Tag: Franco Debono

Categories
Politics

That Speedy Legislation

So Franco has now slipped his much touted bill on the financing of political parties into parliament in the form of a Private Member’s Bill. Should we wait before unpacking the fireworks? This must definitely be the last move by the Honourable Member of Għaxaq that proves to us that his seemingly interminable duel with power is not based on anything remotely resembling a coherent plan. Worse still it shows up the greatest deficiency in Franco’s actions: the apparent lack of clearly definable targets. Coupled with the Beppe Fenech Adami revelations Franco’s period as a rising star of Maltese politics has been transformed into the dying moments of a supernova. Why?

Let me tell you why. If, as Franco has often stated, the sick state of our party system is at the core of our political inertia and of what he claims to be our failed democracy then why wait for the dying moments of this parliament to present an all important private member’s bill that hits at the heart of the matter? While he danced, tangoed and sashayed in matters such as public transport Franco never tired of reminding us of his ultimate crusade. Meanwhile he was using the PN government’s one seat weakness to constantly attract attention to his immense capabilities and ultimately to the fact that GonziPN’s web of evil was guilty of putting this man with many solutions on the backburner for too long. Here was your typical example of the nagging footballer who evidently cannot stomach being left on the (back)bench for too long.

So a crucial question must be asked of Franco. Why now? As JPO showed very well with his own Private Member’s Bill on divorce, a timely proposal could have stirred the waters earlier on and shifted the national discussion to the crux of the matter. If let’s say sometime before or after the divorce saga you opted to present this law and switch the whole party system into the limelight then surely you would have been doing your duty as a responsible representative of the interests of the demos. For some reason you did not. I know for a fact that you have been working on it for a long time – who doesn’t?  Then why?

Surely you do not expect to now switch the condition of saving the day for government to the enactment of one law drafted by one person (you may be brilliant but I’m sorry it will take more than one lawyer to finalise a proper draft)? Is that your idea? To have brought the government and two political parties to the verge of an election only to tell them at the last minute to forget it and to concentrate on enacting a law first that practically threatens to handicap them in the future? Really? Seriously?

There is one issue and aside that needs to be considered. I got the impression during the last round of EU elections that many MEP candidates were very angry at their fellow candidates (even from the same party) who, according to these disgruntled candidates, bore false witness as to the amount of electoral expenses that they dispensed. Many of the “weaker” strand of candidates – those who are not in the frontline Ministerial seats or decision making committees of parties with sufficient exposure – would be desperate for a law that (rightly) puts the competition on an equal playing field during pre-electoral battles. Your minister with his deep pockets and incumbent powers might be too much of a match for backbench politicians attempting to get their backside back onto a parliamentary seat next time round… hence the probable eagerness for stricter regulations of electoral spending.

Somehow I may be wrong but I get the hunch that a couple of elections battling it out with heavyweights like Louis Galea might have taken their toll on Franco’s ability to face another round. Hence the need to propel himself to the front come what may. (A reason among many of course). Hence the last minute bill that will probably not see the light of day before the next legislature when district battles will have been fought, lax electoral rules on financing will have been flaunted and the same, same but different voting system will have triumphed.

Franco, I heard you say that the reforms the country needs should be made in a holistic manner. I’m sorry but this bill has everything but “holistic” written all over. Such a shame, the PLPN get their way again and we’ll have to wait quite some more time before anyone seriously tackles the matter.

Thanks Franco. But no thanks.

 

Video: (top right) La Lista Laqualunque

Categories
Mediawatch

A Time to Gag

Anglu Farrugia will cry crocodile tears at the Labour Party General Council. Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando will resort to reporting “evil bloggers” on his Facebook wall. Franco Debono will include a new law regulating evil attacks in his program of legislation (which program, having its hours counted, threatens to be the largest amount of laws proposed in the shortest time). General appeals and not-so-subtle implications will be made that the PM should do something about the bloggers and columnists who are resorting to “personal attacks”. And we all get carried away.

