j'accuse

It’s fast becoming the talk of the continent. From the boroughs of London to the barrios of Barcelona, from the districts of Berlin to the Due Balli of Valletta everybody’s feeling the bite of the cold. Luxembourg has long got used of its mantle of snow and after almost five years in the Duchy I have developed a quasi-affinity with the freezing temperatures and stillness of the vanilla sky. Apart from the darned inconvenience whenever it is my turn to shovel the snow outside the common entrance of the apartment block where I live, I have slowly become accustomed to the cold to the point that I am no longer goggle eyed and in awe every time the flakes of snow start their dandruff-like piling on the sidewalk.

Cold it is however and I am told that come Monday Malta is expecting an ultra-cold spell by its standards – of the kind to freeze your whotsits off. Stay inside, keep warm and watch some nice movie. Do your best to stay warm and – here’s a sincere plea from j’accuse – if you know of an elderly person who lives alone do go out of your way to make sure he or she is ok. There is nothing worse than loneliness and cold combined. A warm cuppa and chat will work wonders to revive the spirit and warm the heart.

But mine is not the duty to replace your favourite weatherman, mine it is to rant and rave or depart on yet another weekfull of interesting discoveries from near and far. You will find that this week’s article will resemble more of an Emporium of sorts than the usual coherent and cogent flow of illuminated thoughts that constitutes the weekly J’accuse fare. The management apologises in advance for any inconvenience caused but the work rate at the good old court is such that justifies Marx’s old rant about alienation of the worker and afterhours we have continued to obsess in a very compulsive manner as to the shape and form of the new j’accuse home. That and catching up with the latest episodes of Lost is just about what J’accuse has been up to… what little titbits of information form the bulk of the article were picked up in the usual absent minded net-combing between work on one important file and another. Sic transit gloria accusator.

Grandeur

The political class never fail to make the news headlines and this week was no exception. The most interesting of surveys was published by that pan-european measure of pressure of the statistical kind better known as Eurobarometer. Boy did we have some interesting figures thrown at us to juggle with and dissect. First impressions were simple – we’re a grumpy lot and we are getting grumpier. Your average Malteser is rarely pleased with any measure, law or action that is proposed nowadays and it would seem that the collective reaction to the oncoming (inevitable) recession is a general distaste for change.

An acquaintance of mine put it very clearly – the Maltese right now do not want anything to change. In a way it makes sense if you think about it. Having sniffed the dark clouds of instability – economic and whatnot, having seen the potential dark alley through which the global system as a whole is about to pass, having felt all this, we have triggered off some form of collective nostalgia for the feel good factor that most of us experienced not so long ago when the promises of politicians did not seem so frivolous and fake. It was a time long before “ensemble tout est possible” when the European dream promised us that we would be the next fat cow after the Irish miracle. Instead we get the economic crunch, the same old politicians and a dreary outlook. No wonder our first reaction is to rebel against change.

The Eurobarometer survey told us just what Maltese think about their politicians. Well probably not exactly what they think because I am sure that most of that is unpublishable but we got the gist from the numbers. The best one of the lot, in my humble, wet blanket opinion is the 51% figure. That’s how many of us Maltese do not trust political parties. Of course this figure has to be seen within the context of the signs of the times where you would be kind to say that your average Maltese person is not quite comfortable with the “see the glass half full principle”. In any case however the PLPN & AD establishment should be asking themselves how come our great national sport of politics is so far down in the doldrums. Let’s face it, it’s as though 51% of the Italians claimed to no longer find football exciting or interesting.

Actually this is worse. They DO NOT TRUST the political parties. Harsh words aren’t they? It’s not “Ma Tistax Tafdah!” (You cannot trust him) as the unfortunate PN poster went in 1996 but a damning “Ma Nafdawkhomx” (We don’t trust you – plural). Pundits of the pluripartite conviction like myself should be celebrating and popping some fizzy for the occasion. Could it be that we have the final opening of the eyes from the electorate? Are they ready for the great switch away from the boring behemoths of brontosauran politics?

Hang on to the Bollinger. Not just yet. My guess is that we are just passing through a grumpy dissatisfied phase. Look at the other stats: less people are satisfied with the life they lead (down twelve points), less people expect things to improve (down eleven points) and more people expect our economy to worsen (the No-Shit-Sherlock increase of 25 percentage points over last year).

Crisis of Faith

Delve deeper into the stats and you see that there is a pattern that emerges. The political parties – those great depositaries of the people’s trust (when they are not toying with the institutions of representation for their own good) – have a steep hill to climb to win some faith back. Surely you may have noticed how hard they struggle to remind us of their green credentials nowadays – how every one has jumped on the green bandwagon? Well, 55 percent of the Maltese gave thumbs down to the environment in Malta. Which itself is a bit of a weird statement I must admit.

Twelve percent of the population think energy is affordable in Malta and the same amount think that housing is affordable. Interestingly 57 per cent of the Maltese trust the Maltese Parliament while 65% believe that the EU imposes its views on Malta. That says a lot about the value we give to different modes of representation. Which brings me to the issues ranked as being most important for Malta.

