Tag: crime

Categories
Campaign 2013 Mediawatch

Talk is cheap

The reports from Malta are beginning to make the island sound like Italy in the famous “anni di piombo” – only that stabbing, and not shooting, seems to be the preferred form of violence in 1/3 of the cases reported in the last three days. Sadly all the victims were of the gentler sex and ,coming as the they did after Josie Muscat’s unfortunate choice of words, the crimes have somehow been linked to some twisted train of thought that might exist in the mind of the aggressors. It goes something like “Hey, that nutcase Josie said that most times when a husband beats his wife this boils down to having been provoked. So let me get out my special Laguiole knife and find ma biatch and stab her to kingdom come”.

Tenuous? Very much if you ask me. I’m thinking that it does not really take a very wrong idea being expressed publicly for it to trigger off this kind of crime. In most cases these are crimes of passion – and the kind of passion we are talking about is far far beyond the realm of “first transport of sudden passion inspired by Josie Muscat’s non sequitur of a statement”. Besides, what about the Moroccan lady also found “in a pool of blood” but about whose death there is no suspicion of foul play? Respect for the deceased prevents me from passing observations that would be more appropriate in the case of Frankie Boyle but surely the asses out there braying about Josie’s Provocatory Inspiration should know better?

Then there’s the political side. This morning’s standard read through my FB wall led me to the tiny post by Labour’s president Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi. This other course colleague of mine (a vintage year that class of ’99) posted:

“Three grave crimes in three days – three women victims – action is required! Do you remember “at home and at work without fear?””

The last reference is to an old PN electoral slogan. Stefan probably does not see the irony that the “fear” in question at the time managed to hit home to many people because it was the kind of fear instilled by the Mintoffian regime. Like it or not the culture of not being safe at work or at home (and I would add “at school”) was very much the result of thuggery and violence that was rampant in the late seventies and early eighties. So yes, Stefan, I do remember the slogan and it’s rather funny that you’re asking us to remember it seeing how your movement is so adamant about how useless these Mintoffian flashbacks are.

As for the link between the three crimes and some implied inactivity by government this is even more tenuous than the Josie Muscat link I mentioned earlier. It is stomach churning material how members of both parties find it so easy to throw illogical leaps and links at what they must assume is a very gullible electorate fully believing that anything goes. A Moroccan woman died in a fall – the cause of death is still uncertain – at home, a former policeman shot his wife and an MMDNA nurse was stabbed in Qormi – and whose fault is it according to Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi? Why obviously it’s the fault of the party that once had “at home and at work without fear” as its slogan.

To be fair to Stefan it’s not just him playing this game. PR man Varist has already regaled us with a couple of insinuations too while a couple of sanctimonious bloggers are “guilty” of playing both the “blame Josie” and “blame Gonzi” game.

It’s going to get hotter as the election date gets closer. Hold on tight and try very hard not to be provoked.

Categories
Politics

Sunshine

The tragic circumstances of the death of Osama Al Shzliaoy will undoubtedly rock the boat on a number of issues that are periodically touched upon in our public debates and politics. Sunshine was knocked down “outside a nightclub” (pace Times report) and succumbed to serious head injuries a few days later. Coming as it did hot on the heels of the court case that practically exonerated a bouncer from any wrongdoing in a death caused in similar circumstances the comparisons and conclusions will be inevitable.

Whether it is Fabrice Muamba or Osama Al Shzliaoy who is battling for life in a hospital, the effect is always such as to inspire great manifestations of solidarity. English football, fresh from weeks of scandals involving racism that peaked with the Suarez-Evra debacle needed the events of the Tottenham v Bolton encounter in order to be shocked into sensibility about respect for your brother. Or did it? Whether the global displays of affection are simply a passing fad related strictly to the facility with which an sms, a text message or a tweet is sent out remains to be seen. After all football has been there before – many times – only to revert to the booing, the banana throwing farces that are a shame for the sport.

