Categories
Articles

J'accuse : Pulses

The metaphor is normally “il-polz tal-poplu” − the people’s pulse. It’s the measure that most politicians used to go by for a long time. Ever since a few avant-garde British colonials decided to experiment with the classic idea of a republic and created a charter for “We the people”, the question of what people want was upped a few echelons on the political scale. It would only be a few years before the apocryphal uttering of “Let them eat cake” would signal the final straw for those who dared think that the man in the street’s opinion counted for utter pish.

We’ve gone full circle since then, and the equally metaphorical ear on the ground has become the staple food for many a budding politician. Too much so in fact, since the efforts to appease the masses and to pander to popular demand risks making a prostitute of our Madame Republic. The people’s pulse has become the bread and butter of every politician in the post-9/11 world. Values and party principles count for naught and the old -isms have become fantasies and fiction.

Thusly, a modern and progressive politician will praise a fascist Italian decision to not comply with international rules in the name of the national interest. “Mhux fl-interess nazzjonali” − now that’s a big one. If the “people’s pulse” leads to prostitution of political values then the modern concept of “national interest” and “common good” is an open invitation to a free-for-all in a whorehouse. J’accuse has bemoaned the dilution of party political values for years now − only to be derided as an “armchair critic” or self-important pontificator. It is only now that the mud is falling away from their fawning eyes that the former critics have begun to notice that our political “elite” is stuffed with the crème de la crème of incompetent lackeys.

Lima

Deprived as I am of first hand contact, I am dependent on the feedback provided by social networks. I am fully aware that they are not the full picture of the goings on in Malta but they do provide a particular snapshot and perspective. Take today for example. I gleaned from a quick perusal of online updates that the general mood on the island was a grumpy one that befits the religious occasion that was being celebrated. “A typical Our Lady of Sorrows day” wrote one punter − and it seems that the clouds were out and about in order to provide the right ambience for the solemn occasion.

It must be because Luxembourg is no longer as Catholic a nation as it once proudly was, but the deities that are failed to provide the same setting of decorum in this corner of the world. This week’s Le Jeudi (a weekly Luxo newspaper) carried a special report about the plight of immigrants. The series of articles was entitled “The frontiers of solidarity” and highlighted the issues surrounding the “politique d’urgence”. Luxembourg’s asylum seekers come mostly from the Balkans but the difference in nationality of origin does not mean that they face different problems than those we face in the Mediterranean.

The biggest worry is that the “massive influx” of asylum seekers from the Balkans would highlight the lack of receiving structures and that this would lead to the Immigration Ministry taking “hurried decisions on the fate of asylum seekers”. Sound familiar? Well, that’s not all. Luxembourg is also not very happy with the EU level of collaboration. NGOs in Luxembourg are angry that notwithstanding previous lessons that should have been learnt, nothing much has changed recently.

Lentil

On the one hand they will discuss the “Marshall Plan” for the Maghreb. On the other they will mention that in the case of the Sudanese, Erithreans and Somalis going to Malta it is not a simple issue of sending them back. The pulse in Luxembourg is clearly on cue. They are much more on the game than some of the politicians closer to the scene. Pulse-wise, there is something wrong when a progressive politician suggests taking advantage of the Arab Spring to boost national tourism. It gets worse when the same politician lauds Italy’s heavy-handed nationalism on the matter of immigration. All we needed was a Christian Democrat minister announcing new oil drilling projects while any potential Libyan protestors are distracted.

The pulse of the people is twisted. It is twisted because of an elaborate machinery that translates to GIGO (garbage in garbage out) in modern talk − or “you reap what you sow” in Luddite parlance. We are unable to see the hopelessness of a situation like a uniformed policeman telling dark skinned men to “Go back to Africa” but we will harp and harp on the “freedom of expression and need for censorship”. We have collectively fallen for the dupe that is “public consultation” in the divorce debate. We are struggling to cope with the idea of a modern open society when our instinct and upbringing keeps raising the ghosts of a nanny-state past.

47 varieties

And then there are our representatives. Our politicians of the future are deceiving themselves (and others) by unearthing the unwilling complicity of long dead heroes of another era. Only today I had a tiff with a Labour exponent who tried to link Manwel Dimech to today’s progressives. Neither Manwel Dimech nor Nerik Mizzi nor Don Luigi Sturzo would be falling over themselves to be a part of this political mess that we call parties nowadays. It is no secret to anyone, but the most baffling part of it is that most of us are content to continue to propagate the lie.

