We’re soon back from the summer break. Meanwhile it’s good to follow what this guy had to say. Always.
Categories
Tag: journalism
Categories
Watermarks: Walking on Water
Watergate
I re-watched “All the President’s Men” yesterday. It’s a 1976 movie featuring Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffmann and it chronicles the work of Washington Post journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein that led to the uncovering of the Watergate Scandal and the eventual resignation of President Nixon. The facts surrounding Watergate happened in the early seventies – a time without the mass means of communication and information that we know of today. Journalistic investigation was painstakingly slow and when the main whistleblower “Deep Throat” speaks in riddles there is much digging for information to be done.
Watergate was all about a money trail. Nixon and his party were using huge slush funds from the GOP campaign to finance covert operations intended to sabotage the Democrat campaign. There was no sudden discovery of all the information. It all started with what seemed to be a simple burglary at the Watergate complex and it was only thanks to the dogged work of the two journalists against all odds that the whole extent of the scandal was uncovered.
When the Post decided to run with the first big title linking big heads in government to the corruption trail, the official response was big and could be summed up in one word: denial. Nixon’s spokesperson attacked the journalists and the entity they worked for and came up with the phrase “shoddy journalism” and “shabby journalism”. Nixon’s people implied that there was a misreading of facts and that the Post had an ulterior political motive for “fabricating” such information.
All Nixon’s men did was gain some more time. They used that time to abuse their positions in power to try to harass anybody who was on their trail and close to obtaining damning information. Astonishingly Nixon won an election when the scandal had only just broke – but not so astonishingly at that point the pieces of the puzzle were far from Nixon and it was hard for the man in the street to make the connection. As more evidence was compiled – mostly by “following the money trail” – Nixon’s position became untenable.
All through the scandal that dragged on for two years, Nixon’s behaviour smacked of abuse of power and disrespect of institutional authority. At one point Nixon ordered the Attorney General (Richardson) and his deputy (Ruckelshaus) to sack special prosecutor Cox. Neither of the two accepted such a blatant abuse and both resigned in protest. Nixon only managed to get what he wanted when he found an appeasing Attorney General in Bork. Responding to members of the press for this Nixon stated emphatically “I am not a crook”.
Walking on Water
Events closer to home are uncannily similar to what happened in the Nixon days. We have a musical chairs of police commissioners who hesitate to prosecute when it is blindingly obvious that there is matter sufficient for prosecution. We have a government machinery that functions on blanket, unfounded denial and that resorts to bullying tactics when it comes to investigative journalists doing their job. Yesterday we had a Minister without portfolio mimicking Nixon’s spokesperson accusing journalists of not knowing how to read and of being “malicious”.
Every day is bringing to light more damning information linking more and more dots in a scandal that knows no equal in Maltese history. The Prime Minister and the two persons directly involved in the story choose to bury their heads in the sand and cling onto power hoping for a miracle of the walk on water kind. Apparently these scandals are not enough because some still claim that Malta is “economically strong”. I seriously believe it is only a matter of time that this fabrication of statistics falls apart – especially in the light of the fact that the greatest supposed economic injections under this government are tainted and linked with the scandalous events of Panamagate.
Muscat prefers to drag Malta through scandal after scandal rather than bear the responsibility and act in the interests of the nation. Like Nixon he believes that he will not “resign a position that he was elected to fill”. Like Nixon he prefers to use his incumbency in his favour so long as it is possible – thus protracting the agony of an electorate in need of clarity and honest politics.
One day, in the not too distant future, Muscat might face a journalist like Frost who when asked by Nixon “what would you have done” replied:
One is: there was probably more than mistakes; there was wrongdoing, whether it was a crime or not; yes it may have been a crime too. Second: I did – and I’m saying this without questioning the motives – I did abuse the power I had as president, or not fulfil the totality of the oath of office. And third: I put the American people through two years of needless agony and I apologise for that.
Watermarks is a new series on J’accuse. The idea consists in having a morning “short” taking a quick look and reflection on current events in the news – what is trending and why.
spread the word:
Categories
The Sacking of a Journalist
The fourth estate being what it is, the news of the sacking of a trainee journalist (he was on probation) in a particular set of circumstances warrants careful examination. J’accuse has a long history of criticising the workings of the mainstream press and is not about to hold back now. I am of course referring to the premature termination of Matt Bonanno’s contractual arrangement with the employers at the Times of Malta. Such termination did not require much of an explanation given that Bonanno was on probation i.e. the sacking required no explanation at all.