But what about Osama? Sunshine seems to have been guilty of wanting to have a good time in Paceville. I had an Estonian guest over the weekend and I asked what she thought about Malta. This blonde from the North had great memories of the island (could be the fact that her beau hails from there) but I was particularly struck by here awe at the size of Paceville. That’s all really – awe… that so much entertainment can be found in so little a space. It does strike you as sick that depending on the colour of your skin and the tint of your hair you could come away with such a different experience from Paceville.  It’s not the Estonian’s fault of course.

We saw it in the evidence given in the last court case where the defendant championed by an aspirant parliamentarian (minister perhaps) had a panoply of witnesses from the entertainment industry prepared to swear on oath that the black man in question (sic) was a regular troublemaker. The court listened and the jury acquitted. The jury mind you. Men from the street – your average man called upon to believe a sworn oath for what it is and then to fulfil their duty. The jury system might have become an anachronism in this day and age – particularly with the selection practice that has developed over time.  Could the jury system be a problem causing an imperfect application of the law?

But back to Osama. Was his death foretold the day the Abubaker jury went out? Was there suddenly a license to kill “immigrants”? Does it tell us anything about racism? Knee-jerk reactions will put their proverbial two and two together and conclude that the fault lies at the feet of lady justice. It’s the law that is to blame isn’t it? And a life nowadays costs approximately 500€.

But that is too easy. Too simple to be true. I see intolerance before I see racism. I see discrimination between a caste of people who can be above the law and others who will suffer the consequences. The bouncer and the bouncer’s world is not the simple world of racism where “black” is discriminated against. It is the “I do what I want” because I am backed by powerful people. It is the world where rights are eschewed for brute force and naked muscle.  Even more worrying is that the brutes will find their rent-a-politician who will mentally muscle his way past the pestering laws with one hand only to blame the legislation and call for reform from the benches of the opposition with another.

The problem behind the deaths of Abubaker and Osama is not racism. It is intolerance and lawlessness. Paceville is just another petri dish where this is brought to light. I believe Deguara when he says that “he is not a racist”. Not a racist in Lowellian or Nazi terms. Deguara just has his list of priorities as a bouncer. His priorities were twisted and they would lead him to use disproportionate force in what he believed to be execution of his duties. The comfort zone of protection for people in his “profession” would even lead to exaggerations – there are no checks and balances because there are people out there who will stick up for you. On oath. In court.

Then Osama gets beaten up and is left for dead. It’s the bouncers again? Are the suspects bouncers? We have read that the suspects are Romanian. Sure. Foreigners. They’re only trouble. Right now the problem is putting the issue in perspective. What is the criminal we are looking for? What is the crime?

There is violent aggression in a very public place. Racism would classify it as a hate crime. Was Osama killed because he was black? Was he killed because his aggressors felt they are above the law? Or was this another crime in what has become the cowboy, unregulated world of entertainment in Paceville?

Our reaction to this crime is just as important as the laws that we will apply. All too often we create ghosts that are not there that distract us from the real problem. Will the sad case of the death of “Sunshine” Osama be relegated to another case of noisy distraction?

 

markbiwwa has also blogged on the subject here.

Categories
Articles

J'accuse : I.M. Jack (The Uncouth)

I’ve got a running series of posts in the blog that goes by the name of “I.M. Jack”. The title came around as a bit of a spoofy nod to the rotund columnist who graces the pages of a rival paper every Saturday. Every time I blog an “I.M. Jack” post it’s more of a round-up of different stories that serendipitously find themselves sharing the same post and limelight. I normally do that out of expediency and to save myself from posting a series of mini-posts, and also because by the time the third “I.M. Jack” got out I sort of got used to the little “round-up” idea possibilities that it afforded.

So yes, this week’s effort comes to you in a disjointed, I.M. Jack-ish sort of way, that is it can be read in little snippets or (for the well-trained in J’accuse loghorrea) all in one go. The quality of the articles, incidentally, should be improving exponentially (modestly speaking of course) as the cold weather begins to bitch-slap the Grand Duchy earlier than usual. Like Terry Pratchett’s golems and trolls, I tend to function more sharply as the weather begins to get colder. (Speaking of Pratchett, do get your hands on his latest novel I Shall Wear Midnight – it rocks). Let us then begin the I.M. Jack tour.