At the rate we are going, the political vultures will be pecking at a carcass that has offered a pulse too many for its hungry mouths.

Appendix

I almost forgot. This article is due an appendix of its own. The chief at the Maltese Translation Unit at the Court of Justice asked me to plug the next round of concours for lawyer-linguists. What does that mean? It means that suitably qualified individuals (yep, you do need a law degree among other things) should be on the lookout on the EPSO website as an open exam for the new intake will shortly be announced.

www.akkuza.com On the island for the Easter break.

Categories
Divorce Politics

Fault Li(n)es

Distractions, attractions and more. How easily we get waylaid by some mountainous pile of bull conjured up by the PLPN charade. Here’s the two videos made by both sides – each laying the blame squarely at the foot of the other with regards to the disenfranchised 2,800. They must both be seeing this issue as manna falling from heaven… yet another distraction to add to the referendum farce: all in the name of “consultation”. Remember – the real votes that count will be the 69 votes in parliament – and no matter what you or I say it’s the INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCES of 69 citizens that will decide whether divorce legislation is enacted or not.

PL

PN

the Beatles

Categories
Articles Divorce Politics

J'accuse : The Lost Boys (and Girls)

For the second time in a few weeks, Joseph Muscat’s spin office has been producing promotional video clips for the divorce referendum that are about everything but divorce. This week Inhobbkom’s little video clip was about the 2,800 Lost Boys and Girls who will not be allowed to cast their frijvowt (free vote) in the referendum. Joseph says he does not care how they would vote − if and when they are allowed to vote − and his inadvertent frankness on that particular point is rather moving.

What Labour’s Peter Pan fails to stress in his little bit of propaganda is that the outcome of the divorce issue has nothing to do with whether 2,800 youths apparate or disapparate on the electoral register thanks to the latest antic from the PLPN bag of tricks. Peter Pan is right though: his party does not care which way those 2,800 votes would go. It’s not those 2,800 votes that will determine whether or not divorce legislation gets through Parliament. It’s the 69 free votes of conscience that will do the trick.

Right now it pays Peter Pan to don his best suit and shed crocodile tears for the Lost Boys and their votes. It pays him to spin the latest of fables in our Fairy Tale politics where the Evil Gonzi is depicted as the villain who taketh away the votes and aspirations of the youth of the day. It’s revolting. Peter Pan’s party is on the same side as Gonzi’s on this one. Together they have contrived to leave the fate of the introduction of crucial legislation in the hands of 69 individual consciences − even after the outcome of the divorce referendum is known. Even Joseph thinks he is dragging us into Europe will eventually “respect the vote of the people” which means that a “No” vote in the referendum is one more No vote in Parliament as far as Joseph is concerned.

I’ll repeat this ad nauseam if I have to: The Labour Party has no position on divorce. The Nationalist Party has a position against divorce. Both parties have abdicated their representative responsibility by allowing a free vote in Parliament independently of what 2,800 youths, their constituencies or the whole electoral franchise thinks about the issue. Now that should make you sit down and weep.

Tinker Bell

Then there was the business of the Attorney General’s appeal in the Realtà case. The gut reaction was one of astonished disgust coupled with rhetorical questions as to whether the AG office’s timetable is not sufficiently stocked with interesting distractions. A second, more political, reaction targeted the occupier of Castille blaming him for allowing the AG to get on with this nonsense.

Writing in MaltaToday, James Debono tried to find out who was “politically responsible” for the Realtà case. As a nation we are beginning to demonstrate an acute inability to cope with the underpinnings of the rule of law and why we need it. Perhaps the knee-jerk reaction to dismissing a coherent set of arguments as “lawyer-speak” while reverting to the chaotic world of Maltese relativism has much to do with it. Sure we know the laws are there but hey − they must be twisted to make more sense in this day and age right? And why didn’t Lawrence Gonzi do just that with the Realtà case? It’s the 21st century no − what do we need laws and regulations for?

It’s the same thing for Joseph Muscat’s beef with the referendum motion and dates. Joseph’s solution was for the electoral commission to sit on the President’s writ for 18 days, just in time for the new electoral register to come into effect. You know that type of “I’ll close an eye just for this time” suggestion. As for the AG − many speculated that the Prime Minister should have intervened and prevented him from appealing. Sure. When would that be right and when would that be wrong? Who would decide? Laws and rules are not suggestions or guidelines − they are laws for a reason. They give us a sense of order and continuity as the old cliché goes: we are servants of the law so that we may be free.

