Tag: divorce

Categories
Euroland Politics

Tonio’s Non-Metamorphoses

Was it a case of “Veni Vidi Vici”? Did the Commissioner designate “sail-through” the grilling that never was last Tuesday? Has the dinosaur really convinced the trough-addicted pigs of his inveterate submission to the constitutional bible of this “sui generis” system of state collaboration? There was a telling moment during the marathon session when Tonio Borg addressed his interlocutors and reminded them that in politics “perception is important”. Indeed. Perception nowadays is a huge part of the pie and politicians are as much made or broken by the creation of a hash tag (that’s twitter talk for a subject such as #BorgEU) than by anything else.

The speed with which media will deal with a story – compounded by technological Chinese whispers – not only means that a media avatar of a politician can be created with uncanny expeditiousness but also that such avatar might morph in accordance to the predominant push of whoever is throwing the most information into the system. Tonio Borg was contemporaneously both a victim and a victor of this kind of phenomenon. The time it took Borg to study the files and dossiers relating to his new “portofolio” (sic) the liberals-in-hiding got working with their European counterparts in order to  fill them in on the “true nature” of Tonio.

What “true nature”? Well they referred to Borg’s handling of immigration affairs, to his position on IVF and on divorce, to his consorting with the Gift of Life movement and to his previous stances on homosexual rights. The spiel essentially that Borg was an uncompromising imposer of conservative values and that his political activity clearly reflected this stance. The link to the Health and Consumer portfolio was not exactly tenuous and to put it mildly there WAS a point to be made. The point though was meant to be and should have been limited to the capacity of Tonio Borg to perform his duty as a Commissioner independently of his views – unlike his performance in Maltese politics where he had no problem mixing the two.

It’s the EU Law, Stupid

And this is where Tonio Borg built his defence. It was obvious from the start who had been involved in prepping the Commissioner designate. For all his protests that he was not “thinking as a lawyer” I’m prepared to safely bet that many a night was spent in the company of Simon Busuttil and a former EU Ambassador. Nothing wrong there either. The most telling moment was Tonio’s slight hesitation in reformulating the classic description of the European Law system – many a law student would have recognised that brief moment of panic when the explanation that was just at the tip of your tongue has rushed away only to return in the form of a rehash of the original definition “in your own words”. Hence Tonio and his version of “a sui generis system of international law and an agreement between sovereign states”. (He could also have quipped a happy 50th birthday to the Van Gend & Loos case while he was at it – much more important than the International Day of Courtesy in this part of the world).

The prepping was necessary because Tonio had to use every trick in the book (better known as “the treaties”) in order to justify his speedy metamorphoses from Maltese politician to European Commissioner. In doing so he highlighted the most difficult barrier that Europe faces with regards to social harmony. For while economic barriers have come crumbling down at a faster rate than the Visigoth invasion of Rome, social mores have found the borders of old to be less permeable. Subsidiarity that great concept first brought to the world in a Papal Encyclical came to the rescue and suddenly Tonio was raising the Commissioner’s equivalent of “taking the sixth”.

You’ve seen it all so no need to dwell on it. Dr Borg could get away with packaging his national performance in a tight corner by stating that he can not and will not be able to act similarly at an EU level because the rules that apply there are different. So for the sake of argument Tonio Borg’s catholic values will have to be put in abeyance whenever he is dealing with the Commission programs to promote the use of contraceptives. He claims not to have a problem with that and I guess that his conscience will deal with the “superior orders” dilemma in its own time.

Those Shoddy Liberals

Tonio Borg did not metamorphose. He remains the same man committed to the same principles (save maybe the gaffe regarding the gender quota ) a sudden rush of arse-licking could be a most simple explanation. Or even euphoria experienced with the sudden rush of endorphins at the realisation that the Liberal Inquisition was really conducted by a bunch of pussy-footed, ill-informed bungling radicals. That last point actually really got to me. For here we were – as my friend David Friggieri puts it – with a representative of the conservative parties (yes plural) in Malta in the dock and with no real prosecutor asking the real questions.