Your average listener or reader will not hesitate to chime in with the scarcely researched tautology of “Yes, there should be some form of decency, we have gone too far”. But have we? Or rather – what kind of legislation and control are these paladins of democracy seeking? While the general public showed the predictable kind of ambivalence when the laws dubbed as the New Censorship laws were published the sweeping statements about controlling other fields of expression than the arts multiplied.

First. A note about the new laws. They have nothing to do with such issues as libel and slander. What we have there is a new system of rating theatre and cinema that includes an element of self-discipline. This approach is highly commendable from a libertarian point of view because it emphasises (and exalts) the individual capacity to take responsible decisions. The theatre producer is invited to “censor” his own piece before any official scissors come into play. Self-control, self-censorship – an ability to assess what is and what is not acceptable in wider society : that is the heritage of an intelligent, emancipated and responsible society. Are we ready for the show?

Well, insofar as the political arena is concerned it looks like it is going to be tough. I am of the opinion that the current laws (if we DO have to look at legislation rather than policy first) are more than enough. It is a combination of publish (responsibly) and be damned. Defence in libel includes the “exceptio veritatis” (exception of truth) – the defence that is based on the idea that whatever was said about someone can be seen to be the truth. This is sometimes the reason why somebody who claims to have been libelled fails to go to court for fear of the “libel” being proven to have been the truth.

The “exceptio veritatis” is also itself controlled. While proving that a statement that is being scrutinised for libel or slander might stand strong if it is proved to be true, the truth is not a useful defence in the case of invasion of privacy. Stating that a Minister hosted a party with drugs freely available is defensible with the truth exception – i.e. if the fact is proven to be true. Saying that a Minister has the backside the side of a lorry it is an invasion of privacy and the mere fact that it is true (though even there – the exaggerated hyperbole is such that even the truth is obviously non-existent) will not suffice as a defence.

The fact of the matter is that libel, slander and defamation laws when applied constitute a solid last resort in the battlefield. On the other hand calling for more regulation is a perverse counter-productive move that demonstrates an ignorance of the law and, sadly, an intent to revert to the times of “Indħil Barrani” when our laws were tailor made to serve the interests of whoever needed to gag uncomfortable elements.

Check out again the Newt Gingrich video (top right) starting from 2’20”. Gingrich is asked a very uncomfortable question during a prime primary debate. It is an issue that is very private and Gingrich’s reaction says it all. “I would not like to answer it but I will”. Gingrich goes on to tackle the method of questioning and shoots some repartees of his own towards the press that has peddled the story. There and then. No courts. No gagging orders. Pure and simple intelligent response. And then the question is left to the voters to judge and value. Will voters give more importance to the story of Newt wanting an open relationship or to the fact that Newt was considered enough of a heavyweight to warrant a relentless barrage of mediatic coverage of the fact?

Which brings me to the question of politicians and privacy. Unfortunately the risk of reneging on most of what is private in their lives is a risk that politicians (and footballers, and actors, and prominent businessmen) take in a calculated manner more and more. When campaigns are built on family values and when consorts and children are used in campaigns to be paraded as some form of assets to the main storyline then we should not be surprised that the vultures in the press will be probing to examine whether this too is a facade. When you commit errors during a campaign and these are highlighted, parodied and caricaturised you’d be stupid to claim that these are personal attacks.

Our democracy does not need gagging orders and stricter regulation. Our democracy needs intelligent citizens and … if it is not asking for too much … intelligent politicians.

Categories
Articles

Closing Time

This is the last article in the J’accuse series on the Malta Independent on Sunday. I have decided to concentrate on J’accuse the blog and limit any print contributions to an ad hoc basis. Until the next print adventure… it’s been emotional. Don’t forget to subscribe to J’accuse and receive updates by mail. Use the box below the video clip to the left of your screen. (Accuse Me!) 

Interesting times. 2012 has begun very much in the way 2011 ended: with the fireworks, the ominous cloud of crisis(es) and a general holding of breath for what is to come. Metaphorically we are still holding our breath and I am not just referring to the election-no-election saga but to the world of wider affairs and economic crises. Malta – the civilisation of 400,000 people at the centre of the known universe – kicked off the year with a horrible double-murder and then shifted its attention to one man who holds the fate of our political history for the short-term, foreseeable future.