This does not mean however that we cannot look further into what happened and how it happened. Now that we have the news from the horse’s mouth (Matt Bonanno’s facebook note – reproduced with his permission further down) we can look at what could possibly have motivated the geniuses at the Times to nip this particular career in the bud. First a little set of clarifying facts:
[box]
(1) Bonanno posted the information of the impending Ministerial visit to tal-Qroqq on a facebook wall that belonged to a friend of his: Ms Abela Garett.
(2) Bonanno did NOT pick up the invitation sent to him in reply by Ms Abela Garrett in which he was asked to “bring his notebook along” to tal-Qroqq the next day for the pre-meditated, non-spontaneous display of disaffection at the Minister’s dealings with public transport.
(3) Bonanno did not inform his editors of the possible protest action – and this is assuming he gave any importance to the wall reply by Abela Garett.
(4) The Times sent ANOTHER journalist to cover Austin Gatt’s university visit. The visit and ensuing ministerial heckling was reported on the Times as it was on all other papers.
(5) The PN sleuths trying to discredit the protesting by Abela Garett included in their list of grievances that (a) the protest was premeditated; (b) Bonanno’s message on facebook was part of the pre-meditation.
(6) While more of the “premeditated” “non-spontaneous” bull was being thrown in direction of the theatrical performance, the Times chose to sever ties with one link in the chain of “premeditation” and sacked Matt Bonanno without so much as a by your leave.[/box]
It stinks. It does. And I do not believe for one moment the whole “conspiracy theory” or the Times is a confederacy of nationalists business. What we have here is an organ that likes to kid itself of being impartial and super partes when it comes to reporting the news suddenly developing a panic attack that it might in some way be “implicated” in a supposed “frame up” of Minister Gatt.
J’accuse believes that the Times people gave absolutely no thought whatsoever to what they were doing before the knee jerk reaction of sacking Matt Bonanno. If the Times had not swallowed so completely all the bull being shot into their direction by Messrs Bondi, Caruana Galizia and Co. about the evil nature of “non-spontaneous protest” they would have, possibly (and hopefully) noticed that Bonanno’s sole “sin” actually forms part of the repertoire of your average hack.
Yes. The Times sacked a journalist for behaving like one. Activists and ground level journalists constantly interact. Lord knows how many faxes about protests I sent in my time as an activist. If I wanted my organisation to be in the news I’d pretty damn well tell the journalist to “bring his notebook along” and pray to God that he follows suit.
Was Bonanno wrong to tell Abela Garett that Minister Gatt would be at Uni the next day? No. It’s public information after all. Nothing wrong in that.
Was Bonanno wrong not to inform his editors about possible protests occurring on the day? Again all evidence points to exculpating Bonanno. If anything, Bonanno would have abused of such information by “scooping” the issue and being on hand for the news item. Instead he probably did not even bother at all.
The uglier scenario is the alternative one. What if HE HAD told the Times editors that he suspected a possible protest against Austin Gatt on campus? What would they have done? Why are they so eager for the news? Their action (the sacking) might lead us to suspect that they would be more interested in forewarning the Minister than in actually reporting the event. After all they did get the report just the same but their reaction (the sacking) makes them seem rather angry about it all. The thing is… they lost control. They could not control the news. They had to follow and report.
Matt Bonanno’s inadvertent – and I insist unplanned – slipping of the bit of info to Abela Garrett led the Times to behave as a normal newspaper – one that reports the news as it unfolds before it without trying to tamper in any way. The moment though that the PN machine set the wheels in motion and started pointing fingers about absurd theories of “premeditation” and “nonspontaneity” the Times panicked.
And Matt was their perfect scapegoat.
Matt’s Note on Facebook (reproduced with his permission).
[box] I wasn’t going to write an explanation at first, but seeing as though gossip and rumours are being fired off from all sides, I thought it would be best to have my perspective wedged somewhere in between all the bullshit. Not that I ultimately give a damn what people think; times like these make it easier to realise who is not worth your time. Firstly, let me be the first to admit that what I did (and what I did exactly will be explained next) was spectacularly naive, and mildly unprofessional.
