Tag: Malta

Categories
COVID-19

New Rules on Travelling to Malta – Is a fantasy 14-day rule unjustly ruining travel plans?

Most of yesterday’s post was based on public declarations of what the new measures for the 14th July would be as well as on the preliminary reactions by the Commission. The Legal Notice “Travel Ban (Extension to all Countries) (Amendment Number 4)” was published yesterday. As expected, the L.N. “fixes” the terms that had been declared in order to avoid the discriminatory practices mentioned by the Commission. Travel to Malta is extended beyond the possession of a vaccination certificate for certain cases (medical reasons, children aged 5 to 11) while Maltese residents who were expected to return to Malta could do so based on a PCR test.

It is comforting that the L.N. took into consideration these aspects though it is clear that not all persons hoping to travel to Malta will be covered by these changes. One example would be the diaspora of Maltese working abroad who had been hoping to join their family for summer but who have not yet made it for the vaccination.

One particular obstacle to travel for such workers was the extra condition being imposed on holders of vaccination certificates. In fact, according to the guidelines for entry, it was not sufficient to be in possession of a vaccination certificate but there was an additional requirement that the certificate would have to have been issued “at least fourteen days from the administration of the vaccine”. This means that if you obtained the vaccination certificate less than 14 days before your travel date then it was useless and you could not travel to Malta.

Now countries like Luxembourg issue a fully operational EU COVID19 Vaccination Certificate on the day you receive the final dose. As an example I could cite my own family where my wife was due a second dose on the 26th and we are meant to travel on the 31st. IN our case we are lucky we could count on the Luxembourg system and managed to move the date of the second dose to an earlier date to be safe for travel by fulfilling the 14-day condition.

The problem I have though is that the 14-day condition does not result from any part of the legislation in question. The Legal Notice limits itself to the phrase: “persons may travel from Malta to the countries listed in this proviso and from the countries listed in this proviso to Malta as long as, upon their arrival in Malta, they are in possession of a vaccination certificate“. No 14 day moratorium.

As you can see in the screenshot from the Malta International Airport website the 14-day condition has been maintained without any legal basis:

MIA Notice
from MIA Website

This lack of clarity is not helpful especially since this type of problems normally are “discovered” at the point of entry when faced with an employee sticking religiously to the rules and there is no time for an “appeal” to the law. I might stand to be corrected and would be happy for any enlightenment on the matter but in my mind the 14-day rule has no legal basis and might be unjustly depriving travellers to Malta of their right to move.

Categories
Mediawatch Rule of Law

Id-Dehen lil min jaħkimha

Ruzar Briffa

Għaliex 40,000+ qatt ma huma se jkunu biżżejjed biex jirbħu lura ruħ pajjiżna

Kattolċi, Latini u Ħaddemin

Il-Malti huwa poplu nisrani. Hekk għadha tistqarr l-ogħla liġi ta’ pajjiżna : “Ir-reliġjon  ta’  Malta  hija  r-Reliġjon Kattolika Apostolika Rumana.” (Artiklu 2, Kostituzzjoni ta’ Malta). L-innijiet taż-żewġ partiti li jissieltu għat-treġija tal-pajjiż it-tnejn jassumu li qed iwettqu r-rieda t’Alla. Min (il-laburisti) iwettaq ir-rieda t’Alla tal-għaqda bejn il-bnedmin u min (in-nazzjonalisti) lesti jissieltu għal arthom “Għax Alla magħna”. L-innu nazzjonali ma hu xejn ħlief talba lill-ħallieq sabiex iħares l-art u lil min imexxiha.