I’d have asked a simple question to Dr Borg. What does he think of the fact that a person who is a doctor in an EU country where abortion is legal and who performs a legal abortion on a Maltese woman (who has willingly travelled to his country and consented to such an operation) is criminally liable in Malta? Simple really. In case you are wondering it’s Article 5(1)(d) of the Criminal Code in combination with article 241(1). Incidentally once said doctor is condemned to a term of imprisonment for a term of eighteen months to three years, the willing patient also becomes liable to the same punishment. But I guess that’s OK because she’s Maltese anyway.

We did not get these questions. We got questions that were obviously fed to MEPs by the type of shoddy activists who base their accusations on hearsay and conspiracy theories rather than facts. How else do you explain that Dutch liberal’s question about contraceptives in Malta that was an invitation to Tonio Borg to eat her alive (which he did with the usual classy rhetoric of a PN politician who knows he has the upper hand).

A Metamorphoses?

In the end we have what the French call a “match nul” – which means a draw but the word “nul” also means “useless”. At an EU level Borg might not really “sail through” when the voting time comes. The ALDE (liberals) and European Greens have unsurprisingly called themselves out of any support vote – they’ll be voting against. The Popular Party will back him (and also heap lauds and praise that will be hyped in the relevant media). The socialists might dilly-dally for a while and make Tonio Borg (and Tonio Fenech and Simon Busuttil) sweat a little bit more but in the end they might just give in and vote him in after having asked for more “written commitments” from his part.

Tonio Borg did not really metamorphose in the end. His was no apostasy before the baying house of atheists and agnostics. This was more of a modern Give Unto Ceasar kind of business that left many of us Maltese questioning the use of a two-tier Europe when it comes to social rights. Yes the liberals – particularly the Maltese liberals – were bitten and if you are really fond of the term then they were “defeated”. Their defeat lies in the lack of organisation and lack of clarity. It lies in the lack of identifiable leaders who could take the battle to the next level. It lies in the fact that Maltese politics rarely translates into conservative vs liberal when push comes to shove.

That is why Joseph Muscat feels comfortable standing up in parliament without any hint of irony on his face and saying “I’m a liberal” while at the same time sanctioning the PN position on embryo freezing. Joseph will continue to woo the liberal fold that have elsewhere been described as the “ex-stricklandjani” so long as his credentials are not questioned and so long as he can be contrasted to the dinosaurs that have long camped in the mainstream parties.

Unfortunately for the silent liberal movement in Malta change will never come from within any of the two parties. So long as we continue putting our eggs in their basket they’ll be happy doing what they do best – fuck all. Because as we know so well : “if we want everything to change, then everything must remain the same”. And long life to our next EU Commissioner !

Pictor has scarcely set foot in paradise when he found himself standing before a tree that had two crowns. In the leaves of one was the face of a man.; in the leaves of the other, the face of a woman. Pictor stood in awe of the tree and timidly asked, “Are you the Tree of Life?”

Read also today’s article in the Times by Ranier Fsadni.

Categories
Politics

Apologia for the PN

Since I know that no matter what I write in this post I will be labelled “PN apologist” I thought of giving it a direct title and spare the superficial readers the typing. The final divorce vote has been taken and by now we all know which way the vote went. The conscience of the MPs who reflected the will of the referendum majority trumped that of those who still believed majority had nothing to do with what they decide. A majority of MPs, acting on their conscience, voted in a private members bill and Malta has been dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century thanks to the will of the people.

It’s funny how even the most “liberal” of commentators seem to have written this off as a Labour victory of some kind. True, they have not gone to the extreme of constitutional expert Luciano Busuttil who first posted this on facebook:

TODAY WE SHOULD PUT AN END TO THE DIVORCE SAGA WITH THE ‘LABOUR GOVERNMENT’ PASSING THE LAW TO REFLECT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!