Wendy Darling

Even though I do not find myself in agreement with the AG’s arguments as made in the appeal − particularly with his choice of inconveniencing deities once again (wasn’t divorce enough?) − I am still comfortable with the knowledge that this appeal forms part of a greater mechanism of interpretation and clarification of the law that is necessary for our society to work. The alternative is chaos and anarchy based on relative values. This appreciation should be part of every body’s civic conscience and not just of those who have gone through six years of law at university.

Understanding this objectively becomes even harder every day when the paladins of representative democracy twist and turn the picture to their own needs and devices. It is useless talking of “hidden rules of society” or conspiracy theories of some theocratic plot in some quarters if we are unable to get the message across about the usefulness of the rule of law that transforms − to the best of its imperfect capabilities − the will of the people into a working social system.

Nana

It’s a fine line between on the one hand a real society based on real laws and on the other a sham set of rules behind which hides the arch-democratic dictator. We’ve been very close to the latter before; I like to think we can still aspire towards the first… despite our politicians.

“All the world is made of faith, and trust, and pixie dust.” − J.M. Barrie

www.akkuza.com − this column has been short-listed as a finalist in the Opinion Article section of the XXIst Malta Journalism Awards.

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Freedom Xejn

A happy freedom day holiday to y’all on the island. Why the photo you ask? Well no disrespect and all but this geezer is everything and all about Freedom Day in 2011. He was there on the original freedom day when Malta celebrated the non-renewal of a contract by its wise and sage leader. He stood behind and smiled as il-perit climbed what must be Malta’s ugliest monument ever and lit the torch of freedom.

He probably was smiling at home in Tripoli or some other Libyan palace when a few years later il-perit would bargain a constitutional PLPN entente of reform – adjusting parliamentary representation in exchange for the neutrality clause.

He must have smiled again when il-perit’s Malta kow-towed to most of his wishes in all forms of subservient arse-licking including most importantly the early warning system for any menaces from the north by Mintoff’s follower (sic – successor).

He smiled again when the government of Work, Justice and Freedom (act II) shot into power and quickly reassured him that “if we want everything to change, then everything must be the same“.

God knows if he was smiling yesterday from afar as the progressive, modernist leader and purveyor of European values told the assembled crowd of nostalgics that “we won’t take sides”.

Freedom? What freedom?

Chained by PLPN yellow politics? That’s Freedom xejn. (no freedom).

Categories
Articles

J’accuse: Conscientious objectors and objectionable consciences

Last Thursday’s UN Resolution 1973/11 did more than just belatedly clear the Libyan air of the one-sided aerial assaults by Gaddafi’s troops. The resolution also cleared the air of a lingering suspicion that the scheming Colonel had managed to get away with hypnotising the international community into an inert bubble of passive gobsmackedness. He had not. As green troops honed in on Benghazi and as we held our collective breath for the inevitable bloodbath in the eastern rebel stronghold, the UN Security Council finally voted to impose a no-fly zone over Libya (and a bit more).

Britain and France (for spearheading the vote) and the US (for belatedly seeing the light) became the new symbols of the fight for liberty and democracy. They were the West’s answer to the Libyan rebels’ plea for support. There were also five abstentions on the day. None of the permanent members exercised their veto but the five abstentions carried the weight of five nations’ conscientious objection to the means being suggested. The abstention roll call is a roll call of giants who refused to commit to decisive action to prevent an impending bloodbath: Russia, China, Brazil, India and Germany.

Lay down your arms

Thankfully for the international community, Malta did not have a vote on the Security Council resolution. I’d hate to see the likes of Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama wait for our nation’s representatives to fret about who to pass the decision-making buck to in such a situation − referendum? free vote? who knows? We cannot however hide from the geopolitical reality of the situation and, after having milked what we could of our “heroic” acts of bravery in the “evacuation”, we now find ourselves bang in the middle of the effective area for enforcing a UN mandated no-fly zone. What would OUR conscience say?

After a couple of hours (over 15 but who’s counting?), during which we had to “suffer the ignominy” of being tagged as a British military base on some lax international news channels (so much for 31 March − but thank God for the Malta Tourism Authority for setting them right), our conscience finally dragged itself to a podium and addressed the gathered assembly of journalists.