Il-Malti huwa poplu nisrani. Hekk għadha tistqarr l-ogħla liġi ta’ pajjiżna : “Ir-reliġjon  ta’  Malta  hija  r-Reliġjon Kattolika Apostolika Rumana.” (Artiklu 2, Kostituzzjoni ta’ Malta). L-innijiet taż-żewġ partiti li jissieltu għat-treġija tal-pajjiż it-tnejn jassumu li qed iwettqu r-rieda t’Alla. Min (il-laburisti) iwettaq ir-rieda t’Alla tal-għaqda bejn il-bnedmin u min (in-nazzjonalisti) lesti jissieltu għal arthom “Għax Alla magħna”. L-innu nazzjonali ma hu xejn ħlief talba lill-ħallieq sabiex iħares l-art u lil min imexxiha.

Anki fiż-żminijiet ta’ llum dan il-wirt reliġjuż għadek issibu jekk tigref ftit taħt is-saffi tal-maskra tal-modernita’. Jekk xejn għadek issib dik it-tama li l-mexxejja tal-pajjiż jsaltnu bid-dehen tant mixtieq sabiex kemm “is-sid” kif ukoll “il-ħaddiem” jistagħnew f’għaqda. Id-dehen lil ħakkiem, il-ħniena lis-sid u ‘kk Alla jrid naqra saħħa lill-ħaddiem.

Dun Karm kiteb il-kliem tal-innu fl-1922 u meta fl-1941 dan sar l-Innu nazzjonali konna għadna taħt il-ħakma tal-barrani. Peress li Dun Karm ma kienx ħa gost meta ippruvaw ibiddlu xi versi forsi għalhekk il-kelma “jaħkimha” baqgħet – anki meta Malta ħelset mill-ħakma barranija u l-poplu ta’ ħaddemin u sidien beda jagħżel hu lil min imexxih.

Mexxejja

Il-kult tal-mexxejja tkattar mill-indipendenza ‘l hawn. Il-partiti ma jiddejqux jgħidu li għandhom “mexxej” b’kult kważi messjaniku li jdawwar lil dawn ta’ l-aħħar. Il-mentalita tal-ħakkiema baqgħet tieħu r-ruħ u l-mexxejja u l-partiti tagħhom ħadu post il-barrani ħakkiem. Repubblikani iva, ċittadini ħielsa bid-dritt tal-vot iva, imma qajla fhimna li s-sovranita’, li l-poter, li s-saħħa aħħarija hija f’idejn il-poplu. Intlifna fit-tribalita’ insensata tal-partiġġjaniżmu sfrenat u ma bqajniex ngħassu fuq dawk li fdajnilhom ir-riedni tal-pajjiż.

Sadattant is-sid li tant tlabna li jkollu ħniena rabba l-ħażen u sawwar xibka ta’ poter mal-mexxejja tagħna u ftit ftit ħa posthom fuq it-tron u d-destin tal-pajjiż kien f’idejħ. L-iżviluppatur, il-businessman, il-kuntrattur – kollha saru l-għajn li minnha kellhom bilfors jixorbu il-ħakkiema. U minkejja il-wiegħdiet ta’ żmien aħjar, ta’ xogħol, ġustizzja u ta’ liberta’ bil-mod il-mod il-ħaddemin u ċ-ċittadini sabu arthom mibjugħa biċċa biċċa. Sabu ġidhom imberbqa, drittijiethom imkasbra u sfaw barranin f’pajjiżhom stess.

Quddiem il-wiegħdiet ta’ għana, ta’ frugħa u ta’ l-aqwa żmien il-Malti għażel li jinsa’ jixtarr minn fejn suppost ġej dan il-ġid kollu. Għażel li l-aqwa li t-triba tiegħu hija minn fuq, li butu jidher li qed jistagħna u li jiġri x’jiġri dawk m’humiex fil-poter. Imbagħad għall-bqija jara Alla. Iva Alla. Dak tad-dehen lil min jaħkimha.

