j'accuse

“Have the courage to use your own reason!”

Picture a room in a house in Konigsberg, Prussia on a cold September in 1784. A small, puny and fragile blue-eyed man has just finished penning a short essay called “An answer to the question ‘What is Enlightenment?'”. The man is Immanuel Kant (you may know him as Monty Python’s “great pissant” in the Philosophers’ Song) and he is considered by many as one of the greatest philosophers in the last 300 years. Sticking closely to Kant’s philosophies you might end up aiding and abetting a murderer by giving him directions to find his next victim (because you cannot lie – you say the truth no matter what the consequence may be)…. on the other hand you might just read this short essay of his and try to understand what this “enlightenment” business is all about.

Kant had a thing about man’s potential emancipation from his “immaturity”. Immaturity for Kant was ‘the inability to use one’s own understanding without the guidance of another’. Immaturity would be self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding but lack of the will to use the understanding without the guidance of another. Hence “Sapere Aude!” … dare to use your own understanding.

I was led serendipitously to this essay of Kant’s because of a series of events, accusations and assertions that have been going on over the past week – most of which centered around two main happenings: firstly there was the ripple effect of the St. John’s Project Saga and secondly there was this “Let’s talk about immigrants in Parliament” issue. More of that later (and hopefully this week in an orderly manner). Let us first dwell for an instance on reasonable man, people with opinions and opinionated farts.

Spoudaios

A while back I had written in this very column about Maltese Relativism. Echoes of the idea came back when friend and former colleague Mark Anthony Falzon wrote on another Sunday paper about how everybody under the sun seems to not only have an opinion but also seems to have the god-given right to flaunt it and throw it at others like some comic piece custard pie. The relativism where “everybody’s right” because “it’s their opinion” was slowly discovered by the more vociferous and controversial of columnists or as we liked to think of them until something went horribly wrong – the opinion columnists.

This week the ideas of relativism came round full circle and when it seemed that a popular movement headed by an NGO had triumphed over the Evil Empire that wanted to desecrate one of our Holiest of Heritage Sites we witnessed the beginning of a haranguing exercise intended to belittle the very head of an NGO who had been awarded some government award or other for her efforts to ensure that our heritage was safeguarded. In other words it all risked becoming too bloody confusing before you could ask “What is so special about underground cisterns?”

Being elsewhere occupied (yes, the new J’accuse is ready and now awaits official launching), I had the luxurious possibility of not having an OPINION on the matter of the project or opposition thereto. I could therefore sit back and watch the mechanisms of public pressure, columnist vitriol and government backtracking from the comfort of an unbiased seat in the matter. Boy what a show that was… a sad one… but a show nevertheless.

Kant had warned us that this was the age of enlightenment. Potential enlightenment he warned. We could all be collectively as enlightened as the million energy saving bulbs that are about to be distributed on Melita BUT there was the important step of using our reason and understanding in order to express ourselves publicly and throw off the yokes of “dogmas and formulas” that are the “ball and chain of our permanent immaturity”. Before Marx, Kant too was talking about alienation… not of the worker, but of the intelligent free thinking reasonable man who allows himself to be alienated by those who would benefit from the curbing of his free thought.

Enlightenment is to be achieved slowly and the most important reform is one that brings about a reform in the way of thinking. The intelligent man who stood back and watched the trading of insults and accusations this week would have noted that this was no revolution. On all sides the marks of an old form of alienation that thrives on prejudices being propagated were still there to see…

Cat’s Paws
Gonzi’s government had only just declared that the project was being withdrawn because it was “dividing the people” (their words not mine), than a great uncoordinated attack on the supposed saviour of the half of the people not wanting the project commenced. Chief Prosecutor in Charge was opinionist Daphne Caruana Galizia who got a bout of bloggorrhea by posting tens of posts all of which were aimed to discredit Astrid Vella, cook up some form of PL-AD collaboration and (you might want to sit down before reading this) bemoan the overrepresentation of AD sympathisers on the Sunday papers. Sure DCG was not the only Cat’s Paw in action but another eminent “blogger” of the old guard piped in with his ha’penny worth of vitriol on the ragged rabble who dared outwit the good old institutional ways.

Meanwhile back at FAA HQ they must have rubbed their hands in gleeful satisfaction as project was abandoned and they issued the fatwa on the members of the Foundation – “Resign” commanded Astrid amidst reports and counter-reports on the Effects of Boring Big Gaps in Globigerina Limestone. Suddenly a “petition” of 1500 signatures became the platform to make the calls of planning and government. You began to worry that you would wake up one day and find that the FAA had declared war on Libya – because the people wanted to do so (it IS on Facebook).

