Tag: highlight

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 For one thing he got to ditch his long-outdated political compass and was obliged to think for himself.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.

Categories
Divorce Politics

When the dust has settled (I)

I still have to watch Reno Bugeja’s program that aired yesterday and dealt with the aftermath of the referendum but I do think that we can begin to draw conclusions on the effect of the Great Divorce Debate on society as well as on the Maltese corner of the ether. As the referendum results are read out and Malta begins to come to terms with it’s latest snapshot for it’s collective ID card there may be carcades and hooting, there may be strings of Ave Marias and novenas of gratitude elsewhere but things will never be the same.

Beyond divorce

A divorce debate and law tends to be a landmark moment in a nations’ history as documented in this book review.

Of course we have been thinking, speaking and most of all joking about (more about that later) divorce but the first assessment of the aftermath has to be that this Debate was much larger than its original purported subject. Interestingly we managed to reaffirm a trait of our society – it’s inability to think beyond two. There’s black and there’s white, there’s Good and there’s Evil, there’s Us and there’s Them, there’s the Secular and there’s the Confessional. Then there are those with a “sense of humour” and those “without”.

As soon as it became clear that the issue is much wider than the right to remarry then it became time to dig the trenches… and dig them deep. There would have to be a victory of some kind: of good over evil, of one lifestyle over another – and a loss for the idea that somehow two ways of life can coincide. That is why voting YES or NO notwithstanding the apparent  inevitability of the shooting down of the bill by our spineless and unrepresentative parliament is still a matter of life or death. We have confirmed that this nation is destined to be bipartisan.

I hope God has a sense of humour

As the trenches formed the two sides emulated the tried and tested ways of doing politics – the billboards, the half-truths and the mediatic ploys and gimmicks. Nothing new there. We could be tricked into thinking that the individual was more “active” than before because of the flourishing of blogs, communities and pages mostly dedicated to asserting ones position for or against an idea. Then came humour. Again, the biggest effect has been the facility of the spreading of “jokes” and what in Malta passes as “satire”. Josanne Cassar described it as a Survival Kit a concept that unwittingly (or maybe purposefully) implied the need to survive (and be above or extraneous to) the discussion itsel.

Witness Josanne’s other creation: Moviment Tindahalx – a snowball effect of sorts led it to (currently) 3,513 members. Tindahalx (don’t interfere) is again less of an assertion of a position and more of a declaration of detachment – neither here nor there in the bipartisan sphere though ultimately  the ideal platform for roping in those whose first reaction to the ugly word “politics” is “Thanks but no thanks” – until they realise how it also can mean that others are determining your way of life.

I asked Josanne where she wanted to go with Tindahalx and the answer was quite emphatically “nowhere”. Which is unfortunate – because if there ever was a promising platform for gathering that snowball for the critical mass beyond the bipartisan fold then it was in this community. What might have diluted the original message “you take care of your soul and I’ll take care of mine” was the tsunami of humour that followed.

From Divorzistan to Mazzun to the rest the Maltese habit of “nervously dealing with the lighter side of life” spread to the net. I am the firs to click around and have a good laugh or two on these sites. There is also a political element in the humour itself this time round – and mocking the serious side is after all J’accuse’s unofficial motto (castigat ludendo mores). It’s not new though: the fact that it is more easily spread does not make it new. It began with the jokes at the grocer in the eighties (joking about Mintoff , Agatha et al was one way of coping with the sadness of daily life), moved on to email virals and youtube videos in the last two elections/referenda and is now settling in communities on facebook.

Critical Mass

It is easier to see how many followers a facebook page has than to count exactly how many people stepped out of the Zejtun parish church (unliked) last Sunday. Read the MaltaToday report and you’ll see what I mean: the heading mentions a “Mass Walkout” but the article starts with the word “several parishioners”… which will it be?