Tħażżinna wisq

Imma tħażżinna wisq. Jekk qabel il-mexxejja kienu diġa tilfu l-għaqal u bdew iberbqu ġidna f’isem il-progress. Jekk qabel l-arloġġ tal-lira, iż-żieda tal-500 ewro u l-ispekulazzjoni bla rażan kienet bdiet żifna kerha mal-kuntratturi u sidien. Issa kull sens ta’ kontroll tar mar-riħ. Issa il-meritokrazija li tant ittrumbettaw dwarha qed tintuża biss biex jitnaffru l-istituzzjonijiet, biex jissikket kull kontrol, biex ħadd ma jikxef li mid-dehen ma baqa’ xejn.

Meta Ministru u l-Kap tal-Kabinett tal-Prim Ministru jinqabdu bi struttura finanzjarja li se tirċevi 5,000 ewro KULJUM suppost dan ikun biżżejjed għall għaref Malti li ma jħallix min jitnejjek bih biex jgħidilhom iwarrbu l-barra.
Meta imbagħad isir jaf li l-flus ġejjin minn kumpanija li sidha huwa parti minn konsorzju li lilha ingħataw ħafna flejjes tal-poplu, allura hemm is-soltu il-Malti iqum kburi u jgħid “Issa Daqshekk”.

Meta isir jaf li l-kuntratt tax-xiri tal-fuel jorbot lil Din l-Art Ħelwa li tibqa tixtri bit-telf għal tmintax il-sena (dan kollu waqt li l-Ministru u Schembri jibqgħu idaħħlu 5,000 ewro KULJUM) allura hemm is-soltu l-Malti patrijott, għaqli u b’saħħtu joħroġ b’għajta waħda – BARRA!

Lanqas ma hemm għalfejn li l-Malti jistenna li tinqatel b’mod oxxen ġurnalista sabiex jinduna li issa inqabeż kull limitu ta’ diċenza. Jinduna li żmien il-ħolm spiċċa. Li issa hu għandu jieqaf lil kull min irid minkejja kollox jibqa jkattar dawn l-oxxenitajiet.

M’għadux żmien li inħallu f’idejn Alla. Maltin ta’ rieda tajba. Maltin laburisti, Maltin nazzjonalisti, Maltin li m’għadx għandhom partit. Kollha għandhom jingħaqdu u jirbħu lura r-riedni tal-pajjiż. L-ebda maġġoranza ma qatt se ssewwi dan id-deni u ħażen li biha iċċappsu il-ħakkiema.

Fuq kollox m’għandhom iħallu lil min jipprova juża l-vot tagħhom bħala xi tip ta’ permess biex ikompli jistagħna minn fuq darhom.

Nagħlaq b’poeżija ta’ Rużar Briffa. Poeżija miktuba fi żmien ieħor, taħt mexxejja oħra imma li taf titfa’ dawl fuq il-kriżi ta’ llum.

Categories
Mediawatch Values

Ban the Bikinini

bikinini_akkuza

 

A French court has given some reprieve to the burkini craze that struck the last part of the crazy summer news. After several French beach-side resorts had banned the wearing of the burkini at the beach things had gotten even hotter with a few incidents of aggression. We had also seen some officers of the law inflict fines on women who insisted on wearing the apparel that many conservatives perceived to be provocative. One aspect of the burkini saga was particularly jarring and confusing. On the one hand those who could be said to be of a liberal frame of mind would argue that it is not up to the state to tell women what they can or cannot wear at the beach. This was not to be an extension of the “public security” debate surrounding the burqa. Here was another facet of the issue – whether the wearing of a burkini is yet another vindication of the rights of self-determination under the western-style package of individual rights.  The counter-argument of course was made that the burkini is yet another extension of the “oppressive” nature of Muslim strictures. Women, the counter-argument goes, should not be forced to wear a burkini or a burqa and therefore should either not wear them or basically not turn up at the beach at all.