Unsurprisingly immigration is the main issue with 48 percent followed by cost of living, energy issues, the economy and unemployment. Education, the environment and terrorism came at the bottom of the list. That put the importance of environment policies in a new perspective. Surely we are a disgruntled mass that is truly unhappy with its current lot and furiously desperate to dump the blame on someone else. Immigrants risk bearing the brunt of this newfound anger and unhappiness and politicians face a hard and difficult time trying to please electorate.

Goody-Two-Shoes

Which brings me to one of the satirical articles penned by Dr Sigmund Bonello this week in the Malta Chronicle on the issue of European Parliament elections and the candidates running the race. In a nutshell Sigmund continues the basic theme that has been running through the TMC for the past weeks – what is the difference between a PL or a PN candidate running for the EP elections? Is any of them any different or are we still just voting for one or other candidate based on allegiance to one party or the other?

How do we reconcile these questions with the survey results? Does the electorate really examine the values this or that party represents or does it still vote along the party lines come what may? If a sign was needed that run-of-the-mill politics is not doing representation any good it was there for all to see during this week’s proceedings in parliament with relation to the project for the extension of the museum at Saint John’s Cathedral.

Now I am not going to go into a huff and puff about NGO’s and pressure groups and lost funds and whatsnot. Enough ink has been wasted on that stuff and quite frankly I did not have time to delve into the matter of whether or not the foundations of the great cathedral were really threatened by the project. My interest peaked elsewhere when I saw the Nationalist relative majority in parliament tweaking the knobs of their version of representative radio to the extreme by shifting and turning the procedures of parliament in order to accomodate their uncomfortable situation and get themselves out of a fix.

I alluded last week to what I assume is Gonzi’s knowledge of “The Art of War” wherein it is writ in large letters that no man should wage a war that he knows he can lose. When the project was finally abandoned notwithstanding all the shenanigans that made a farce out of parliamentary representation one message was clear – it was not, as most rushed to believe that Astrid Vella had won the day but rather that the heat of such a measly majority that is the result of electoral machinations and legal compensations can be turned up so easily and by the most implausible of characters.

Ironic isn’t it that one of the causes of the hot moment for nationalist governance was none other than J’accuse and Bertoon personality of the year JPO. The green politician of the year pounced on the first possibility to cause discomfort showing that he still could wreak havoc with the plans of the “Flimkien Kollox Possibli” crowd almost a year after the crocodile tears in Mistra. Ninu Zammit too threw his ha’penny’s worth while Louis Galea threw what was left of Erskine May out of the window (probably in the direction of St. John’s).

I may have been slightly cryptic last week about all this but there’s no need to write between the lines here (for you to read between the lines later of course): within the limits of legality, the main function of parliament to debate and scrutinise the action of the executive has been once again sacrificed on the altar of bipartisan expedience. This time round it was the nationalists in government who chose to avoid the embarassment of a showdown that would expose a (not so significant) split in their ranks.

Then they wonder why we still do not trust political parties.

Defection

While nationalist diehards were still trying to figure out why this lot edged ever so closer to the standards of Mintoffian brinksmanship in the otherwise unimportant St John’s saga some other diehards were gleefully enjoying a “defection” of former Alternattiva Sannat councillor John Mizzi to the ranks of the Partit Laburista. What they failed to notice was that the former AD councillor stated clearly that he still held AD’s values close to heart but believed that Labour had better resources to achieve these aims (plus he wanted to give Inhobbkom Joseph a try).

This was not a stab at Alternattiva but rather a sad day for representative democracy. The Wasted Vote theory was reaffirmed. The system is such that operation within anything that is not PLPN is inconceivable and impractical. Hence if you can’t beat them join them. Which only means that alternative ideas of people who think different will either be smothered by the masses or be pushed away from the politics that count. Maybe Dr Sigmund Bonello has his answer here. Thinking different IS inconceivable.

Rounding Up

I have a trip to Brussels scheduled for tomorrow and I have overstepped my word limit (again). I would have liked to speak about euthanasia in Italy, Obama’s dwindling choices for his cabinet or the rise in applications for fireworks factories and gun crime in Malta but my time is up. Scoot over to the blog in progress for more detailed analysis (work permitting)… meanwhile it’s an a bientot from J’accuse.

Jacques is desperately fighting the 10th March deadline for the launching of the new J’accuse at www.jacquesrenezammit.com/jaccuse. Apologies for the scarce blogging in the meantime…and oh… Happy Valentines day to all the ladies!

Writing in J’accuse (and on the Indy) almost a year ago I discussed the court procedures against Norman Lowell, Malta’s token example of far-right politics.  In that article entitled The Cost of Free Speech I argued that cases such as Lowell’s are best judged by the public and outside the courts of law:

The man who advocates the use of eugenics, leaving Africans in Africa and speaks in “racialist” terms in the mistaken illusion that it is in any way different from “racist” should be left to speak his mind. So long as there is no incitement to hatred we should all be allowed to see the sorry plan as it is. The people have judged Lowell and I am confident that they are fully capable of judging once again without a court of law.