J’accuse continues to question whether the critical mass for change has been reached? Without intending in any way to minimise the importance of the newfound tools of engagement the question is what will happen when the dust subsides? Has the argument and discussion been provocative enough to provoke the necessary thousands into deciding to use their vote in order to bring about change and reform in the future? Or is this just a passing fad in which laughter has popped up as a temporary panacea for our argumentative colic?

James Debono gave us his interpretation as to why YES will prevail. His argument makes a lot of sense – particularly in the ability of a voting population to react positively in the face of quirky vs common sense. What that also means though is that we have done it before and we will do it again (choose common sense). 1987 and the EU are witness to that. Common sense has given us a confessional government, an opportunist opposition and a general set-up of actual or perceived laws that seem out of synch with the 21st century.

When the dust settles this time round will the critical mass still be there to fight the next battles for change to come about? We’ll just have to wait and see.

“In un paese pieno di coglioni, ci mancano le palle” – j’accuse 2011

Categories
Articles

J'accuse: Far from the madding crowd

For my sins I tuned into One TV’s Affari Taghna on Friday night. Bundy’s programme is going through its own apotheosis and will soon be sitting at the Olympian table of Maltese television alongside the other opiates of Maltese thinking. On Friday, Deborah Schembri (likes divorce) and Joyce Cassar (doesn’t like divorce) crossed swords before a scientifically inexact but sufficiently random cross-section of Maltese society. I chose to persevere and ignore the initial twitches in my brain caused by Joyce’s ability to swing from one non sequitur to the next like a metaphorical Tarzan in a jungle of illogical misconceptions.

The Great Divorce Debate has served as the Great Eye Opener in many ways. It may seem offensive to speak in terms of “medieval thinking”, “moving time backwards” or “brains where time stood still”, but the absence of the clear PLPN divide this time round allows us to dissect our national way of thinking as we have not been able to for a very long time. I must confess to finding myself overwhelmed by the sudden overdose of “opinions” on the matter when only a while ago a blog post or article supposedly made as much sound (or was just as conveniently ignored) as the tree falling in the empty forest.

Genesis

Far from the baying hounds and loud noises, you catch glimpses of moments of lucidity in the debate. I have recently come to the conclusion that the reason for the prolonged discussions and misunderstandings on what should be after all the straightforward legislation of a basic right is our inability to distinguish between the secular and the spiritual. In the history of our young nation, two great events compounded the confusion among even the supposedly more intelligent and emotionally detached of our members.

The first event was the period of the Mintoff-Gonzi wars culminating in L-Interdett (Interdiction) and the second was the 1995 Church-State Agreement between Eddie’s and Guido’s PN government and the Roman Catholic Church. The first has left long lasting scars of rancour that inevitably pollute any discussion that involves anything remotely spiritual, and the second has proven to be detrimental to the (crucial) roles of both the Church and the State in our society. At the end of Affari Taghna I could only ask a rhetorical question to the “fathers of the nation”: “Can you see what mess you have left us in?”

For the love of God

There were a couple of reassuring voices on the night though. The first came, surprisingly enough, from Fr Charles Vella. Surprising because of all the controversy that has surrounded the notorious clip in which Fr Vella declaims his lack of fear of divorce. In the full clip, as aired on Bundy’s show, it is clear that Father Vella is stating what every rational human being who participates responsibly in society should be saying. Fr Vella has no problem reconciling his dislike of divorce (as discovered through the words of God and the teachings of the Church) with the civil issue of the availability of divorce. It is men like Charles Vella and the spokesperson for the Catholics − Yes because it is a right (I believe it was Carmel Hili) − who have managed to shed the blinkers inherited by our black and white society.

Father Vella does not favour divorce. No, the Cana movement director was quite clear about that when he appeared on Norman’s show. He is though, a strong enough Catholic not to fear it. He knows what is right and what is wrong according to the tenets and moral principles of his Church and − as he said − he is prepared to fight to the death to protect the principle of marriage. What Father Vella did add is that he cannot countenance the possibility of ramming his tenets down other people’s throats.