Then, in a bout of euphoria he went on to impress us with his constitutional savoir-faire by adding:

IL-PRIM MINISTRU HU DAK LI L-PRESIDENT TAR-REPUBBLIKA JARA SKOND IL-KOSTITUZZJONI LI KAPACI JMEXXI MAGGIORANZA FIL-PARLAMENT. ILLUM IL-PRIM MINISTRU KIEN PARTI MILL-MINORANZA.

The “liberals” are busy pounding Lawrence though and let’s face it Lawrence could have only done worse had he donned a cassock and kick started an impromptu rosary in parliament. Fact is though that those busy pummeling Gonzi should be doing so with equal (or variable) measure to Joseph too. They still don’t get it do they? It’s one thing pooh-poohing Gonzi for sticking to his guns and voting Nyet all the way to the final vote and it’s another transporting this to the land of wishful thinking and collapsing governments. Here are a few inconfutable facts as to the why and because:

  • we had a free vote (and yes, Joseph is back to calling it frijvowt – see Times interview and his reply about Adrian Vassallo). Our parties did not oblige their members to vote in favour or against. As JOSEPH said – everyone was free to vote as he thinks. So NO – neither Labour nor PN or any faction thereof can claim to have in any way been part of the vote. We’ve dealt with this before and it remains a true constant.
  • the biggest consequence of the free vote is the shattering of Luciano Busuttil’s inexpert dreams. This was not a financial vote. It was not tied to the doing or undoing of government. It was a Private Member’s Bill in which EACH AND EVERY MP VOTED ACCORDING TO HIS CONSCIENCE. The vote was simple – do you accept the divorce bill or not? What does that say about the “KAPACITA LI JMEXXI MAGGIORANZA FIL-PARLAMENT”? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Because this vote does not tell the President who has the confidence of the majority of parliamentary members. It tells the President WHAT the majority of MPs voting on a specific motion decided. Punto (and unfortunately for constitutional beginners) e basta.
  • What lessons do we learn? We learn that Gonzi stuck to his principle till the end. We learn that he was comfortable with voting no after ensuring that the will of the people is respected. That made many of us think less highly about Dr Gonzi. We also learnt that Joseph’s labour refused to take a position. More importantly we learn that Joseph’s labour is willing to take advantage of giving the false impression that it has a position on something – when it had nothing of the sort.

If anyone has been proven right by the turn of events then that must surely be this page, this blog and this blogger. Our two parties have confirmed their abdication from representative politics.

Voting PN next election translates into voting in chaos. A party without identity and values is not a party that can come up with proper programmes.

Voting PL next election translates into voting in absolute opportunism. Their weathervane approach to policy is extremely dangerous and is no guarantee for proper policies and programmes either.

Last Saturday I posted what I called a “Cyrus WTF moment” on facebook (it was later picked up by bloggers elsewhere). To me it illustrates the manner in which many have fallen for Labour’s non-policy hook, line and sinker. Others might put my statements down to “high handed opinions from abroad“. We’ve been there before – incidentally when we were told by PN stalwarts to shut up because they did not like what we were saying… it seems now that the weathervane has shifted for the Labourites and Joseph lovers to tell us not to interfere because we live abroad. Moviment Tindahalx indeed….

The Cyrus WTF moment :

 “Engerer says that whilst he and Opposition leader Jospeh Muscat do not agree on issues such as same-sex marriage, Muscat is open to be convinced on the contrary.” – and thank f**k for that….

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Divorce

Understanding Eddie

Former President and Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami has chipped in to the post-referendum debate with an article on the Sunday Times (MP’s credibility on moral issues being put to the test). The article is bound to attract its own corner of controversy – particularly because on the face of it, it is firmly grounded on theological interpretations and principles that have come to be closely associated with pronouncements made by the retired politician.

Part I – Understanding Eddie

It would be unfair not to try to understand the constitutional underpinnings of Eddie’s (forgive the familiarity but it was Eddie for too long to be easy to drop) reasonings simply because the moral values that Eddie subscribes to are so deeply intertwined with those of a particular church. As a small aside in these days when nostalgia for “Salvaturi ta’ Malta” seems to be a new trend it would be good to remember that the moral foundation of the wave of Solidarity, Work, Justice and Liberty was inextricably linked to the christian-democrat interpretation of the Catholic Church’s social doctrine.