What I did was this: The day before the incident, I posted on Ms Abela Garrett’s wall, “Guess who’s going to be at University tomorrow.” I barely paid attention to her comment in which she told me she was going to give me a good story. So much so that I didn’t even tell my editors about it, and as a result did not attend the event, which by the way was public and not in the least bit top secret. Therefore, the whole thing was not orchestrated in any way. If I really, intentionally wanted to orchestrate something like that, I would have messaged her privately, not joked semi-publicly on her Facebook wall. In the words of John Cleese in a Monty Python sketch, I may be an idiot but I’m no fool.
A couple of other things which need to be cleared up are:
1) I did not write the article. I was busy following George Pullicino around a valley at the time and call him as my witness.
2) It was not me who decided to portray Ms. Abela Garrett as a heroine. I have no ill feeling towards The Times, especially my former colleagues in the newsroom.
Even though I feel my sacking was harsh, I was still on probation and they were well within their rights to give me the boot. The only thing I was disappointed about was not being given the chance to explain myself or apologise, in person. I was of course asked to explain myself via email on Thursday, since I was off that day, but I kept it brief and intended to explain myself fully, in front of the editors, the next day. On Friday, after being left in the newsroom for about 2 hours, I was called to HR and told my probation was terminated with immediate effect. To be honest I didn’t give my side of things, seeing as I wasn’t asked to. I don’t beg.
Neither am I going to be bearing a grudge against the bloggers who blew the incident out of proportion. They do what they do and I should have known better than to give them fuel to fire their own agendas.
And before they claim they don’t have an agenda, if Messrs. Bondi (sorry but I can’t be arsed putting the accent on the i) and Caruana Galizia were the journalists they claim to be, they would have phoned me to get my side of things before stampeding towards their own, warped conclusions. But that’s not how they work, obviously.
I will say one thing however. Caruana Galizia claims not to be on Facebook, but that makes her lifting photos, statuses etc. from the site and putting them on her blog even more morbid and stalker-like. Then again, she probably doesn’t search for them herself (if she does then she really does need to get a life) and has her minions do it for her. To these sad, miserable sycophants I say: do the rest of us a favour and stop robbing the planet of oxygen.
Actually now that I think of it I’d better remove the pictures of me French kissing a horse with a Labour flag draped over it while attending a pasta najt. (Kidding, Daffy) Finally, a big soppy thank you to my friends who have supported me over the past few days.
I’m touched, really. Anyway, I’ll be getting on with my life now.
Over and out. Matthew Bonanno.
Ps. I wish Maltatoday had chosen a better photo of me. [/box]
spread the word:
Categories
J'accuse : The Power and the Glory
I’ve just left an interesting discussion that I had over the phone with a couple of other people who were also guests on a radio show on Radio Malta. Andrew Azzopardi had invited me to phone in on his popular programme “Ghandi x’Nghid” (“I’ve got something to say”) and the subject was the Internet. Thanks to the marvels of technology (the one attributed to Alexander Graham Bell and not the one credited to Tim Berners Lee), I was able to join the Saturday morning chat show from the comfort of my living room in the company of a double-espresso and the marvellous view of snow-sprinkled Rue de Bragance.
It turns out that Andrew’s show on Radio Malta is a very popular corner of the radio listening world with an average listenership of around 12,000. I must confess that I do not often tune in to radios notwithstanding the possibilities that are available for streaming in the digital world; on the other hand I do like to look up a podcast or two that can be played back at one’s convenience without the restrictions of having to get out of bed early on a weekend. Andrew’s programme is not yet available as a podcast or as an archived stream – which is a pity because I am sure it would add to its current listener base of the early Saturday birds.
Back to the programme. We spoke about the “Internet” and, as with all programmes that tackle a behemoth of a subject such as the net, it was impossible to condense all the thoughts of the various guests into the hour or so that was available. I find it intriguing that discussions about the net will inevitably follow a trail that leads to discussions on “power” and “control”. It makes you wonder whether post-promethean homo sapiens discussed the pros and cons of the flame and fire in much the same way. Promoters of “Hey, it’s brill when applied carefully to the mammoth steak” would join “I love the way I can find my way through the forest at night” in arguing with “Did you see how Ugg went up in smoke the moment he got too close to the shiny thing?” on the benefits and drawbacks of Prometheus’s stolen gift.
Powerful thoughts
Thankfully, Tim Berners Lee was never bound to a rock and no eagle was ordered to repeatedly tear out his liver as a punishment for discovering the Internet. Nor for that matter will Mark Zuckerberg ever turn into flowers while gazing at his immense genius mirrored in a stream. The discussion on the power and control of the new medium that embraces a myriad possibilities will rage on however. There will always be those who want to police the web in order to guarantee safety and those who feel more comfortable sticking two fingers up at the boys in blue and who have more faith in society’s ability to regulate itself.