But back to the conscience. Our Prime Minister found some time to stay away from the hotline with Libya or from the god-awful diversion of “the divorce referendum question” and addressed the nation. This was in a way our moment of truth. Which side would Malta be on? Would the neutrality question raise its hypocritical head again, almost 30 years on from the infamous “compromise”? Would the heroic George Cross Island once again become a fortress and bastion for the forces of liberty and democracy?

Fear and Loathing

Well, watching Prime Minister Gonzi at work was an experience. I did not see an assertive Prime Minister on the podium. I did not see a leader of men who put his country on the same side as those who would do their utmost to help their brothers in distress. Gonzi looked more like an Archbishop. You could fill the gaps in his press conference by inserting the Maltese “jekk Alla jrid” (if God wills).

If God wills, the guns will be put down. If God wills, the Libyan leader who threatened bloodshed in the Mediterranean basin will suddenly develop a human side and will not proceed with the massacre. If God wills, there will be no need to enforce the no-fly zone because there would be no more fighting. If God wills, we will not need to send planes from our island. If God wills, we will remain the selective Florence Nightingale of the Mediterranean – the unsung heroes. If God wills, the Malta Tourism Authority will remain the only authority reminding the world that all we care about is tourism – and that, hey, we are not a British base, we are an independent republic that freed itself of the Brit oppressor (and Nato) in 1979. Jeez… haven’t you guys seen Gensna?

On the one hand, there’s British Prime Minister Cameron saying “to suggest that we should pass a resolution like this and then sit back and hope that somebody somewhere in the Arab world will act instead of us is profoundly wrong.” We get Archbishop Gonzi being the non-committal apologist worried of shaking the hornets’ nest of anachronistic neutrality clause or of standing on the side of liberty. We do not even get a condemnation of Gaddafi and a clear “Get out!” We get a half-baked prayer that hopefully the arms are laid down and that there will be no need to enforce the no-fly zone. Yes. And the ugly monster will go away on its own. Is this really a position based on conscience and principle? I’m not too sure about that but the impression we seem to be giving is of a country lacking the serious attributes to stand tall among nations. Ah, but we sure have a great big conscience.

bert4j_110320_02

Free vote and free conscience

Archbishop Gonzi’s video to his flock was not the only one to drop into my inbox this week. We also received Inhobbkom Joseph’s vid following the parliamentary marathon vote on the question to be asked for the referendum. It was a gut wrenching performance by the paladin of Maltese Progressives that begs the question: Does he know no shame? Joseph’s fans still swim happily in the belief that the divorce question is somehow interlinked with the survival of this government. Joseph does nothing to dispel this confusion for the sake of a clearer divorce debate. No. He actually tells us “this is not about the referendum or divorce”.

Yes siree, the horse has spoken. So there you are, you stupid, peddling peasant who has been celebrating a great victory for the progressive modern Malta being catapulted into Europe by Joseph and his Fawning Horde (+JPO and Mugliett). You thought it was about divorce? Hell no. It isn’t.

You have been GIVEN (thanks Joseph) the right to express your opinion on 28 May. It’s an expression that will count for Jack Shit come the vote in Parliament following the referendum. Because the same party that is claiming to be dragging us kicking and screaming into the Europe of modern progressive values DOES NOT HAVE A POSITION ON DIVORCE. It has a position on “frijvowts”. It gives its MPs the “frijvowt” on the referendum question. It gives the people a “frijvowt” to say what it thinks on divorce AND it will give another “frijvowt” to its MPs to vote on the eventual Bill in Parliament ACCORDING TO THEIR CONSCIENCE.

That means that this sniggering geezer who is so patronisingly smug about moving Malta closer to Europe (puhlease) would love to have y’all believe that the “frijvowt” is actually a yes to divorce. IT IS NOT. Because the probability is that even with a positive referendum result (and Joseph is not doing much to encourage that), the chances are that the 69 eejits voting “according to their conscience” shoot down the Bill. Godbless.

bert4j_110320_01

Balls and bollocks

Two videos. Two men addressing the nation. Two supposed leaders that represent our country. They only managed in their own way to make me squirm with anger and disgust. I know for a fact that they made many others want to leave − rip up their passports and conscientiously object to being a part of this country full of men abusing their objectionable consciences. Twice, in the space of a week, we have had to suffer the arguments of supposed leaders of men who are hiding behind convoluted reasons that they like to attribute to conscience. The end result is that we have leaders and potential leaders who have abdicated their decision-making responsibility − all in the name of a conscience that is increasingly hard to decipher (and justify).