Back to Eddie and MP’s credibility though. The former PM is no longer in the driving seat and he can afford to assess the situation from a more principled approach without the quasi-macchiavellian calculations that tarnished his later years in power. To put it bluntly the saving or crumbling of a government is no longer a part of Eddie’s calculations so he can afford to be morally honest with regard to his guiding principles.

The former PM first distinguishes between the moral issue behind the Independence and EU referenda and the moral issue that underlies a referendum on an issue such as divorce. Those among the media (and politicians) inclined to sensationalise will point to Eddie’s reference to Pope John Paul II’s list: divorce, free love (whatever that means), abortion, contraception, the fight against life in its initial and final phases, the manipulation of ‘life’. They will rush to compare it to KMB’s meanderings pre-EU accession about AIDS and Sicilian workers etc. At J’accuse we don’t think that Eddie is in the business of cheap scaremongering this time round. His question goes deep to the constitutional mechanism this country will choose in the future for determining issues that fall heavily on the “moral” side as against the “pragmatically political”.

Part II – Parliament’s Dilemma

This is where we begin to understand Eddie. Better still. Once the noise of controversy and rash anti-clericalism subsides we can even agree with him. Not with his position on divorce legislation but on his outlook towards constitutional frameworks that we form to enact such legislation. You see, the huge problem that this parliament has is that it is unable to come to terms with the fact that no matter how many times it twists and turns this Rubik Cube of Divorce the final decision will ultimately lie in its hands.

Our parliament is  designed around – and bends to – the will of a duopolistic anachronism. Once the divorce issue hit the fan it exposed the fundamental weakness of both parties: contemporaneously. No matter how much a “wobbly coalition of economic, social, religious and cultural forces” you can cobble together, no matter how far you can go with the oxymoronic faux progressives it is blatabtly impossible to retain a semblance of coherence when faced with a clearcut decision on a “moral issue”. The only party that would have been comfortable at the outset is still lying outside the closed club of our parliament.

J’accuse wrote at the outset: this is an issue for parliament to decide, not for the people to be lumped with. For parliament to decide this issue it needs to have at least one party that is committed (as a party, as a leader as MPs) to introduce divorce. This commitment must be clear at election time and the electors will have implicitly accepted divorce legislation as part of the party’s manifesto. Neither the conservative nationalists nor the pussyfooting progressives could get themselves to do that. We do get the sophistry of flags of convenience (cue PN with its token gay, liberal and ultra-cool section) or of the logistical sumersaults (cue PL with its private member bills, free votes) but no party wants to assume the responsibility of being the pro-divorce party on election day.

Part III – Why Eddie may be right (and wrong)

Here’s what our former PM did in 2003 – when Labour’s Sant insisted that the referendum result is neither here nor there:

The last two referendums held in Malta dealt with two major political developments. The people were asked to approve the proposed Constitution for Independence and Malta’s accession to the European Union. In both referendums there was a clear majority for the two proposals. Yet the Labour Party MPs continued to oppose both proposals notwithstanding the positive referendum results on those two eminently political issues.

It is worth recalling that as Prime Minister in 2003, faced with that stand by the Labour Party, I opted to advise the President to dissolve Parliament forthwith and call a fresh election in which accession to the European Union was the main issue. I have always maintained that moral issues should not be decided on the principle of democratic majorities but, rather, on the principle of what is morally right.

On the one hand Eddie distinguishes between political and moral decisions. For political issues it is simple. If one party insists on not recognising the will of the people then the solution is to dissolve parliament and call an election. The people can then either choose between two parties and their options (yes, sadly the dualism will prevail).