I have often referred to the Chinese curse that goes “May you live in interesting times” that is based on the assumption that interesting times would involve war, blood and danger. Well insofar as insular politics are concerned it does not get more interesting than this. The survival instincts of every politician on the island are piqued at this moment – raring to plunge into another battle of passionate electoral proportions and no amount of Standard & Poor degrading will deviate their attention from the ultimate Holy Grail of a parliamentary seat.

Ah yes. We’ve been downgraded. The fact that Malta’s rating now has less A’s than Franco Debono’s school reports has a lot to do with the fact that this country forms part of an elite group of members of the eurozone who are also intimately tied with saving packages and funds intended to soften the damage of any impending crises. S&P were not very positive about these plans and chose to clip the credit ratings of Malta – and France, and Italy, and Spain, and Austria (among others).

Lost in Translation
Well the Merkozy efforts to recreate a solid European Union economically speaking, the S&P rating reviews based on eurozone performance, the events happening beyond the Mediterranean’s navel…. they’re aeons away from reality. Once you land in the island of milk & honey it’s time warp time and all that noise is lost in translation. Joseph Muscat’s election team has a new buzzword… 1996’s Hofra is 2012’s Instability. Sure, economic instability is happening far, far away and trickles down to us in the form of) budget tweaking but we also have political instability don’t we?

Which brings me to the greatest show on earth after the big bang (pace Jovanotti). Franco Debono is a colleague of mine in more ways than one. I too am an Old Aloysian (a year younger than Franco’s) and I too am a law graduate (same class of ‘99). Don’t ask me for my school or university report. In the first instance I was busy being the Aloysian equivalent of Just William – splitting my time between detention room duties and crazy dares as to who would get the grade closest to zero in our spot tests. At university I preferred to concentrate on the extra-curricular buzz of student politics while getting just enough results to have a degree of sorts conferred on me. Experience has taught me that in both cases my time was well spent. Anyway, as Franco would probably never say, this is not about me.

Franco Debono
I had thought of using this last article of mine (see conclusion) to write an open letter to Franco. I would appeal to the sense of disciplined logic that our Jesuit education imparted upon us (Serio et Constanter) and to the sense of social justice that might have trickled into our system at philosophy of law lectures. I would have appealed for a sense of perspective that has long been lost in the heat of the events that are unfolding before us. I would have shown a sense of solidarity with Franco in so far as a number of the causes he claims to champion are concerned.

Yes Franco, there are a few among us who understand the compelling need for change. We understand the incremental amount of damage that the bipartisan system, rules and methods are causing to the development and maturity of our country. I have long claimed through my blog that the PLPN are a huge handicap to open competition, transparent exchange of ideas and to the emancipation from our insular mentality. Franco you might have come to the same conclusion from within the system.

Then something went wrong. You probably got caught up in the vortex of twisted checks and balances that the system kicks on when it’s very own survival is threatened. And you did not help either. I would not be the first one to criticise your methor. Was it panic? Was it an inability to prevent yourself from becoming another politician caught in the rut? Was it an impatience with the rules of the system that insist that everybody wait his turn? Whatever happened forced you to switch to becoming a nervous contradiction – drowning your original crusade in a storm of tantrums, nervous reactions and inconsistencies. That is the picture people have of you now – even those applauding you only do so because of the enormous window of opportunism (sic) that you have thrown wide open for them.

Franco, we share certain convictions about the changes needed in our political system. Yes, even some fundamental constitutional changes might require discussing and implementing. Our similarity stops there. I may salute you for what seemed like the early courage that you displayed when you challenged the establishment. What I cannot salute is the manner in which you seem intent on undoing your achievement noisily, nervously and with an inexplicable unabashed sense of self-aggrandisement. The principles that you originally claimed to espouse have been watered down by your need to constantly focus attention on yourself – forgetting the fundamental tenet of a politician’s guide: that he is there to serve and be judged.

