kif jistgha jkin it-tnejn!! Now we will wait and see how many of the NP MPs will vote ‘ freely’ and not tow the party’s line- as should be expected from them once the PN took an official stand.

I am all for political parties to take stands . It is what is expected of them. But I make an exception in this case and agree entirely with the PL . Infact i know for certain that a number of PN MPs privaelty opine that the PN should have never taken an official political stand and the insistence for the PL to do likewise is to neutralise this strategic mistake. I do not think that Josph Muscat will be falling for this one!

Jacques René Zammit:
The PL stand on a free vote is NOT a position on the divorce issue. FREE VOTE is an ABDICATION of political responsibility and an opportunist move that reads: as a party (a progressive party to boot) I refuse to take a stand because I am unable to refer to set of basic values that I represent.

There is nothing for JM to “fall for” here. It is actually a move for leadership. I am for divorce legislation because I believe divorce legislation brings into force a civil right that can be availed of by a minority. As a party that claims to be on a progressive high this “position” on divorce is a double abdication of responsibility. The pro-divorce movement should have found a natural home in a progressive party – instead it is an orphan of a party too busy trying to please everything under the sun.

Read the comments of labour supporters Marlene. They are very obviously labouring under the impression that labour means divorce and that Joseph’s party automatically means a transition away from conservative Gonzi’s policy. How wrong they are. How unable to see spinelessness of this position of Joseph’s. Does he not realise that the free vote is a usurpation of a parliamentary seat and vote?

I’ve made my position clear here:
http://www.facebook.com/notes/jacques-rene-zammit/i-accuse-an-indictm…ent-related-to-the-divorce-debate-in-malta/10150139555532744

I stand by what I said. For those who will answer me by comparing PL to PN I will simply say that they miss my point. I am angry at both PL, PN as well as other social groups involved in this referendum debacle. I am angry because they have ALL abdicated from their social responsibility – all this in the name of short term gain.

Both Joseph’s faux progressives and Gonzi’s procrastinating conservatives are doing a disservice to a relevant minority in this country who would love to have the opportunity to exercise a choice – a right to remarry.

That is a fact. Free vote is a false vote. A usurpation of parliamentary democracy, an abdication from representative duties and the biggest heist of democratic liberties yet.

Marlene Mizzi:

JRZ: you have made some valid points and some I do not agree with. If I were adn MP I would rather have a leader give me a free vote on this ‘sui generis’ issue ,than a leader who tries to take the mickey by declaring the party’s official stand AND tell me I can vote freely. Perhaps that is why the PM was having meetings one to one today at Castille– to tell them to vote as they see fit. U hallina!

I can just about imagine the converstion this morning at Castille” I called you in just to remind you that you can vote freely in the divorce issue , ta…. as long as it is a NO. Ok ?Understood? Trid li Gordon jibghatlek email ha jfakkrek?”

Jacques René Zammit:

Interesting Marlene. But that’s not the point is it? Predictably, you are lost comparing PL and PN – it’s good fodder for the circus audience used to comparing their champions but is it really what is needed for a debate on the introduction of divorce legislation? Not really is it?

Your reasoning is as an “MP” and his preferences vis-a-vis his leader’s instructions. Fine it’s a preference. But it has nothing to do with the duties of representation towards the electorate. What do we elect parties for? What do we elect MPs for? What does an MP represent? His conscience? That’s bullshit and you know it. He represents his constituency and more directly his voters. That is how our electoral system defines representation.

Political parties are our only way of identifying the values and principles of those elected on their ticket. The free vote not only cuts off the umbilical chord from the party but it also renders them unanswerable to the electorate that put MPs in parliament in the first place. You will note that this applies to BOTH PN and PL. Frankly I don’t care which is the worst position of the two – in my mind they are both hopelessly out of order.

What does a free vote tell the electorate? It tells the electorate I don’t care what you think, I don’t have a position as a party ON DIVORCE, so I’ll just leave each MP to vote as he wishes. I emphasise the as he wishes. Did you vote for Silvio Parnis, Evarist Bartolo Karl Gouder or David Agius so they can sit in our house of representatives and vote as they wish on issues related to specific civil rights?

You’re right we may disagree. But please be clear about the fact that the position you prefer is one that renders parliamentary representation redundant. Might as well have dukes and barons voting as they will…. as for the people… who cares no?