Free will is an element common to both the tenets of the faithful and those of the lay. Both have a set of guidelines intended to ensure that the exercise of free will brings about the best in mankind. It may be that my mixed Lasallian and Jesuit upbringing combined with my legal background allows me to appreciate the importance of both situations. A citizen expects to be able to exercise his sovereign free will insofar as he causes no harm to others. A believer is thankful to the Almighty for having created him a free thinker and granted him his time on this earth to choose between right and wrong. The accomplishment of the virtuous citizen − whether lay or faithful − comes with making the right choices: and not with having those choices being made for him.

Movements

Father Vella of the Cana Movement knows that. So do many of those participating in the discussion. Even those lawyers, like André Camilleri and Arthur Galea Salomone who are arraigned on the side of those adamant to oppose the introduction of divorce legislation, find it hard to explain their position when it comes to deciding for others. The NO side can perform verbal somersaults and claim not to be grounding their arguments in religious ethics (on what then? on misreading of scientific studies? on the hushing of the real questions?) but at the end of the day there is little to go on between Galea Salomone’s ultimate aim and that of the preacher on Bundy’s programme whose heart beats for Christ and whose only argument against divorce is that God hates it.

And there we are. As more movements spring up than in a kitsch Monty Python Jerusalem Liberation Front sketch, we are stretching an open and shut case to realms that go far beyond the Kafkesquely absurd. Our political backwater still soldiers on and can only take a breather until “the people have spoken” and then − in the case of a YES vote − the fun will begin. For I cannot wait to see how our “leaders” will squirm out of this one. They do after all represent this motley crew that is our nation.

Cheap flights, cheap votes

Finally, I have had it up to here with this stupid idea that people abroad get some kick out of taking days off and flying to Malta on a “cheap flight” just because the collective leaders of the nation and the people who vote for them every election have their heads stuck so far up where the sun does not shine that they cannot see the absurdity of this exercise.

Last time I was in Malta I got my voting document delivered by a postman. I don’t see why I cannot return that service. Barring any last minute change of heart that can only be provoked by further ridiculous arguments by the NO camp, I will not be taking the flight from Luxembourg to Malta to vote. Make that two of us. That’s two YES votes down the drain because work does not get done on the Friday we would be away and, quite frankly, I’ve had enough of abetting this ridiculous backward way of doing things. Votes in embassies should be the priority of the next movement to crop up in this country.

Free will

How hard can it be? Free will. A vote for divorce means allowing people to choose to start a new life − married − long after their previous marriage has broken down. Is divorce a solution? It was never meant to be one. Divorce is a grown-up and mature acknowledgement that “rien ne va plus”. It is much more mature than the arbitrary denial of the existence of a marriage via “annulment” if you ask me. Maturity, fairness, free will. That’s adult talk isn’t it? I’m hoping that the referendum will prove that there is hope for that yet.

Vote ‘Yes’. It’s a matter of choice.

Far from the madding crowd’s ignoble strife

Their sober wishes never learn’d to stray;

Along the cool sequester’d vale of life

They kept the noiseless tenor of their way.

www.akkuza.com freely exercising hard headed will since 2005.

 

This article appeared on yesterday’s edition of The Malta Independent on Sunday.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Articles

Mother's Way

Many moons have waxed and waned since our days in the schoolyard under the watchful supervision of adults. In those days of Lemonora and Desserta canteen treats, life was relatively simple and at the smallest sign of trouble the “adult” would step in and solve the problem with an imperial edict carrying all the weight and respect of “he who knows best for everyone”. Playground rules came in the same package as the various snitches (“Miss, he’s standing on the monkey bars”), bullies (“Your lunch or a punch”) and disciplinarians (“Stand by the yellow door you naughty boy”). Far from the comforting nest of motherly love, scholastic authority gave a semblance of order to our miniscule world. Mother’s Way was imposed vicariously by proxy.