On the dignity of Parliament

Is it just me or is Parliament really becoming government’s bitch? I know, I know, I should be more reverent towards the hallowed institution that is fundamental to our very democracy but hey, if our very own representatives seem to be having a tough time understanding the importance of their roles, I don’t see why we should bother – right? Austin Gatt usually figures high on my list of valid politicians in this country of ours but he took the lead in the dismissal of the request for hearing of witnesses in the PAC on some wobbly excuse that the Auditor General had already carried out much of the hearing.

Bollocks. Even the kind of papers that do not usually lend themselves easily to government criticism carried harsh editorials condemning the lacklustre sense of wanton disrespect that everybody under the sun could read into the happenings at the PAC. We did not even have to fight off the temptation to be balanced and to apportion a fair share of criticism to the Labourite side of the benches by questioning their constant nagging and moral convictions. The message Austin et al were sending was plain – they refused to submit the BWSC process to a parliamentary level of scrutiny that is normal in most parliamentary democracies. The words of Franco Debono come back to haunt the mind now – the dignity of Parliament is being seriously diluted and something must be done quickly to repristinate a good working order.

On money

It is not just our sense of democracy that is being put into serious question. This week, EU leaders sat around a table somewhere in Luxembourg and agreed to revise the rules on budget deficit. Meanwhile, in the House of Commons in London, George Osborne delivered a budget that was described as a “historic attempt to turn around the juggernaut of state public spending”. The Daily Mail headlined Man Who Rolled Back The State on Friday, as the Con-Dem coalition embarked on a programme that would savage benefits, axe jobs, slash budgets and attempt to reverse 60 years of public spending.

An interesting article in the International Herald Tribune took in these latest European reforms at both EU and national level and questioned whether the Keynesian formula has been ditched once and for all. European governments no longer seem to believe that the solution to the recession is to pump more money into the economy and let the economy fix itself. Probably this has much to do with the distrust in the key power centres of the economy and how they seem to have brought about this recession themselves with their unethical way of thinking.

So yes, capitalism as we know it is in a bit of a fix. Which is when the loony left goes out on the streets and begins to whine. Fairness, as they know it, is about to go terribly wrong and the welfare state in which money seems to grow on trees for those who qualify for the big safety net in the sky is suddenly shrinking before their very eyes. Which is why we have angry men in streets preparing to raise barricades and fight with the riot police. Like the money will come flying from the sky once the capitalist monster is dealt the final deathblow. Go figure. Baroness Thatcher was hospitalised this week so she was saved the horror of having to see reminders of the age of her iron hand when minors and other representatives of the leftist workforce took to the streets.

On values and relativism

Maltese relativism is back with a twist. The House of Lords (UK) this week opened up a new world in the universe of marriage law by accepting the validity of a prenup. That’s short for prenuptial contract and has been the stuff of movies and murder stories across the pond for quite a while, but it may surprise you that its legal validity is very much a novelty this side of the Atlantic. What a prenup does is that it stipulates what will happen in the unfortunate eventuality that a happy couple that is about to engage in lawful matrimony should somehow fall out.

It’s a divorce settlement signed when things are still rosy, when the amours are still love struck and when altruistic lovey-doveyiness still pervades the inner sanctum of the quasi-conjugal unit. It takes advantage of the goodwill of the parties to pre-draft and establish what can still be considered to be an amicable settlement as to the division of all property. Thusly, later, when the better half is reaching for the short and curlies armed with a knife, and it is clear that it will not be death that will “us part” but rather the manifest impossibility of future cohabitation, the couple will find that the prenup they signed in what must seem another life will come into force and the pre-ordained division of assets as per prenup will take place without too much acrimonious battling.

The House of Lords hath ruled that such prenups will always apply unless they are manifestly unfair (leave it to the men of law to argue whether charm by fatal attraction could sufficiently qualify as having succumbed under sexual duress). Meanwhile, back in Malta (and back is the operative word here) we are still facing the discombobulating farce of wondering whether or not to introduce divorce by popular suffrage. As I said last week, this is a result of our testicle-less politicians (sanscouillistes) wanting to hide behind the “will of the people”. What next? A referendum on Income Tax? I wonder how that one will go.