It’s sad. Very sad. In both cases the lives of men are at stake. On the one hand our PN government is failing the rebels in Benghazi, Misratah and more on the flimsy excuse of a neutral conscience. On the other our supposed PL Progressive Leader has failed to grab the bull by the horns and forge together a party that asserts the right to divorce and remarry in the 21st century. Taking us into Europe is he?

I’ve got a new slogan for J’accuse for 2011. It’s proving to be more and more true as the year unfolds. It’s best said in Italian and I guess this week really proved its point: “In un paese pieno di coglioni, ci mancano le palle”.

This article and accompanying Bertoon(s) were published on today’s edition of The Malta Independent on Sunday.

Categories
Divorce Politics

The Horse's Mouth

I got an email from Joseph Muscat. The subject line said “Pajjiz verament ewropew”. It was a link to a one minute video clip by His Inhobbkomness trying to wriggle out of the fact that the Party of Moderates and Progressives DOES NOT HAVE A POSITION ON DIVORCE.

Inhobbkom is bandying around the idea of the frijjvowt (one word for “free vote”). It turns out that his magnanimous self has “granted” the people a “frijjvowt” – something the Nasty Dastardly DottorGonzi denied them. Yay! We should thank Inhobbkom Joseph for enfranchising the nation.

Really? What has this battle been about? Well Joseph gives us the first half of an answer:

“Jien ma nemminx li din il-kwistjoni hija dwar referendum jew divorzju”.

There you have it. The horse has spoken. So there you are you stupid, peddling peasant who has been celebrating for a great victory for the progressive modern Malta being catapulted into Europe by Joseph and his Horde (+JPO and Mugliett). You thought it was about divorce? Fuck no. It isn’t.

You have been GIVEN the right to express your opinion on the 28th May. It’s an expression that will count for Jack Shit come the vote in parliament following the referendum. Because the same party that is claiming to be dragging us kicking and screaming into the Europe of modern progressive values DOES NOT HAVE A POSITION ON DIVORCE. It has a position on frijvowts. It gives its MPs the frijvowt on the referendum question. It gives the people a frijvowt to say what it thinks on divorce AND it will give another frijvowt to its MPs to vote on the eventual bill in parliament ACCORDING TO THEIR CONSCIENCE. (see “Tie Your Brother Down“).

That means that this sniggering geezer who is so patronisingly smug about moving Malta closer to Europe (puhlease) would love to have y’all believe that the frijvowt is actually a yes to divorce. It is not. Because the probability is that even with a positive referendum result (and Joseph is not doing much to encourage that) the chances are that the 69 eejits voting “according to their conscience” shoot down the bill. Godbless.

Daphne Caruana Galizia wrote a good analysis in today’s Independent that shows how many of us who are in favour of divorce legislation but not in favour of this partisan circus feel. I have heard many friends in the last few hours who are considering abstaining or even voting NO in a referendum because of the whole hijack by this PLPN charade.

J’accuse remains convinced that the truly modern, progressive and (if you want, though I do not see the point of this) “European” way of introducing divorce can only happen when one or more parties have the balls to declare that should they be elected to government they will introduce divorce legislation. It is the only way that the people can be empowered to decide – with a vote at the electoral ballot.

Meanwhile as we discuss our referendum question in 2011 and as our leader of the opposition kids himself of having “allowed” us to express our opinion, (Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster for that)  this is the stage Luxembourg is at with regard to divorce legislation. I won’t bother translating. If you can’t read French then you’re not European enough and you’re not bloody worth it.

Le divorce possible dans six mois

Dans les cartons du Parlement depuis plus de cinq ans, le texte tarde à se finaliser. Les difficultés des députés à s’accorder tiennent en deux points: l’opportunité de maintenir le divorce pour faute à certaines conditions (violences conjugales) et la question des points retraite pour le conjoint qui aurait interrompu sa carrière pendant la durée du mariage.

Hier, les députés ont toutefois réussi à s’entendre sur le divorce par consentement mutuel. Ainsi, la durée de la procédure a été ramenée à six mois au lieu d’un an. Les parlementaires ont acté que la pension alimentaire versée lors d’un divorce par consentement pouvait être révisée ce qui n’est pas le cas aujourd’hui. Pour la députée socialiste Lydie Err, «les progrès sont laborieux, mais au moins nous avançons».

– L’Essentiel, 17th March 2011

I almost forgot… but it’s become our new byline:

In un paese pieno di coglioni ci mancano le palle.

– J’accuse 2011