Then (supposedly) we grew up. Writing a guest post about the “Pogguti” poster on J’accuse, Mark Vella used an interesting phrase “jekk tghallimna nkunu nies, mhux bilfors li ahna” (if we learnt what it means to be adult (well behaved) it does not mean that we are). It struck directly at what I had been thinking over this last week: our “nanny state” mentality is finally out in full force. Since independence we have seen the process of “educating Malta” − we toyed with socialism and then switched to a supposed liberal-democrat framework infused with identifiable values. One thing seems to be stuck in time though − our collective understanding of our society’s rules, rights and how to use them. Many of us want our State to be the Playground all over again − and yearn for the adult voice of authority and protection based on the arbitrary rule of “he knows best for us”.

Prefects of Discipline

The divorce debate has entered the phase of the “dirty tricks” and one of the most common complaints on both sides refers to “fairness”. You could picture them queueing up to a fictitious teacher and bawling their complaints… A dribbling JPO cries foul on the fact that the PN media won’t print his adverts. A No to Divorce campaigner yells his frustration at being called a bully for having whipped out his Nan’s holy picture as proof of his authority. Meanwhile, as No to Divorce is incessantly associated with intolerance we shift to anything goes, so a nutty Evangelical preacher suddenly becomes a threat to society: “Shut him up Miss, I don’t like what he is saying”.

The language of exchanges is in the same vein as school diatribes − and we should seriously ask ourselves whether this is because for long we have been content with this kind of schoolyard rhetoric. Much of it results from our lack of understanding of the basic functions of the institutions and rules. It’s glaringly obvious that the mixture between the sacred and the profane, the lay and the religious is beyond repair at this point. One of the uglier portraits of Jesus of Nazareth has become an iconic symbol of messages supposedly aimed at the faithful… and the reaction has been massive.

Stepping in One’s Shoes

We could not have expected any other form of debate around the divorce issue. Yes, we are 43 years late (I’m using ’68 as my benchmark). What is worrying is that we have slipped comfortably into Don Camillo and Peppone rhetoric as though emancipated liberal society happened to other people. Laymen want to interfere with the Church’s way of things (and you can’t blame them entirely when the Church has slept comfortably with the State for so long). Churchmen want to save the soul of even the most reluctant atheist. And what is the solution? A blanket prohibition? One that prevents the option of divorce for EVERYONE.

I have a problem with every single argument being made (what’s new). The Church with its massive prophylactic concept − shield everyone from the possibility of divorce otherwise its weak-willed sons and daughters would sin at the first opportunity − is the first to be J’accused. The message is clear: “it’s wrong, because I said so (and I am quite sure that so did Jesus/Paul etc).” Then there is the illogical leap − if it’s wrong and dangerous for me then it is wrong for everyone else. Punto e basta. What bollocks.

What about our progressive forces of the earth? Joseph Muscat had a note on Facebook this week and this is how it ends “l-Partit Laburista kien, ghadu u se jibqa’ jhalli lil kulhadd jiehu decizjoni skont il-kuxjenza. Sostna li l-pozizzjoni tal-Partit Laburista hija ta’ tolleranza u ta’ kuxjenza.” The Labour Party position is one of “tolerance and conscience”. Do you want to know what this means? It means that if Muscat’s Labour were around in the times of abolition of slavery, in the times of the removal of racial intolerance, or in the times of the battle for equal pay, then it would be there with all the fence-sitting non-affiliated persons who watched history being made from the sidelines. Sure, our leader is against slavery but he’ll let his party members vote as their conscience wills. Sure we want women to get the same pay as men … but hey, we all have our conscience to see to. Sic transit gloria…

Mother’s Law

Much has already been written about the two Mrs’ (Gonzi and Muscat) and their incredible pre-Mother’s Day stint. Their efforts to conform to the narrative that best suits their husbands’ role reinforced the pathetic picture of our failure to understand what growing up is about. On Mother’s Day, of all days, you’d hope that many understand that when the social fabric of society is woven with the thread of broken families that are obliged to stay so till death do them part then it’s a poor fabric indeed.