What’s left unwritten
There, I would have written that and more. I would conclude appealing to Franco’s sense of justice that should be enough to tell him that forcing an election now is the most irrational and counterproductive act he could ever commit. An election needs parties with a program for the next difficult years ahead. Muscat’s labour is aeons away from any coherent plan beyond the all important “getting into power” bit. Gonzi’s PN is still learning it’s lessons from the errors committed in 2008 and that ironically rewarded it with an extended government by coalition. My bet is that my appeal would have been superfluous. By now it is clear to me that come Thursday Franco will abstain on Labour’s motion if only to extend his current nervous honeymoon with the dizzy heights of power.

That is why this is not an open letter to Franco. I have written more about this in J’accuse – www.akkuza.com – particularly the two posts entitled “That Constitutional Question” and “Windows of Opportunism”. More of course will be added to the blog and this is where I break a sad bit of news for you, the reader. In the coming weeks and months if you feel the need to see what the J’accuse take on things is you will only be able to do so on the blog.

Closing Time
Yes. This is the end of the J’accuse series of articles on the Malta Independent on Sunday. I have decided to concentrate on the blogging side and take my ideas and crazy writing back to the blog where they started. I probably miss writing the weekly column much more than you will miss reading it. In any case it has been a great ride and I would like to thank my fellow adventurer Bertu who has prepared the last two toons for this series.

In this country that loves speculation and gossip I must rush to add that this decision of mine is in agreement with the Independent editors – I am merely taking the opportunity of a time of stock taking to refocus on the online blog that remains the primary mode of expression and promises to be an important actor in the coming months. So don’t forget to add www.akkuza.com to your bookmarks (if you hadn’t done so already) and to subscribe to the mail updates.

I hope that it’s been as pleasant for you to read this column as it has been for me to write it. Thank you all for your patience and custom. See you on the net.

Last one out, switch off the lights.

www.akkuza.com is Malta’s longest running quality blog. Since the 10th March 2005 provocative thinking worth reading. www.bertoons.com contains a full collection of the illustrations that have brought you a smile on Sunday over the last few years. P.S. The honeymoon was great – thank you to all the well-wishers.

Categories
Politics

Windows of Opportunism

The good news is that it would be a “landslide defeat”. Labour would probably stroll into government with a victory by default that affords it a “stable” three-seat margin (at least). Such a majority would ensure that Labour can afford to have at least one “Franco” or “JPO” without losing its parliamentary majority. If that’s what counts as stable government these days then Muscat’s dream team would be as solid as a rock.

If the stakes were all about getting into power and staying there then Labour would be the horse to bet on. The core voters would be joined by the disgruntled, the “about time we change” (it’s only fair) and the new clan of PN-haters to form an unassailable lead at the polls and Bob’s your uncle. Or is he?

Windows

Well it’s not all roses is it? Franco Debono is promising to be the hair that broke the (fragile) camel’s back. J’accuse has chronicled how his behaviour has exposed the weakness of a machine that was assembled solely for the purpose of winning an election to the detriment of any coherent plans and values of governance. Sure, economically an argument can be made that the Par idejn sodi motley crew has contributed to the weathering of the economic storm until now. Some circles might beg to differ and will claim that our micro-economy would never have really borne the brunt of the euro maelstrom anyway – so it’s not thanks to Tonio and Lawrence that we’re quite ok.

Although budget wise we got a half-hearted OK by the Commission this week (bar some expensive tweaks to the deficit) the government remains unaccountable for a long list of grudges and defects that is only aggravated by its perverse ability to antagonise through perceived arrogance. A disjointed team was exposed in the issues of Transport Reform, Divorce Legislation and social and criminal reform laws – not to mention the honoraria fiasco. There is much revising and soul-searching to be made.

For every mea culpa on the government side there was a mini-window of opportunity for a prepared opposition to shine. Do we have a beacon prepared to step in once the current set of governors crumbles? J’accuse is painfully aware of the over-used cliché of the “unelectability of the opposition”. The fact that it is oft repeated and the fact that it was a major weapon in the armoury of GonziPN’s last election victory does not make it outdated automatically.