Eddie does however create a vacuum – legally that is. Here is his reasoning on taking decisions on what he terms “moral issues”:

I have always maintained that moral issues should not be decided on the principle of democratic majorities but, rather, on the principle of what is morally right. As a Christian I believe, on the authority of none other than Jesus Christ, the Son of God, that divorce is morally wrong and therefore wrong for society. Should one change this view because a democratic majority decides otherwise? Definitely not.

Which leaves us with a political and constitutional vacuum. Who will decide on divorce legislation for the people? The conscience of 69 parliamentarians? Elected on what basis? Eddie is being economic with the truth here because the convenient classification of a vote on civil divorce legislation as a “moral issue” effectively creates a vacuum of representation. It sabotages the very heart of representative democracy which is based on the principle that someone somewhere takes decisions “for the people”. You know the mantra: “a government for the people by the people”.

How do we therefore solve the impasse? The answer is written on the walls. Our political parties should be obliged to shed their convenient status of “wobbly coalitions”. On issues such as divorce there should be a clear position: not a free vote. I expect a party presenting candidates as future representatives in parliament to be clear about what they believe on such issues. By voting for a party I would then also be exercising my choice of or against a particular issue – and expecting it to shoulder the responsibilities in parliament.

Part IV – A parliament of representatives (with a clean conscience)

A parliament that would have been made up of representatives elected on a clean bill of ideas – and not on a mix and match of ideals in order to throw the widest net – would not have wasted the infamous €4 milllion euros finding out what was already a known fact before the debate. Such a parliament would have had a clear mandate to legislate beyond the individual member’s conscience.

Our current parliament will in all probability patch together a law of sorts that is passed with (what now seem to be) 37 ayes but it remains a parliament that is unable to come to terms with the requirements of a huge chunk of its demos. The battle for the emancipation of the Maltese citizen is far from being won.

Former Prime Minister and President Eddie Fenech Adami is right in one thing. The best solution in this kind of situation is probably the dissolution of parliament. This would allow the formation of a new parliament based on new parties hopefully committed to particular principles and policies. Hopefully too, parties will be clear with potential candidates about what the party represents and will ask them to leave their individual conscience at the front door, in the confessional or in any case outside parliament.

The greatest hope I reserve for the eventual voter : that he or she may learn a lesson from this hobbled parliament and choose to discern between false menus and the real deal the next time he or she has to make a choice.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Articles

J’accuse : Sophistry, Protagoras & San Ċipress

The return of summer has meant the return of the time-slot dedicated to listening to podcasts at a leisurely pace while lapping up the sun on a beach. This week I caught up on the “History of Philosophy without Gaps” series delivered by Peter Adamson of King’s College (available gratis on iTunes). As luck (and universal karma) would have it, I had stumbled on the episode called “Making the Weaker argument the Stronger: the Sophists” (ep. 14 if you care to look it up) and it couldn’t have been a better time to discover the sophists and their school of thought.

Thanks mainly to Plato (see “Protagoras”), the school of the Sophists has had quite a bit of philosophical bad mouthing through the ages and this is mainly because they were seen as a professional class of thinkers who dabbled in the art of “spurious learning that would lead to political success”. From the sophist school (or rather from their detractors) we get the word “sophistry”, which is invariably defined as “an argument that seems plausible but is fallacious or misleading, especially one that is deliberately devised to be so”, or as “the art of using deceptive speech and writing”.

The early sophists invested much in the concept of “virtue” but would soon inject it with a huge dose of relativism − as Protagoras himself would tell us: “Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not”. The problem with sophists however was that via this relativism they were more concerned with persuasion than with the value of truth. In teaching the early politicians the art of persuasion they also thought them that truth could only stand in the way of a successful politician. Truth was not a priority − they would boast that a good sophist could persuade someone that the worse was the better reason… they could make black appear to be white.