There may be some good news in all this. The extremities to which we are being exposed in this divorce debate might finally have led to pushing a very reluctant movement out of the closet. Malta’s budding “liberal community” has always fallen victim at the last hurdle − being quickly absorbed by one of the two parties at the moment of truth. This time round the invasion of privacy and the nanny state mentality might actually prove to be the gel that gets the liberals moving. That’s why I “liked” the setting up of the “Moviment Tindahalx” on Facebook. I sincerely hope that its message will be a more lasting one than the frivolous pages of the ether and that something positive might result from the otherwise relatively inconsequential exercise on 28 May

The Flowers of May

I’d like to gather all the blooming flowers of the world and offer them to every caring and doting mother on the island. That goes for you too mum… and a happy belated birthday too!

www.akkuza.com “ the 21 days of blogging the divorce debate kicked off on Saturday 7 May (yesterday). Check out the full blogroll at themaltachronicle.wordpress.com

Categories
Divorce Politics Zolabytes

Dars, Pogguti u Bghula

Mark Vella (formerly of Xifer… il-blogg mit-truf) was provoked into writing this post in reaction to the “Pogguti” billboard:

Jacques talabni nikteb, imma għidtlu li mhux interessat u li kull ma rrid nitfa’ l-vot u nitħalla bil-kwiet. Forsi dan kull ma jrid min biħsiebu jivvota IVA, wara kollox: jitħalla jgħix ħajtu kif irid hu, fil-limiti tar-responsabbiltà adulta u l-legalità.

Imma l-kartellun tal-bgħula u l-poġġuti laqatni wisq. L-ewwelnett, lingwistikament. Hija kampanja kuraġġuża, forsi anki inġenwa, dik li toħroġ għonqha bi kliem iebes bħal dak. Lili darrsitni, ikolli ngħid, għax mill-ewwel laqtitni bħala kontroproduċenti, u eku ta’ dan ġa qrajnih f’diversi interventi ta’ Daphne Caruana Galizia. Ħsibt ukoll li l-kampanja forsi clever wisq għax-xena politika Maltija, bil-ħbit tal-LE u l-IVA fl-istess stampa, u fil-kuntest ta’ pubbliku elettorali li ftit jew wisq iħobb kampanji pożittivi b’kartelluni ta’ tfal u familji hienja jiġru fuq il-ħaxix tar-rebbiegħa.

Argumentajt ukoll ma’ sħabi li l-kliem goffi għaliex m’għadhomx jintużaw, u dan kien ukoll argument tal-kamp tal-LE. Xi ħadd qalli, iżda, li jista’ jkun is-soltu preġudizzju lingwistiku u n-nuqqas ta’ kunfidenza f’ilsienna u fil-mod kif nesprimu rwieħna, għax tgħid ma jkunx effettiv kartellun Londra b’mara msawta fuqha u bil-kliem ‘She is not your bitch’, nagħtu każ? Minnu, imma għalija poġġuti u bgħula jibgħatuni lura għal dinja agħar, dinja ta’ kattiverja u preġudizzji li bdejna noħorġu minna milux. Illum, kważi kważi, il-kunċett ta’ poġġut bilkemm jiftiehem, u ftit jafu li oriġinarjament kien aktar jintuża għan-nisa appoġġati jew mantnuti mill-maħbub tagħhom, speċi ta’ sugar daddy. Anki bgħula ħadd m’għadu jgħidha, ħlief fid-dagħdigħat privati ta’ xi familji meta jinqala’ għawġ bħal dan. Trabbejna slavaġ, imma mxejna ‘l quddiem, u għalhekk dawn iż-żewġ kelmiet idarrsu u jissugraw, forsi mhux itellfu l-voti, imma jdallmu xi ftit il-kredibbiltà ta’ moviment progressiv u magħmul minn nies ta’ rieda tajba.