That’s when the fun started: Astrid really believed it was her FAA petition that stopped Gonzi from going to vote – and not a possible backbench rebellion by a couple of politicians eager to get back in the limelight and presumably gunning to get their own back at His Master’s Voice (also known as Gonzi’s choice for next EU Commissioner – not sure the cabinet agrees on this one). Speculation that HMV’s hand in the matter might have had something to do with Daphne’s transformation into the Cat’s Paw of Castille performing the dual exercise of damage limitation and alienation.

There she was screaming “foul” at the FAA and company. How dare they assume to speak for us when they are scarcely 1500 odd individuals? This was in the same week when the Gonzi government with a constitutional relative majority based on 1,500 or so votes opted to avoid a parliamentary showdown and keep away from explaining what was going on to the representatives of all the people. Don’t blame Gonzi of course. Inhobbkom Joseph was up to another stunt in the new found way of doing politics. Having sniffed which way the wind was blowing and having worked out that the formula of JPO + FAA = Egg On Gonzi face was in the offing he chose to be on the side of the “people”… the people being the petition rabble. So there… thanks, to the way we think, Parliament was knocked out, an effort for public pressure through an NGO lost all credibility faster than PLPN propaganda in the mouth of a columnist and the proverbial faeces hit the fan leaving a mess.

A mess of what I hear you ask? A mess of representation and a mess of consultation. Daphne, Mark and yes, even J’accuse, are right when we say that the people might have a right to express their opinion but not to believe that theirs is the only one that is right. I.M.Beck is right to say that there are procedures to be followed and experts to be consulted. Definitely. But the word procedures includes the very important institution of parliament and the checks and balances of our constitution and not the closed doors of cabinet decisions. When, right after the elections I wrote of how carefully the Gonzi government has to tread because of its faint relative majority I never intended that it had no right to govern or take decisions but that in doing so it MUST take into account its feeble relative majority and give even more emphasis to proper consultation. Unleashing the cats and dogs to instil prejudices and denigrate opposition ideas is no way forward.

Prejudiced
“For it is very harmful to propagate prejudices, because they finally avenge themselves on the very people who first encouraged them (or whose predecessors did so)”. Yep. Kant again. You cannot call people stupid for suggesting a moat around Valletta one minute then call other people stupid the next for worrying about and opposing a project that drills holes in the middle of the capital. Also, it’s about time you make up your mind… either Gonzi is right when he agrees with the church that the issue is dividing the people or Astrid is wrong when she says that a large part of the people did not want the project. But not both. It would hardly be “dividing the people” if it were just a quickly assembled list of 1500 petitioners.

To conclude this rather long ramble, the key is in being informed. Do not believe the hype and the spinners. Check and double check any petition. Ask yourself why columnists and opinionated beings like myself are saying certain things. There aren’t only fictitious Cat’s Paws out there but real ones too… busy spinning their version of events for god knows which agenda. The unenlightened people will still be represented by the same bunch and still read the same bunch on Sundays. So long as they stop themselves from asking the right questions they will then wallow in the same prejudices and most times tag along in the name calling.

A Boatload of Immigrant Policies
And as the number of immigrants landing on the islands continues to increase, J’accuse is beginning to find an answer to the question as to whether immigration will be an important issue come the EP elections. Judging by Simon Busuttil’s eagerness to be associated with a Draft Directive that tries to harmonise European laws on employers of illegal immigrants I would say that the PLPN will be trying to get some mileage from this issue. Don’t believe the hype… just ask…

Ask yourself… What does EPP negotiator really mean? Does it mean he wrote the law or that he represented the EPP stand in the negotiations within parliament as to the final text of the draft directive? Is the draft directive a baby of the European People’s Party? Nope. It is a product of the Parliament, mothered by a Socialist MEP and the result of compromises between the major formations that can be seen from the number of final votes in favour (502).

Ask yourself whether Joseph Muscat expects anything concrete to happen by forcing a debate in Malta’s parliament? Not really no. What he knew he would be getting… thanks to the hype that we rarely question… is that he would be SEEN to be doing something. Fellow blogger Keith Grech commented: “thanks to Dr. Muscat’s foresight will offer all Maltese Parliamentaries to expound their thoughts and ideas on the subject without there being any potential risk of a political fall out given that there will be no vote taken in the end” … see? They talk about it and it goes away!