Upon reflection, if we were to ask the Pythonesque question “What has the Internet done for us?” we might attempt a sort of reply. While every development in communication has in some way “empowered” homo sapiens (from writing to the book to the radio to the TV), Internet brings three important “improvements” (not always innovations) and these are Immediacy, Accessibility and Interaction (thanks Liz Groves of Island Books for the real-time grammatical tip). It’s quick, it’s open to all and, even more than any of its predecessors as a medium, it is heavily interactive.
So where does power come into it? Well it’s all about Adam, Eve and the apple in the end (credit to mother for the inspiration). Because while all this immediate, accessible and interactive exchange is going on, the primary bit of currency being traded in this global network is the one that is at the origin of every primordial story in every culture: knowledge… “And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed”. And what is knowledge, dear reader of deadwood media, if not the key to all power?
Tower of Babel
Once we view the Internet’s spread from the perspective of knowledge then the picture becomes a tad bit clearer. Bereft of the confusing masks that the new technology might wear in its different forms we begin to notice a pattern. Look at China and its gargantuan efforts to control the contents of everything. Look at collaborative Wiki projects from -pedia to -leaks and see the levels of power constantly changing. The naked truth of Zuckerberg’s toy pervading your everyday life with apps for your delectation is all the more clear. The battleground for the universal allegiance to a platform or a “graph” is exposed in all its nudity.
Taken to another level, the fear of exposure, of privacy, of vilification is understood for what it is. As I had the opportunity to mention in a Dissett episode a while back, the “internet” (or parts of it) has the effect of holding up a huge mirror to society – Adam and Eve realising their nakedness – and sometimes we do not like what we see. The battle for knowledge – what knowledge is shared and what is not – has raged from time immemorial. Luther’s reformation centred on the availability of more knowledge to more people. Reading sacred texts in one’s own vernacular had an immense emancipatory effect on the population of Europe while at the same time leading to a century of fratricide and bloodshed.
Orwellian theorists will be thrilled to expose the “Big Brother” style conspiracy of controlled and measured information. Communist/fascist extremes of control are counterbalanced by the liberties in liberal democracies advocating self-control. We tend to experience more of the middle way as we settle down to “cope” with the powerful means at our disposal. Controlling the sharing of knowledge is not simply a matter of Internet policy though. It exists with or without Internet.
Fish ponds
Until social media were available, the traditional media could get away with a fair share of spinning. Only last Thursday Daphne Caruana Galizia wondered whether “the growth of the media pool has led to the creation of a sort of alternative fish pond, with those who swim in it speaking mainly to each other and building up issues and stories that don’t really exist”. There’s no doubt that this is often the case: this fish-pondism. When you have a multiplicity of agendas and/or perspectives this is bound to be the case. Media institutions like the papers of the English Sunday press might prefer to highlight different issues. When political interests get intertwined with the communicating (the technical term is spinning), then the need to control what knowledge is available gets more interesting.
Daphne chose to point out the fish-pondism to criticise the current fetish with what we could agree to define as non-stories like the issue about the Dwejra sand. Of course what Daphne will not say is that she has often engaged in fish-pondism herself. I am probably guilty of doing so too. The truth is that with non-immediate, non-interactive media this is always possible. You can choose to cocoon yourself in your own reality and within your own parameters. The medium you use can be tailored for your needs: whether it is Daphne’s 900-word column, Bondi’s Plus, Peppi’s Xarabank or a One/Net TV news item, you pick and choose what you want the audience to read, hear, see.
Fish-pondism is not the exclusivity of self-referential press but spreads to opinion columnists and even to bloggers who exercise excessive moderation to give a false shape to the “discussion” on their blog. The unwillingness to engage beyond one’s own turf: to play “away” as football jargon would have it, is a direct result of what is probably an inability to engage with neutral rules.
Columnist David Friggieri has declared that Xarabank has won the cultural war. The statement is wrong or incomplete. Xarabank may be winning the battle by outshouting the other voices but there are voices on the other side and they have not given up. These are the voices that are confidently dismissed by those who monopolise the traditional media with some uninformed excuse that they are “boring” or “uninteresting”, but these voices have the new media to thank and are gearing up for new battles.