The Sophist school lives

The Divorce Debate Hot Potato has left the hands of the people who spoke decisively on the matter and is back in the hands of the bungling lot who are still at odds trying to understand why the rest of the world calls them “representatives”. This is the short-term after-shock when the rocked establishment does what it does best and pulls out the shots for its own survival. Let me put it bluntly: We have two anachronistic parties that had been stripped bare of any semblance of principle beyond the one and only grail of vote-grabbing. Both parties are at this point busily attempting to show the people that they represent their will (Hell Yeah) while contemporaneously attempting to have officially nothing to do with it in the process (Heavens No).

A few weeks back I wrote about Pontius Pilate. His ruse of “release Barabbas” never worked. The people threw the Messiah back into his hands and all he could do was wash them. Not with our modern day Sophists though − far be it from them to wash their hands publicly. Instead they do the impossible and find themselves ditching truth in order to sell the implausible and fallacious packaged as political dogma. To me, the prize of the day, nay the millennium, must go to Inhobbkom Joseph. Sophist to a tee, il-Mexxej has wriggled his way out of Labour’s non-position to the extent that a huge amount of his supporters actually believe that the Labour party is in favour of the introduction of divorce legislation.

Muscat’s post-result speech fell just short of letting people assume that it was thanks to Joseph and his party that Yes carried the day. Nothing new there… I still meet Nationalist Party card carriers who believe the spin that the Yes movement seven years ago was a purely in-house affair. Muscat then performed logical acrobatics of an impressive kind in which he managed to imply that the Nationalist Party is obliged to vote Yes (or resign) while conveniently ignoring the fact that this paladin of progressive politics has not got the balls to tell his own party to stuff the free vote where the sun does not shine. The fallacy (Labour is a pro-divorce party) had been sold − hook, line and sinker to the electorate − while Muscat abetted anti-divorce MPs in his own party. Epic representative fail but huge sophist success.

The powers of an MP

At the other end of our poor political spectrum, the only man with a pair of considerable male attributes remains unsurprisingly Austin Gatt. Much as I disagree with his position (completely and utterly) on divorce itself, there is no doubt that Austin Gatt was clear from day one and his position is an interesting standard in the sea of wavering compromises that are the official party positions. Austin said he could never fit in a party that would be in favour of divorce and that he would resign if his party would pronounce itself in favour. His position is that his conscience trumps the voice of the people in this matter and that he is willing to face the consequences with the electorate (luckily for him he will not be contesting the next election so not much facing to be done there).

I have consistently argued that a referendum was not the right way to introduce a civil right such as divorce. One reason was that in the real world we would have clear direction from parties who could legislate responsibly and professionally with the balance between common good and minority rights in mind. The mess this referendum has put us in is not a result of the YES/NO answer (it has been pointed out that the 53/47 per cent ratio was the same as when the “debate” was officially launched) but a result of our representatives abdicating their responsibility at the start of it all. We cannot have spineless parties without a position (two sets of free votes − 69 consciences − and a collective bandwagon of shameless sophistry) suddenly being trusted with the enacting of such a delicate piece of legislation − and all the signs show that they cannot seem to understand how to do it either.

Kollox suġġettiv (everything’s subjective)

It’s now all about fine-tuning for the parties and the electorate would do well to take note. Muscat’s PL and Gonzi’s PN are about to pull one of those wool-before-your eyes tricks in which they excel. Our tendency to be card-carrying voters before being free-thinking emancipated citizens risks nullifying all the awareness that has been gained over the last four weeks. Both PL and PN want to be seen as fulfilling the will of the people while also being non-committal as parties on such an important aspect as a minority right.

Through the divorce debate we saw the gradual rise of a kernel of a Civil Rights Movement. It was one that “Stood Up” and called a spade a spade beyond the useless rhetoric and empty sophistry of the parties. It was promising − and we recognised the momentum. What seems to have been heavily underestimated though was the pulling power of the parties in their attempt to hegemonise (and in the process mollify) the political decision making in our country. Sure, eventually the Ayes will have it − and Austin will do his little tantrum − but will we revert to the spineless politics and the slow pace of opiated Maltese dualism?