Imma ġieni f’moħħi wkoll li dan il-messaġġ qawwi huwa s-sintomu ta’ kemm din il-ġlieda saret waħda emozzjonali, u kemm xi elementi tal-Knisja u tal-kamp tal-LE ppreċipitaw din is-sitwazzjoni, mhux bil-fehma leġittima tagħhom imma bl-istrataġemmi offensivi li jużaw u billi jżeffnu, fl-istil tal-interdettijiet, lil Alla fi ħwejjeġ Ċesri. Din saret ġlieda storika daqs il-kwistjoni politiko-reliġjuża tas-Sittinijiet, u għal daż-żmien essenzjalment ġlieda mhux partitika imma bejn il-konservattiżmu fanatiku u progressiżmu li jrid joqgħod attent milli jittappan u jitlef triqtu.

Ġieni wkoll f’moħħi li wara kollox, u wara kemm wieħed jipprova jistħarreġ u jirraġuna, forsi l-IVA kellhom raġun jagħtu xokk bħal dan. Għax l-ipokrezija li rajna mill-kamp tal-LE wieħed jista’ jaraha wkoll fit-tessut tas-soċjetà Maltija, għaliex anki jekk tgħallimna nkunu nies, mhux bilfors li aħna. Ma nafx jekk hux każ ta’ ħmar il-magħkus li jdur għalih id-dubbien, iżda bħal xi ħadd li għadda minn żwieġ li falla, kien hemm waqtiet fejn qlajt kummenti bla ħniena, għax hemm il-fatt li mhux biss hemm min ma jridx id-divorzju, imma hemm min jitkaża wkoll b’min tkissirlu ż-żwieġ. Ma tirbaħ qatt. Snin wara u ħajja ġdida, kien hemm ukoll min sejjaħli poġġut. Wieħed biex jitkessaħ, u qala’ xebgħa lsien bi kliem wisq eħrex minn tal-kartellun. Ieħor ħafna akbar minni, imrawwem professjonalment fil-PN (seta’ kien partit ieħor: dan biss bħal sfond), Kattoliku devot, omofobu u konservattiv tradizzjonalist. Għal darb’ oħra, deskrizzjoni ta’ sfond għax kulħadd ifassal lilu nnifsu kif irid. Madankollu, bejn b’nofs ċajta jew forsi għax beżaqhielu l-inkonxju, qalli poġġut, għax waqt li qed niċċajtaw dwar it-tfajliet sbieħ u ħelwin, għidltu li issa ma tantx nista’ nħares għax m’għadnix single. U billi għadni fil-limbu tar-relazzjonijiet skont kif jarahom hu, waħħalli t-tikketta.

X’tagħmel? Tieħu għalik? Le. Anki jien, ta’ sensittiv u bużżieqa li jien, ma tantx tatni ġewwa. Anzi, rikbitni mewġa ta’ maħfra Nisranija għax ma kienx jaf x’inhu jagħmel, u anki ta’ ħasra għal moħħ li baqa’ ċkejken. U kull m’għidtlu ‘iva, u wliedi bgħula. Rajtha qalbek’, u ħallejtu jiħmar u jistħi u jigdem ilsien li kien ħallih jaħrablu.

Mela fors l-IVA kellhom raġun, sew għax nies li ġarrbu u sew għax nies li jifhmu s-sitwazzjoni. Forsi huma wkoll, bħali, raw tassew qalb in-nies li qed jikkumbattu kontrihom. U għalhekk raw li għal kull min jippuntalek sejf, sejf daqstant jaqta’ jrid ikun biex joqtlu.

*****
Zolabytes is a rubrique on J’accuse – the name is a nod to the original J’accuser (Emile Zola) and a building block of the digital age (byte). Zolabytes is intended to be a collection of guest contributions in the spirit of discussion that has been promoted by J’accuse on the online Maltese political scene for 5 years.
Opinions expressed in zolabyte contributions are those of the author in question. Opinions appearing on zolabytes do not necessarily reflect the editorial line of J’accuse the blog.
***