Beach Head
Fish-pondism is the media equivalent of putting their hands on their ears and yelling “nanananana” in the hope that your different opinion will eventually go away. If that does not work they might resort to vilification, personal attacks and threats, but it only serves to point out that you (or rather, your opinion) are dangerous and that they are no longer comfortable in their cocoon. The rules of the battle are shifting and there is only so much time before the dry formula of a Where’s Everybody programme runs out of new ways to deliver a monotone message.
The Beach Head for the change that is still happening in Malta is the world of social communication. Facebook, Twitter and blogs are still settling in the social mindset. The big challenge ahead will be the development of value networking – when the citizen learns that empowerment is not simply getting hooked to the net but using it wisely so as not to be dismissed with the general crowd of commentators and hate-mongers (trolls in jargon) that have tended to populate the dark ages of early social networking in Malta.
Which is where we lead to education. The young people of today grow up in an atmosphere of Twitter and Facebook while automatically texting. They will review their literature books using summaries available on some Wiki and will process loads of information through this filter. I believe that the educational system must show an awareness of this potential not by emulating the fish pond and controlling the agenda but by imparting solid social values that could be just as useful in the street as they are on Facebook and Twitter. Twitterers or facebookers are still homo sapiens sapiens after all!
WWW
It’s the web stupid. In Italy the student movement is making full use of the social media to protest en masse. Even the media was taken by surprise at the speed with which thousands of students converged en masse on different monuments to make their point. Knowledge. Communication. Power. There is hope yet. I get the feeling that Malta’s leaders fail to recognise the importance of having a net-savvy population. Sure we have agencies and institutes supposedly working on projects such as e-government but you get the feeling that there is a fish-pondism of political sorts going on in the IT industry that fails to encourage innovation and fails to provide opportunities based on merit – preferring to cocoon itself with in-house jobs.
Missing the bus on this huge opportunity to invest in developing the best HR money can buy would be a huge disaster for our tiny country that cannot boast of too many resources beyond the human. Remaining “stupid” on an IT level would only be a blessing for the various fish ponds that currently dominate the dissemination and exchange of knowledge in the more traditional networks – political and mediatic. It’s useless claiming that we’d love a SmartMalta when all we do seems to point to a StupidMalta in the making.
The problem with fish ponds is that they risk getting stagnant after a while. Time to change the water?
www.akkuza.com comes to you live from snow-sprinkled Luxembourg for your knowledgeable delectation.
(Article appeared on The Malta Independent on Sunday on 28th November 2010)
Related articles
- Tim Berners-Lee says Facebook is a trap (news.bioscholar.com)
- Tim Berners-Lee on net neutrality: it’s needed for free markets, democracy and science (libdemvoice.org)
- Tim Berners-Lee on protecting the Web in the December Scientific American (ebiquity.umbc.edu)
spread the word:
Categories
Definitely not Bondi+
Here’s an interesting interview with Roberto Saviano. Look out (3 minutes plus) for the explanation on why it is important that investigative (and narrative) programs exist and more importantly that they are paid (and paid well, when they generate good returns from ads). But more importantly look out for how Saviano explains that the biggest justification for having people earning money from these programmes is that they can be judged, that we can expect standards from them and that the job is well done. Next time you complain about Bondi+ don’t get stuck on the typical Maltese pettiness of who earns what and why – remember the crucial point : the obligation Bondi and his team have to provide a quality investigative programme of real journalism. J’accuse will keep on reminding Bondi of his obligation and we will continue to bask in the idea that he actually thinks he can get away selling the idea that he is unaware of any criticism because he can’t read.
“Essere professionale significa che lo spettatore puo giudicare anche in maniera severa. Perche sei stato pagato e quindi devi dare il meglio di te.” – Saviano
spread the word:
Categories
J’accuse : ‘Les sanscouilles’
At the time of the French revolution, part of the French population took to calling another part of the population “les sansculottes”. According to one theory, the name is derived from the fact that the partisans of this particular revolutionary faction wore pantaloons (full-length trousers) instead of the fashionable knee-length culotte. (Wikipedia’s summary). I’ve always wondered why rather than being called ‘Les Pantaloons’, they were defined by what they did not wear, but that must be down to the fact that the point where sartorial affairs and politics converge more often than not involves criticism rather than praise.