The answer to this question seems to be a resounding “of course”. Deborah Schembri has done us the honours. She was a more than promising leader for the kernel Civil Rights Movement and proved her ability to argue above the noise. She surprised everyone by announcing on the people’s forum − (very aptly) Xarabank − that she would choose a career in politics over a vocation as people’s representative (my choice of words). Another one bites the dust (forgive us for being sceptical about the chances of Debbie changing Labour rather than vice-versa).

San Ċipress

And if you were wondering whether Debbie’s absorption will be a one-off distraction factor then look at the new spin from the PN camp involving another budding star − Cyrus Engerer. No sooner had Deborah announced her “career path choice” did the spin begin to portray the liberal side of PN as the new stars. Much as you might like Cyrus and Deborah as politicians who showed their mettle in the divorce debate, you might be heading towards grave disappointment as they are transformed into the latest tools for survival by the PL-PN opiates.

The boredom threshold of a tired electorate is lower than that of a prime time “journalist”. Having taken great pains to cast his decision, the voter just cannot wait for his representatives to just get a move on beyond the fuss and enact the damn law. The voters’ impatience is the political party’s boon − they will reason their way out of this mess and both will try to sell the idea that they are the people’s party. Meanwhile, the short-lived Civil Rights Movement risks being the greatest loser: can you imagine the PLPN handling other important issues beyond divorce? Of course not. And yet Cyrus and Deborah chose to obstinately operate from within the rudderless ships and allow themselves to be paraded like the latest “vara” (statue) at some village festa.

In the words of one of Malta’s foremost philosophers of the 21st century… “jekk intom ghandkom vara, ahna ghandna vara isbah minnkom, jekk intom qieghdin hara, ahna qieghdin hara iktar minnkom,… u jekk intom ghandkom lil Debbie… ahna ghandna ‘l Cyrus (ahjar minnkom)”….

Will we ever learn? If you’re still not convinced by all this sophistry then you might want to try to take a peek on Alternattiva’s quest to remind our representatives why they should stop dilly-dallying. They’re meeting (aptly again) on 7 June at Hastings Garden at 9.30am. If you’re taking an iPod along then do buy the single “I’d rather dance with you”… by the Kings of Convenience − a pleasant tune to listen to before the latest round of philosophy – hopefully there will be less sophistry involved.

www.akkuza.com − thinking different because you don’t seem to want to.

Categories
Divorce

As the dust settles – Citizen Jack

The noise had almost begun to subside and the metaphorical dust seemed to settle around the result of “53% IVA 47% LE” it became increasingly unclear whether another showdown was underway. The definitive conclusion that could be drawn from the last 72 hours is that this is definitely a crisis moment for Maltese society. Echoes of this conclusion can be heard all over the place and there is definitely no going back.

Interestingly enough in our multifaceted society of victors and defeated (because there always has to be a winner in our mind) the assumptions being made through the grapevine all the way to the reported ideas in the press do not seem to take in the wider picture. The citizen, the netizen, the reporter, the church, the politician, the party, the government – might all be engaged in a short-term assessment and quick recalibration of immediate requirements.

Let’s see how the actors played it out starting with this post about Citizen Jack.

CITIZEN JACK
Shaken. Very stirred. The divorce debate catapulted Jack out of his default position of “politics ain’t for me”, “it’s all the same anyway”, “they’re all a bunch of time-wasting egotists”. Was Jack aware that the question was more about emancipation and less about divorce? Maybe. For one thing he got to ditch his long-outdated political compass and was obliged to think for himself. No default/lesser-evil position would allow him to make ethical compromises.

Lacking the classical reference points Jack went solo. Where possible he found the comfort of numbers – from facebook movements to processions – yet this did not dispense him from having to think and think hard. It was hard to get a crash course in constitutional law and social mores what with all the noise: the perennial dilemma of the uninformed (a euphemism for uneducated? – but then how many are there?). The planes of discussion were at times too many for Jack to follow: Was this a battle between the devil and the Lord for his soul? Or was it a battle between the controllers and the controlled over a more liberal society?