Muscat’s Labour seems intent on repeating GonziPN’s fatal error of 2008. They prepare for some sort of electoral victory but is this a party that is proving that it has the right credentials to govern? The smokescreen of the Franco saga might invigorate Labour hopefuls and build their hope for a change in government. The removal of the power weary Nationalists would not come a moment too soon for them. The mistake they make is that they equate the satisfaction of removing an expired government with the automatic assumption that anyone who steps in by default will be good for the job.

Who do you want to be today?

As Anglu Farrugia and Joe Mizzi table a motion for a vote of no confidence (to be held on Thursday 19th) Muscat’s Labour is counting on a snap election and a short-cut to the corridors of power. What it will do with the power when it holds it is anybody’s guess. Until now we do know that Labour is not Nationalist. We have promises of utility bill cuts without an explanation as to where the money to cover these expenses will come from. We have a farcical approach to manifesto writing (the cards to my chest approach) coordinated by an old timer and now with an arriviste error-prone wannabe as a manifesto secretary.

At the moment when it could have made its will clear and its vote count – the divorce votes in parliament- Labour wavered. This was the party in opposition mind you, not the one in government. In that instance Muscat displayed an inability to muster his men and his party behind one clear progressive cause notwithstanding the fact that it was not nuclear science. Did Labour (in opposition) manage to block vote a YES to divorce? No it didn’t. Muscat – in opposition may I remind you – conjured up the FREE VOTE. What is the free vote other than an admission that the Labour leader could not really be sure which way his member’s consciences would be playing?

On a straightforward progressive policy that should have been a piece of cake Labour faltered. It failed to take a clear party position and was unable to be clear about the way it would vote. This was the party in opposition with no governmental power to lose. Opportunism dictated that Labour gives the impression of going both ways. Thankfully in the end common sense prevailed and parliament enacted a divorce law. But not thanks to Labour. Not thanks to the PN either but still… it’s not the point here.

From the Libyan crisis to the Euro Crisis to Transport issues it has been evident that Labour is operating on the knee-jerk opportunist basis. It is a short-term policy based on populism of the basest order. The error lies in the fact that Labour has chosen to emulate the PN in its worst form – that 2008 electoral bouillabaisse that Lawrence Gonzi is ruing to this day. this kind of electoral machine gets you to cut the ribbon but leaves you reeling under your own unmerited success.

Joseph Muscat might get to sit in the driving seat at a Castille office… the real worry is whether once the persian windows are thrown open and he is blinded by the sunlight coming from across the wesgħa tal-Furjana he better have a clue about where he wants to go next… otherwise he will find that it will take much less than a Franco Debono to bring him crashing down into reality.

 

Categories
Politics

That Constitutional Question

Identifying Lou Bondi’s pitch on Tuesday’s Bondi+ was not too difficult. Franco Debono is doing a good enough job of undermining any valid points he may have with his behavioural shifting from the conspiracy theorist to the unabashedly ambitious politician. Franco seems to be unable to reconcile the values of his political mission with his unbridled hunger to slither up the greasy ladder of power as we know it. His behaviour plays into the hands of the spin-doctors of  “taste” who are prepared to highlight his faux pas until they totally eclipse any reasonable matter he may rightly wish to bring onto the forefront of the national agenda.

Bondi desperately tried to pitch the Franco vs Gonzi angle repeatedly throughout the program – infamously culminating in Franco’s refusal to “parrot” the words that the anchorman (and Nationalist quasi-candidate endorser) had desperately tried to plant in his nervous interlocutor’s mouth all evening. One aspect of this angle pitched by Bondi was his continued insistence that Franco was way out of his rights when he threatened to bring down this government by withholding his confidence vote when the time comes.

In a little “f’hiex tifhem?” (a very typical Maltese challenge of “what’s your expertise in this”) moment Bondi referred to his university lecturing credentials (“I taught politics and not just sociology – ghandek zball madornali“) presumably inspired by Franco’s earlier stunt of using his school reports. For a second I was worried that the two would pull down their pants and compare the size of their private members (sic) but a little side jab about the “Santana booing incident” (as witnessed from the I’m A VIP Quasi-Minister section of the crowd) did the trick.