Anyway, together with the Jacobins, the sansculottes were among the violent elements of the revolution. Unlike the Jacobins, they came from the working class and have bequeathed us the term “sans-culottism” meaning extreme egalitarian republican principles. The sansculottes disappeared shortly after the fall of Robespierre’s reign of terror and they left us the image of the carmagnole, the red cap of liberty and the sabots (clogs).
In today’s exciting times we have witnessed revolutions linked to colours, such as the red, purple and orange revolutions. We have also, in moments of great social upheaval, witnessed the blooming of “styles” and “fashions” that are a result of or reaction to the current political mood. In that sense, the sansculottes were the precursors to the mods, the punks, the rebels and the twittervolutionaries of today’s world but never, ever in his life would Jacques (René, if you please) Hébert, the revolutionary mentor of the sansculottes, have imagined the possibility of the movement of “les sanscouilles”.
Balls
Yet, all through this past week you couldn’t help but wonder whether just such a movement is forming in our collective sub-conscious and whether or not it manifested itself in the guise of our more prominent politicians and so-called investigative journalists when the divorce issue was once again discussed. Maltese, being the flowery expressive language that it is, lends itself perfectly to explaining what les sanscouilles is all about – and unless the linguistic fascists are hiding in ambush behind some corner, the best way to spell the Maltese version of sanscouilles is bla bajd.
Yep. The sanscouilles movement is made up of a combination of political Farinellis combined with the journalistic eunuchs who tend to fan their divas during performances. Lest I be accused of gender bias, I invite you to consider this whole ballsy business as an extended metaphor that applies to male and female alike. The defining trait of the sanscouilles is their inability to shoulder a modicum of responsibility and provide an inkling of inspirational politics; instead of responsibly taking a stand one way or another, they will wait to see which way the wind is blowing and find innumerable ways to postpone putting their neck on the line.
Contrary to public perception, the notion of the sanscouilles has less to do with ideas of virility and more with the ideal of responsible leadership. A quick run through the week’s events on divorce should really lead this country’s last remaining conscientious voters to despair. The sanscouilles movement is gaining ground… it is out there. It is everywhere.
The Emperor’s Clothes
I was told that Joseph Muscat pulled of quite a performance on Tuesday’s self-referential show of investigative journalism. I was told that by friends of mine who don’t usually bother turning up at the ballot box on Malta’s five-year anniversary equivalent of Doomsday. It was when the press started to report Joseph’s refreshed position on divorce that I wondered how my friends could buy this kind of pitch from a politician who, in the words of a commentator on J’accuse, “appears to have acquired his political education from the back of a Belgian beer mat”.
Then it clicked. Surely the prancing and sashaying of Malta’s prime example of castrato journalism could only have unwittingly (absence of wit is taken as read in most programmes) aided and abetted Muscat’s unprincipled approach to the divorce debate. Of course, if, unlike me, you are more than willing to watch the Emperor march around naked without giving him so much as a word of warning as to his glaring state of nudity, then you too will be equally appeased with his idea of “responsible divorce” combined with a “free vote for his party”.
The presenter’s position is compromised from the start. Comforted by the fact that his bias no longer needs to be declared (it’s to himself, lest you were wondering), his programmes are beyond “boring and dull”, having transformed into a self-referential sequence exposing the very best of selective journalistic incompetence. At any other time, on any other channel, Lou could be playing whatever tune he likes but prime time investigative journalism on national TV deserves much more than the image of castrated journalists playing second fiddle to whatever member of Parliament is on stage at the moment. Given that WE’s other programme has now completely taken leave of all senses and started to discuss close encounters of the third kind, the urgent need of a non-castrated style of journalism is all the more glaring.
But back to Muscat. His particular brand of sanscouillism is of the incredibly non-committal kind while sounding the exact opposite. Unless you manage to cut beyond the words and look into what is really being said, you might as well be listening to Ahmed the Dead Terrorist. Which is why Bondi’s castrato style journalism could not work. If he challenges Muscat he gets reminded that he is biased. If he goes along with him he ends up promising to endorse his “responsible divorce” campaign.
Muscat’s tergiversation stems from an inability to place the divorce issue in real constitutional terms and fails to appreciate his responsibilities both as Leader of the Opposition and aspirant leader of a nation. Divorce is not the kind of “right” that results from some majority-voting stint but is a legal possibility that is enacted in the interests (more often than not) of the few. What Muscat fails to understand is that you can be in favour of divorce legislation without necessarily being in favour of divorce.