That was almost a year ago. The Lowell Court Saga continues and risks turning the outspoken rightist into a martyr. It’s not that the laws are wrong but that a heavy handed use of them undermines their very purpose of educating through tolerance. The UK is currently faced with a similar dilemma. Geert Wilders, leader of the right-wing Freedom Party of the Netherlands has been denied entry into the UK.

The problem with Wilders is that he depicts islam as monolithic, monocausal and monomaniacal and claims that its founder is a terrorist while comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf. His is a fight against the “Islamisation” of Europe.  We’ve heard all this before and this time the UK chose to block entry to this elected politician from another EU member state. Once again the wrong message has been sent out. Here is what the Times (UK) editorial (Let Him In) had to say about the ban:

The Home Office judges that Mr Wilders’ presence in the UK would threaten public order and has banned him from entering the country. Last year Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a Muslim cleric with inflammatory views on Jews and homosexuals, was denied a visa to visit the UK. Mr Wilders’ politics are no less inflammatory.

But that is not enough to warrant a ban. Demagogic speech is a test of the liberal political rights on which the culture of a liberal democracy rests. Let Mr Wilders exploit them. His political posturing is so self-evidently preposterous that, if he is permitted to speak freely, he will be arraigned before the best court in the land – the court of public opinion.

No doubt here at J’accuse we agree. The struggle against intolerance is not won with the use of the same medicine. Let the people be the judge. They have spoken before and will do so again.

UPDATE: One hour ago (15.29 GMT) Geert Wilders tried to defy the ban and landed in Heathrow. He is currently being held and questioned by Immigration Authorities (BBC).

A few days ago I posted the attached video on my blog without adding any additional comments. A fellow blogger from Malta had drawn my attention to the documentary that I believe was made by a danish guy or guys eager to unravel the mysteries of the island that is second only to the Vatican in the very special Euro-Catholic results table. At least according to the myth or stereotype that is. For in the simplistic world of polish plumbers, Italian pizzas, French strikes and German sturmtruppen (did I mention the war?) that can only serve to feed semi-artistic works like Entropa, the Maltese come out as being quite the Jesus-addicts – you know… them who can’t bear to be seen without a cross or two.

The Danish producer must have been interested in uncovering the layers beneath the outer mask of knights, churches and festas that is presented to the world at large and ended up discovering an interesting segment of Maltese society. The main themes running through the documentary are divorce and abortion – two subjects that are unfortunately oftenthrown together in the discussion notwithstanding the fact that they are as similar as day is to night. We are introduced to two persons presented as mavericks of an almost inexistent “liberal” sub-culture who are fighting their war against the opressive forces of church and conservative government.

The mavericks lend themselves to this “Don Camillo and Peppone” scenario and their vocabulary hints not so subtlely to an all out war replete with bombs, attacks and whatsnot. I am not sure what condititioned the choice of “opinionists” interviewed by the producers of the documentary but these too lend a surreal tinge to an already surreal subject. The snippet of Daphne Caruana Galizia commenting on abortion would let an outsider believe that Malta regularly witnesses Salem like witch-hunts with women who slipped abroad for an unfortunate abortion burnt at the stake. I am sure it was not Daphne’s intention to portray that image but cut to Paul Vincenti the erstwhile defender of the Gift of Life and you may be forgiven for thinking that Malta is a hive for raving lunatics – still incapable of understanding the basic tenets of a working democracy.

“She would be welcome here – but not her ideas” – that is Vincenti speaking of Dr Gompaerts, the woman who exports abortion to the high seas. Vincenti is blissfully unaware of how ridiculous his Catholic fatwa on people thinking different sounds. He is not only unaware but he is proud of it. Snap back to John Zammit and Emmy Bezzina, the two politicians interviewed for the greater part of this documentary. On paper Bezzina and Zammit are the faces of liberal democracy in Malta. In fact they would better fit a Mad Hatter’s Tea Party than anything else. In Malta nobody with his head in place dares make a strong argument in favour of the right to choose – not the right to abort mind you, but simply the right to be able to choose to do so. So it is left to the court jesters who form parties with weird names like Liberal-Democrat Alliance and Alpha Liberals to fill the gap miserably. Daphne is polite when she calls them eccentric. They are mad.
What does that say about Malta then? Will EP elections bring something new? The case for divorce seems to have made a few babysteps in the right direction – the right direction being consideration and discussion among politicians. It has been discussed in bars and cafes for ages but finally the leader of the opposition seems to be willing to say that time has come for politicians to take a vote on it. That is one babystep… clearly freeing marriage and divorce from the monofocal lense of catholic binds will be another.

I believe Peppi Azzopardi, another interviewee on the documentary, got it right when he said that the majority of Maltese still disagree with the right to choose. Malta is far from introducing legislation in favour of the right to choose and this in a more democratic manner than the divorce issue. The issue only risks permeating into the public arena whenever European scaremongerers threaten that introducing the right to abort is part of the Euro agenda.

The EP elections will not be about divorce or abortion. They cannot be because both subjects are beyond the remit of the European Union. However, as happens at the Eurovision Song Contest, at times of greatest public exposure some countries tend to expose the quirkiest, weirdest and eccentric elements of them all. John Zammit is Malta’s answer to Plastic Bertrand… get it?