Back to the constitution.

For it is a constitutional issue we are talking about. Does a lone MP from the parliamentary group of the party in government have the right to threaten to bring down the government? In bipolar (sorry, bipartisan) Malta we tend to run off with the idea that the game is one of simple mathematics – you win an election, you have the autocratic right to govern (should I say Oligarchic Franco?). Sure, what with the pilfering and tweaking of the electoral laws we have perfected the English constitutional bipartisan system to perfection and driven more than one death blow to the possibility of proportional representation.

Last election’s carcades were hooting to the tune of a D’Hondt majority (see Bertoon illustration that we cooked up the next day). the D’Hondt system of voting combined with our “tweaked” constitutional provisions had led to a relative majority government – no party had obtained more than 50% of the votes but one party had 1,500 votes than the other. A constitutional clause had come into play and the way it worked was –

a) if only two parties are elected to parliament,
b) if none of the two parties obtain more than 50% of the votes,
then the party with the largest number of votes (a relative majority) will be entitled to an adjustment of seats in order to be able to enjoy a majority of seats in parliament. That’s all found in article 51(1)(ii) of the Constitution of Malta.

Interestingly (and useful for later discussion) the provisos to this article are a rare instance in which reference is made directly to “political parties”.  It’s interesting because the Constitutional structure relating to representation and government (and therefore to the management of the basic power entrusted by “the people”) centres around individual “representatives” as elected to parliament by universal suffrage. The constitutional link between elector and elected is direct – there was no original intention for the intermediaries we now call “political parties”*.

This important distinction between political parties and members can be clearly seen from the Constitutional article on the appointment of the Prime Minister – article 80:

Wherever there shall be occasion for the appointment of a Prime Minister, the President shall appoint as Prime Minister the member of the House of Representatives who, in his judgment , is best able to command the support of a majority of the members of that House (…)

Again. No parties. The President takes one good look at the House of Representatives and determines whether any member among them can count on “the support of a majority of the members” – that’s what is in play whenever a “confidence vote” comes into play. It’s an opportunity to put to test whether the PM still enjoys that  majority support. In the current context it’s what Joseph Muscat would like to table (a motion of confidence) and where Franco’s threat might come into play (by not voting for the PM and thus undermining his ability to “command the support of a majority”.

Now comes the hard part for hardcore nationalist voters to digest. Franco Debono is the latest symptom of the Coalition of the Diverse called GonziPN that oh-so-miraculously snatched victory from the jaws of defeat last election. The rainbow coalition within GonziPN was possible because of a lack of scrutiny, a loose combination of values (if any) and mainly because any candidate who could steal valuable votes that could lead to the relative majority victory (and therefore to the automatic majority in parliament) was backed to the hilt. Remember the JPO saga? Remember the spin masters backing what was very evidently a loose gun to the hilt – basta nitilghu?

So when the members of parliament finally took their place in the house of representatives Lawrence Gonzi could assume that he commands the support of the majority of members. He assumed it because any leader of a political party in Malta who has just won the election assumes that his party members will back him to govern. Easy. Alfred Sant assumed that in 1996. Lawrence Gonzi had no reason not to in 2008. The mechanism is not foolproof however. At the basis of the whole system remains the basic currency of power transfer – the representatives themselves. As Franco has reminded us more than once the “support of the representatives” cannot be taken for granted.

The mechanism of “support” or confidence is a check on the power of government. Viewed from outside the convoluted scenario that Franco has created around himself (with the help of the bloodsucking media) you will understand that the right of a member to withdraw his support is an important check in our democracy. It is just as important (if not more) as the existence of an opposition.

Even though our political parties operate on the assumption that “loyalty” is universally automatic they have now been exposed to the democratic truth that it is not. The failure is not of the system but of the arrogant assumption that the bipartisan mechanisms that the parties have written into the constitution will guarantee their permanent alternation. Franco’s methods might be obtuse and distasteful especially when they betray blatant and crude ambition but on a political level the renegade politician who disagrees with the party line was not only predictable but threatens to become a constant in the future.