I admit that it is all mighty confusing. The whole question of volition lies behind the dilemma. Is it a choice that women make of their own volition or is it something that is being forced upon them by their religion? If it is being forced upon them under the religion they freely choose to adopt is it then up to the state to prohibit the wearing of more modest attire? This is not a question of mores per se. After all we only (only?) have to go back around a hundred years to find that the social regulation of modest attire at the beach was a standard held highly by the majority of the members of society. Even closer to this day and age I have a very clear recollection of groups of women hitting the beaches early in the morning and swimming in full black dress. A religious inclination and interpretation of the concept of modesty was behind it all at the time too.

I’m just back from a holiday in the states during which I had the chance to swim in a couple of hotel pools to cool off the California sun after a day of driving and touring. It was not uncommon to share the pool with men who swam in t-shirt and shorts – modesty? Perhaps. Or maybe, unlike me they were not prepared to wield the sad excuse for a beer belly that I have developed. The thing is that swimming attire IS a question of choice and the state should not be anywhere near regulating what people wear when they take their dip. The whole burkini issue got out of hand – primarily because what people wear to swim is no business of the state but also because discussing the oppression of women by some religion or another has no place in this context.

Watching Maltese persons comment on the burkini ban was another thing altogether. This is a country that still regulates what people can or cannot wear at the beach by law anyway. A woman opting to sunbathe topless in Malta will almost certainly feel the strong arm of the law come down on her. Streaking is also against public mores for the most part and the recent trend of gentlemen taking up nude walking along the sea front does not seem to be forcing any change in the status of illegality that they enjoy.

The reality on the tiny Mediterranean island is such that anybody barking about the burkini ban missed the fact that we are quite content in having the state tell us what we can or cannot wear on our own beaches without as much as batting an eyelid. Add that to your list of ironic things if you are Maltese lovinmalta, I’m sure you’ve got one somewhere.

Categories
Constitutional Development Politics

Article 42, ISIS and neutrality

article42_akkuza

There has been quite a flutter in Malta since Francois Hollande decided to invoke article 42(7)  of the Lisbon Treaty. Even without the eccentric shenanigans of former PM Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici, questions were being raised as to how and to what extent Malta would be committed thanks to this invocation. I thought of providing a little Q&A, just like in parliament, but without the nigi hemm u nifqghek bits.

1. First of all, what does Article 42(7) state?

Article 42 (7) TEU states:

If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.

2. So. This means war right?

No it does not. At least not in the sense that the army blessed and formed in the image of Manuel Mallia will be sent to the front to stand shoulder to shoulder with peshmergas. Nor does it mean that we will have AFM troops patrolling the Champs Elysees any time soon. The emphasis in article 42(7) is on aid and assistance and, more specifically, on the fact that the “security and defence policy” of certain Member States should not be prejudiced. This means two things:

a) Firstly, it means that any state invoking article 42(7) can negotiate individually with any other Member State (and crucially without the need to use any of the EU institutions) any temporary form of aid and assistance.  Each Member State is responsible for determining its contribution on the basis of what they deem to be necessary, which does not necessarily mean the deployment of military assets.

b) Secondly, and more importantly in the eyes of many in Malta, the fact that the security and defence policy of certain Member States is clearly invoked is a direct reference to the ‘neutral’ status of states such as Ireland, Austria and Finland – to give an example of some others. What that means is that notwithstanding any interpretation of military intervention that might be given by states dealing under this article, this obligation stops when the security and defence policy of certain States does not allow it. The second paragraph referring to NATO commitments is a further reinforcement of this distinction.

3. Oh so we are not at war then.

That’s a nice one. Modern politicians of the Hollande mould have a tendency to slip quickly into the language of war once a terrorist attack takes place. This “tradition” is new to this century ever since Commander in Chief Bush declared war on Al-Qaeda. Unlike the 70s and 80s when a terrorist bomb attack or shooting never really translated to a casus belli the political psyche of the post 9/11 words seems to require such heavy handed references and we are living in an age where France will now even try to provoke the UN to declare a war on a state whose existence nobody beyond the self-declared caliphate acknowledges.

