Tag: Highlights

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

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