Then, as fellow columnist Caruana Galizia pointed out on Thursday, there was the blatant contradiction between on the one hand all the disquisitions as to the morality of voting for divorce and on the other hand, the facility with which some parliamentary committee had no qualms in proposing the freezing of embryos. Climb up walls? We do that… every five years. All we needed was the LGBT movement complaining about the prohibition of IVF accessibility for gay couples. Sure – this country is having problems coming to terms with the idea of divorce but it will have no problems with little Capslock (I’m sure someone, somewhere has that name) being raised by mummy and … mummy. (The ghost of Beppe shudders).

On the strong arm of the law

The next time you are angry with someone and your anger leads you to the uncontrollable urge to punch that person, just remember one thing: it comes at a price. And if you can afford €100 then go ahead and do your Mohammed Ali. That is the going rate for a punch, as the man who assaulted the CABS officer discovered. Not that expensive, is it? As for letting loose with a gun on officers of the law and putting their life in manifest danger (vide HSBC hold-up and shootout) – that still does not disqualify you from bail.

Sarcasm aside – it is pissing off isn’t it? I mean, what the hell? Personally, I am not of the very physical kind and my best weapon in a punch up is my wit that sends one three-letter word to the brain: RUN. So if ever I risk being on the receiving end of someone’s clenched fist, I would like to think that there is also a sufficient disincentive in the form of a legal deterrent that will allow me to bargain my way out of such fury without having to resort to the Coward’s Gentlemanly Exit. It should be so for any law-abiding citizen, who would prefer not to have to calculate at which point throwing a punch or two towards the rabid bully could constitute valid self-defence (assuming he has a punch or two he can throw). The news from the Law Courts is not promising in this respect.

Traitors and idols

When some members of the black and white community of which I form part labelled Zlatan Ibrahimovic a gypsy whore, I tended to turn a blind eye and deaf ear and glossed over the possibility of tut-tutting such unsporting behaviour. I despised the lanky, self-pompous oaf all the more for leaving Juventus bang in the middle of what is now evidently a frame up to play for the saddest of teams ever to have disgraced Italian football grounds. When he actually moved on to another team a few complaints later, I did not shed a tear of sympathy for his latest dumped girlfriend but confirmed my earlier suspicions that here we were seeing the epitome of modern footballing greed. He’s moved on again (go figure) and is still worthless when it comes to crucial games on the European football stage but I’m not here to talk about Zlatan.

It’s the Rooney saga that really lit up more red lights as to the general decline of the gentlemanly side of football. Where are the Ryan Giggs, the Francesco Tottis, the Rauls, the Maldinis – and above all the Alessandro Del Pieros – in modern football? The word mercenary does not even begin to explain the spirit of today’s breed of men of the leather ball. No matter that by the time I finished typing this article Wayne has signed a new, improved contract keeping him at United, as predicted solely by Luciano Moggi when everybody else was betting on his next destination. No matter that he has been appeased with some beefing up of the contract.

What I would like to know is how the little Scouser will walk into that changing room and face his “team-mates” from Giggs to Nani to Bebe to Fletcher without being overcome by a sense of shame. Forget fidelity to the club, forget respect for the supporters, forget gratitude to a coach who fathered him. What jarred most in the Rooney saga was the ease with which he could bad-mouth his fellow team-mates by going public and basically claiming that they are not good enough to play with him. It’s stuff that makes you sick and I seriously doubt how easily Rooney can win back the respect he blew away over two crazy days in October.

Milos Krasic, Juventus’ latest idol, is a step back out of this world of mercenaries. I was not sure whether his determination to join Juventus should be taken seriously but the stories coming from Torino day after day show an old-fashioned, dedicated footballer who is in love with his new environment and determined to show the kind of attachment to a club that is sadly becoming rarer and rarer. He has one captain he can look up to who has broken all kinds of records and won all sorts of trophies. Last Sunday he broke one of the latest barriers, reaching the great Boniperti’s goal-tally in the Campionato. He turns 36 next month but we could be lucky enough to see him in action for some time yet.

Grazie Alex.