The more political parties ignore the need to be coherent politically and the more they just throw anything at the electorate in the hope that something bites the more they can expect of “Franco-like” personalities. The failure to whip Franco into the party line is not a democratic failure or a constitutional flaw but a failure of the political party to operate as an effective vehicle of democratic representation.

D’hondt worry? Frankly it was only a matter of time. It’s actually a miracle it took this long for the shit to hit the fan.

* In a recent House of Commons document (Speaker’s Conference on Parliamentary Representation)  political parties were defined as “the mechanism by which people of any background can be actively involved in the tasks of shaping policy and deciding  how society should be governed. While they are not perfect organisations they are essential for the effective functioning of our democracy. Without the support of political parties it would be difficult for individual Members of Parliament, as legislators and/or as members of the Executive, to organise themselves effectively for the task of promoting the national interest—including by challenge to the Government, where that is necessary and appropriate—and ensuring that proposed new laws are proportionate, effective and accurately drafted.”

Categories
Politics

The Legal Dope

Saturday’s protest called “Cannabis Reform Demonstration” has sparked off a few interesting discussions on the ether. The Times finds itself at the end of many an accusing finger for what seems to be a deliberate attempt to put cannabis in a bad light through “slanted” reporting and not so hidden innuendos. It’s not that reports on the harmful effects of drugs suddenly surface as the demo-day draws closer – it’s the deliberate attempt at confusion, putting cannabis on the same scale as the real killer drugs. I am not here though to go into the scientific evidence of the effects of drugs or to discuss the salutary effects of a good high or, for that matter, the negative consequences of control-freak prohibition.

Another interesting aspect has surfaced in this sudden revival of the Dope Discussion. MaltaToday carried a feature about the fact that “lurking behind next Saturday’s planned march in Valletta is a far wider-reaching challenge, which aims to end the absolute discretion enjoyed by the office of the Attorney General on decisions which would radically affect the possible sentences for certain crimes – drug-related offences being but one example.” Now I may be physically cut off from the Maltese scene but I have still to find a reference elsewhere to this aspect of the demo.

Is the demo or is it not a challenge to “the absolute discretion enjoyed by the AG’s office”? MT has quotes from two lawyers specialising in criminal defence – Joseph Giglio and Franco Debono. We do find a frank “admission” if you like halfway through the article that:

Independently of Saturday’s protest, lawyers like Giglio and Debono openly question the sheer breadth of the Attorney General’s discretion to choose between different courts (with all the serious implications for sentencing), in the light of a number of anomalous and often inconsistent decisions: including, but not limited to, the case of Daniel Holmes, whose 11-year sentence exceeded the very maximum he would otherwise have faced, had his case been heard before the Magistrates’ Court.

Well yes. The thing is that the aim of such a demo is probably best served if the demonstrators were to concentrate on the punishment – the severity of punishments determined by law for the crime of possession of cannabis and similar crimes. Even if it is not all out legalisation the problem here is more that a Welshman is in prison for 10 years for possessing what many would agree to be a harmless drug (though not the experts consulted by the Times). That is where the focus should be.

Whether politicians who in their spare time act as criminal lawyers (or should it be vice-versa) should be diverting the focus of the protest in connivance with a newspaper is questionable. I have no doubt that there could be an occasion to discuss the merits and demerits of the set-up for criminal prosecution and the very specific powers of the Attorney General but this is definitely not the time to be confusing issues. Taking advantage of public sentiment (even if a minority) with regards to the issue of penalties for cannabis-related crimes in order to rough through an amendment to an important part of our criminal procedure is just not done.

And one last note, one that we have often repeated from this blog. It is hard enough to be living in a country where human resources are not that easy to come by and therefore where specialisation in a field means you stand there with a few other good men or women. What we do not need is the two-hat politician who reforms the laws with one hand and benefits from them in his professional capacity with another. Good intentions or not is beside the point.

Like justice, law making must also be performed in a transparent manner.