As in Aesop’s fable the battle between the sun and the wind to strip one man of his vote escalated with worrying consequences on the man’s constitution. As the dust of the first battle settles you can sense an eagerness to end all this. Shouldn’t it be over by now? Hasn’t the YES won? Isn’t the parliamentary debate a formality? The people have spoken (the bastards) haven’t day? It’s time to get back to the cocooned life of casual complaint and leave it all to those who know best no? Jack might begrudge the very existence of your average MP but he sure is grateful not to have to carry his responsibilities.

The question we should be asking at the moment is whether the multiplicity of virtual and real movements have brought the message home to Jack that there is an underlying, deeper battle than the one that has just closed. Censorship, minority rights, social freedoms, respect for the environment, the battle against the networks of corruption, the stranglehold on representation …. and much much more. Is that too much for Jack to handle? Will he be wishing that the monster vanishes or that it will be swept under the carpet for hopefully another 50 years?

Can Jack be stirred further? Is Jack aware that cashing the change cheque will imply much more than simply ticking the yellow box in one referendum?

Se vogliamo che tutto cambi bisogna che tutto rimanga lo stesso.

Categories
Divorce

Rethinking Silence

I enjoyed reading yesterday’s Independent’s editorial (Period of silence silent no more) on the “cheap flight” to Malta. Michael Carabott describes the pre-electoral period of silence as being “as useful as a chocolate teapot”. The Editor’s take is split between the uselessness of the “silence” itself and the manner in which it is apparently ignored on the web.

During the 2008 elections this blog and its related sites (the Malta Chronicle) shut down for the day – choosing to respect a law with which we disagree completely. Other blogs – notably Running Commentary – chose to blog on in defiance opting for a more hands down approach to the issue. I recall that already then the Independent had pointed a (mild) accusatory finger at the online world while highlighting the disparity of treatment.

Whatever our opinion on the matter may be there is little doubt that the archaic laws apply to any publication: whether in print or on the ether. It is the law itself that has to be changed and there is no way of circumventing the prohibition (I’d dare say even on social networks) without risking falling foul of a particularly nitpicking officer of the law (who would probably have been duly informed by a whistleblower of sorts).

Having said that today’s period of silence is interesting. We technically cannot provide any propaganda urging voters to vote one way or another come tomorrow. On the other hand it serves us as a perfect excuse to reflect on the commonalities between this referendum and the normal electoral procedure. In the absence of the usual PL/PN divide we have demonstrated an inability to think and act differently. We dug the trenches, we formed the lines and above all every facet of our approach to a national decision required the Black vs White physiognomy that puts us all in familiar territory.

So the Rules of the Game (with intentional capitals) are applied to this little mini-bout. A Chief Electoral Commissioner is stunned into a non-reactive coma the moment “foreign elements” are placed on the plate. A Broadcasting Authority finds itself applying the very same paradigms that had been nurtured and abused by the parties. We had the “cheap flights”, we had the “billboards”, and we had the mudslinging about “dirty tactics”. It was all there to see. Barring the fact that the Holy Roman Catholic Church made a guest appearance this time round we had all the trappings of the usual PLPN debacle.

Back to the silence. It is ridiculous in this day and age that we still apply laws dreamt up for the 50’s, 60s and 70s when banning the use of the word “Malta” could turn out to be a sly political move. True, we are not the only nation to have “days of reflection” but then again the reasons behind these laws have become rather obsolete. One of the main justifications for a ban on press and media chit chat was the danger of “last minute lies” being spread without the opportunity of rebuttal. Nowadays it takes two hours for a tweet to go viral and spread across the web – how’s that for sufficient time for rebuttal (coupled with a massive in-the-face explosion for the original perpetrator)?

J’accuse had half a mind to break the silence. We might still do that but for now we will be hitting the beach in order to have the right angle for reflection. Meanwhile a series of pre-programmed posts have been set to entertain you throughout the day.

Also… look out on these pages over the weekend. We’ve got a lovely surprise for you that will be unwrapped on Monday.