Miscellaneous
Again. I overstep my limit. Here’s some snippets of the other news: look out for Georgia’s Eurovision entry – it’s an anti-Putin song. If it gets accepted my bet is that it wins hands down with douze points from most of the ex-Warsaw Pact. So what do reasonable men think of Ryanair’s 37 hour delay for a Malta-Luton flight? Really. Did they believe that because they insist on calling it a delay we would believe them? It’s carnival time… enjoy the revelrie and check out the new slate (design’s almost over) at www.jacquesrenezammit.com/jaccuse. Remember… Have the courage to use your own understanding… otherwise it is probably best to keep your mouth firmly shut!

This has been j’accuse… enlightening your Sunday reading so others don’t have to!

Jacques is busy snapping shots of Limburg carnival and visiting Charlemagne’s tomb this weekend. You will find the result in the Photo Gallery section of the new J’accuse http://www.akkuza.com.

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

So Inhobbkom Joseph believes that by “breaking the institutional silence” and getting the three score and some parliamentarians to talk about the problem of rising influx of immigrants we will solve the problem. Gonzi’s posse did not believe that the problem warranted any discussion by parliament (which comes as no surprise seeing the disdain for the institution that comes from Dar Centrali these days – it’s only in the case of renegade NGO’s that institutional procedure has to be respected). Before anyone goes on to accuse the accuser of hiding under some green umbrella I have honestly no idea what AD have to say on the issue at this moment in time and looking it up will not change what I have to say by one iota.

Just look at our parties in government and parliamentary opposition and you are reminded of the kid scared to stay in his bedroom alone because of the monster under the bed. Inhobbkom’s solution is to talk about the monster until he is gone (probably by boring the monster to death with confusing and irritating PLPN speak) while Flimkien’s reply is that we best not acknowledge the existence of the monster at all. This coming straight on the heels regarding the Guantanamo Prisoner dilemma vote in the EP – where the PL’s position on the issue was criticised as being hypocritical by the PN because they (the PL) seemed to be ignoring the already existing problem known nationally as “What the Flip Shall we do with all these unwanted boatloads of people?”

Meanwhile the cavalier of “I am not really a through and through nationalist” philosophy is busy taking credit for the latest EP voted document that suggests making the act of  employing illegal immigrants a crime. Now that will stop them won’t it Simon? Simple Simon says…. we have piloted this act through the EP and this will “remove the incentive for illegal immigration” (sic). Here’s Simon’s simple plan: “Apart from being a pull factor for illegal immigration, illegal employment also distorts labour markets and gives rise to exploitation of migrants. The new law will remove this pull factor by punishing illegal employment with common financial, administrative and even criminal sanctions that will apply throughout Europe”.

Now before you stop laughing just remember that Simon is in full EP campaign mode… he had to denigrate the activity of the Socialists on the matter:

Dr Busuttil said he managed a compromise which avoids any obligation to regularise illegal workers and which leaves it up to individual countries to decide whether they want to grant immigrants a temporary residence permit. Both points were pushed by the Socialist group, he said.

Well while Simon was busy working on this “European Law” here is what a Report backed by Parliament on the 5th of February had to suggest regarding asylum centres:

• States move away from a policy of simply detaining people.
• The EU establishes a permanent system of visiting centres.
• Open centres should be encouraged rather than closed ones.
• Food, housing, medical care should always be available.

But back to the “law” which is not a law but a proposal for a directive – that means it COULD become a Directive but it is not one yet. The proposed directive report was by Claudio Fava – a member of the European Socialists, and was adopted in the EP with 552 votes in favour and 105 against with 34 abstentions. Which goes to show, among other things, that no matter how much the local media try to portray it as some EPP law it would be wrong on both counts. It seems to have gathered a wide consensus in the EP and, let me remind you, it is not a law yet.

As for the criminal sanctions being proposed in the directive, one would have to see how far the EP can get away with legislating on criminal law (see UK opt out on the issue)- a very sensitive area still largely exclusive to member states.

So in summary. What are we doing about the immigration problem? Inhobbkom Joseph is still in opportunistic stride and wants to talk, Flimkien Gonzi is still trying to hide things away from any public forum and discussion, and our man in Brussels is desperately being marketed as having reached significant compromises on a law that is not a law… in full European Election momentum.

Spiffin’ innit!