Still. In the microcosm of Muscat’s land,  we will first engage in a debate of “neutrality” clauses in our constitution. The significance of such clauses dwindles into nothing when one considers that they were intended to deal with a specific battle between superpowers (a battle that no longer exists) and that in any case they would be invoked in case of a war between states – and not neutrality in the face of the war on terrorism. Another thing, Muscat’s government spent most of its legislature whingeing about the fact that immigration problems are a common problem that should be faced and borne equally by all EU states.

Calling oneself out of the fight on terrorism by relying on an outdated and practically inapplicable neutrality clause is hypocritical to say the least. By saying this I am not advocating participation by Malta on military activity but rather that Malta’s attitude towards security and its contribution to ensuring that the borders of the European Unoion are impervious to terrorists leaves much to be desired. From the Algeria VISA scandal, laughed off by our Chief Salesman to the thousands of Libyan Residencies to the continued insistence of this government to transform Malta into one big trojan horse for entry into the EU… these are ample examples as to how Malta’s contribution to the war on terror could be vastly improved.

4. Where does that leave us?

Well it leaves us with an EU that is gearing up to battle the amorphic monster that is “terrorism” with a series of knee-jerk reactions. It leaves us with a government in Malta that ironically needs to wake up and smell the coffee for the reasons outlined above.

Most of the time, it seems, it leaves us reverting to the centuries old adage: si vis pacem, para bellum.

Categories
Mediawatch

Those Colourful Racist Imbeciles

12019990_10154170472711124_7011640404235931843_n

It’s just idiots. Venting their anger (or vehemently opposing this or that idea) on facebook. At least they should be dismissed as such. The problem though is that they often represent a more generally held sentiment – held even among those who do not regularly frequent Zuckerberg’s fake mirror of society. A picture has been doing the rounds that features a black young lady delivering some sort of speech in Malta’s spanking new parliament. Behind the lady is MP Claudette Pace, to her right is a hijab-wearing other young lady. The picture (as you can see) is supposed to stir some form of anger : “Look at our parliament” it is captioned. We are supposed to react with disdain: “How did THEY make it in there?”.

I recognised the young black lady in the picture because by some stroke of luck and coincidence she formed part of a delegation of Mini-European Assembly winners who visited the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg (presumably as a prize for their sterling performance). I was lucky enough, privileged I would say, to be able to address the group and explain the workings of the Court. It is part of my job to regularly meet students from universities, professors or members of the judicature of EU countries who are on an educational visit to the Court. We normally take a break from our day to day task of drafting cases to share our knowledge of the workings of the court with such visitors.

This September (only two weeks ago actually) I remember walking into the room full of Mini-European Assembly visitors with a feeling of apprehension. They were a young group – younger than our usual visitors (most of them are finishing college before University) – and my recent idea of the produce of Maltese schools and university were not the most positive. My first look around the room I remember being surprised at the variety of students sat before me. Sure, I am of a generation where the “foreigner” in class was a token presence so the trigger “surprise” instinct can be forgiven if just for that. It did not take long for me to rubbish that little element of “surprise” to a corner of my brain.

Having finished the usual delivery we had a Q&A session. With university students (Sorbonne, Harvard and the like) we normally have to plead to get a question out of them and when we do we are often disappointed at the type of question being asked. This was not to be. The young first year lawyers and sixth-formers had loads of questions to ask – all pertinent, all intelligent and all interesting. That included the splendid lady in the centre of the picture now being circulated by oafs who wouldn’t know better.

They are Maltese students. Very intelligent, ambitious and interesting Maltese students. Each of them carries a dream. It’s a dream that they would like to see through living in a Maltese society. I’d very much like to think that one in every two Maltese students is like this group of fantastic ambassadors. Sadly I know that the Ernest Ferrante’s of this world vastly outnumber them.

It’s a tough task ahead for all of us and all of them. I can only wish the beautiful ladies who were exemplary on the visit and who feature in this sad racist meme all the best in their lives ahead. With courage and conviction much can be achieved.