Muscat tries to get away with this new-fangled notion of “responsible” divorce as though there is such a thing as irresponsible divorce. Sure we do not want a situation where the mere repetition of the cursèd word thrice would result in divorce like some Red Slippers gone all matrimonial. On the other hand, this shuffling of feet and hiding behind terms is not progressive at all. A progressive leader should have taken the bull by the horns and by this time presented what his idea of divorce should be – caveats and all – and be pushing to get it enacted in parliament for the benefit of those citizens who fulfil the conditions and desire to move on to a different, married life. Instead we get enigmatic “responsible divorce”. Well, so long as it’s responsible. Then again. What if I said “responsible mercy killing”? What say you about “responsible heroin consumption”? “Responsible castration”?
The high kind of pitch
And while Muscat was busy dancing with Lou to whatever music was being played at the never-ending end credits, Malta’s own Don Quixote was busy meeting our Prime Minister on the matter of his draft law on divorce. Now, I have already once more lauded JPO for the single-handed way he has pushed the sanscouilliste movement into some form of action on the divorce matter. On the other hand it was particularly jarring to see the push and pull of the JPO-Gonzi saga shortly after the meeting took place. First JPO met some members of the free press and declared that next year would be a great time for the harvest of both parliamentary discussions and referendum.
What-ho? Yep. The erstwhile backbencher had apparently been given the nihil obstat from up high to announce to the men of the realm that divorce would definitely be on the agenda in 2011, as would be an eventual referendum. Referendum? Did anyone say referendum? Is our hero tilting at windmills, suddenly drained of all mental faculties? Has he too succumbed to sanscouillism? Who on earth mentioned referenda? Do these folks even know how things are meant to work in this constitutional republic of ours?
Better still out came the OPM claiming that, yes, there was an agreement to proceed with the discussion but there was no mention of a referendum and that it would be best left to the electorate to decide. The electorate? It was like being knocked out twice within an hour. No referendum plus the electorate can only mean one thing in my book: that we will wait for the next general election for the divorce issue to be placed in the party’s manifesto and that a vote on the matter could only be taken after such a national vote.
Marchons! Marchons! A la Castille! You could hear the hordes of sanscouilles marching in line. They would storm Castille once again and spread the revolutionary fervour of the ball-less to the four corners of the islands. The divorce question had become a question of pass the parcel all over again and from Muscat to JPO to Gonzi the movement of the sanscouilles could only offer the electorate a castrato version of realpolitik. Wash your hands and let them decide. Pontius Pilate would be proud.
The seven brothers
Then it came. When you least expected it and from the last place you would expect it. The voice of reason. Seven Church brothers sat down around a table and fleshed out a declaration “on conscience and divorce”. In the land of sanscouillism, seven men of the cloth came up with an eye-opener of a declaration that made you want to stand up on the nearest pulpit or stage and shout “Hallelujah”. Here was a ballsy statement divorced from the fire and brimstone rhetoric of brother Said Pullicino and divorced from the foot shuffling opportunism of the sanscouilliste community. The seven brothers called a spade a spade. And they reminded the whole bloody lot of the sanscouilliste community of the political role of one’s conscience – and one’s responsibility towards both society and one’s conscience.
For yes, there was much more to be read into the seven brothers’ invitation than a simple reminder that a real Catholic votes with an informed conscience. They went beyond that. They had no qualms reminding the devout that “for Catholics divorce is wrong whether permitted by civil law or not”. However, they did also emphasise the importance of evaluating one’s options by acting with an informed conscience bearing in mind one’s own morals and values – in this case God’s teaching.
The seven brothers introduced a new, important angle to the argument. They have not only repaired the damage to the Church’s image caused by Said Pullicino’s media-eval stance, but have provided an important example for the wider society. I dare go so far as stating that theirs is the real Christian democrat position that is miles apart from the tergiversation within the soul of the supposed Christian democrat party of Malta.
This is the how the role of a social actor is fulfilled. With a clear indication and an appraisal of every individual’s role in society and how he should go about fulfilling it. Instead of fire and brimstone, the brothers gave us the duty to inform our conscience and decide in good faith based on those considerations. After all, it is not just votes on the introduction of divorce that require greater reflection and an informed conscience. Someone, somewhere, still has faith in intelligent voters who will get us out of this mess.
www.akkuza.com is still sick of laryngitis. We’re sicker still of the sanscouillistes but still can’t find the right prescription.