Categories
Constitutional Development

This State of Independence

independence_akkuzaThe festivities have begun in full earnest and Malta is soon to be proclaimed a 50 year old independent state. With the 50th anniversary we also get the reopening of the silly season. There’s a “let’s all love each other” approach by the two main parties – each proclaiming some kind of goodwill about what had hitherto been considered “the other’s” feast day. Yes, we have heard it all – over and over – Independence vs Republic vs Freedom day. Sometimes they throw in the 7th June 1919 for good measure but the heated debate had focused mainly on what are now being dubbed as the “three steps” that were necessary for Malta to become what it is.

To me someone like Muscat finally growing up and clamoring that “Independence day is a feast for all Maltese” is nothing that warms the cockles of the heart. Just because the red tribe of the Maltese jungle suddenly sees the light and begins to faintly understand the meaning behind an achievement as important as independence in the birth of a nation does not mean that we have to stand up and applaud. At most we could sigh in relief as one does when a toddler finally grasps the idea that one plus one does equal two and gives up on the horrible insistence that one plus one can equal carrot. We would sigh in relief were we not also convinced that this sudden show of magnanimous understanding and one-ness is not another show of the Taghna Lkoll style: tanto fumo niente arrosto.

How they applauded Muscat at the unveiling of the Guido De Marco memorial. “Did you hear him? He actually praised Guido. Oh Such a great Prime Minister have we.” Really? What was the alternative? Are we to clap because Muscat had the temerity to call a spade a spade? What kind of rubbish is that?

Now we have the clips being propagated by the National Festivities Commission. Independence is described and couched within terms of a series of steps that unite us. Insultingly it is put on the same pedestal as that humungous farce that is Freedom Day or Jum il-Helsien. This insistence on celebrating that non-event is incredibly naive and ridiculous. It is as though a future government were to begin to celebrate the end of the Beach Concession that the Powers of Brangelina have over Mgarr ix-Xini. Freedom from Brangelina Day could have its own kitsch monument on the beach complete with mini-Hollywood memorial.

In the legal and political growth of a nation there is no greater achievement than the assertion of self-government and sovereignty. That is what the 21st of September 1964 is all about. If you still harbour any doubts about how important a step this is then ask a Scot who will be voting tomorrow on the very issue of independence. Nobody is asking the Scots who they want as formal head of state (it will probably be Bess as Queen of Scots), nobody is getting het up about whether it will be a Scottish Republic. It will be an independent Scotland that can negotiate (or maintain) its status as a member state of the EU – the independence step is more than enough for that.

In all probability an independent Scotland will have to negotiate the rental of one of its estuaries to the English army for the latter to keep its nuclear submarines in. Eventually, at a later date that rental agreement might end but I am sure no Scot will go clowning about yelling “Freedom” like some latter day cross between William Wallace and Dom Mintoff.

No. What around 50% of the Scots are aspiring for is Independence. There is a reason for that. Independence defines the birth of a nation. It puts it on the map as a nation among nations. Inter pares – among equals.

Sure, you can feel proud that at a later stage in the growth of the nation you felt it necessary to remove the house of the Windsors from the position of head of state of the nation and opted for a president that would represent the people instead. Constitutionally though, the big change had long happened. Ridding ourselves of Bess Queen of Malta and opting for Marie Louise President of the People is a cosmetic change that alters little on the world stage. It’s not about party pique but about education and historical relevance. let’s face it, the switch from Constitutional Monarchy to Republic in 1974 was not exactly your storming of the Bastille business in 1789… to deny that would be to ignore historic truths: and that only serves ha’penny historians and the sweet sweet luvvy duvvy propaganda of this current lot.

Education, not fables and fantasies is what would make this nation stronger. Otherwise its all a load of balderdash.

 

Le Roi est mort! Vive le Roi!

Check out the Malta Independent’s vox pop among Cottonera residents.

Post by Ġensna.