Tag: Pope Francis

Categories
Environment

Environmental Value

vaticn_env_akkuza

Watching Alfred Baldacchino tear the MEPA Zonqor report to shreds was a joy to behold. After years of watching politically appointed incompetents in all spheres of government deliver their business in a manner best described as “quasi-amateur” it was reassuring to see that there are still diligent, competent persons who can contribute to this nation. “Tal-affari taghhom” we would call them in Maltese.

Speaking at the Parliament Environment Committee while interviewing a hapless Johann Buttigieg, Baldacchino gave a blow by blow breakdowm of the report that MEPA prepared under strict conditions dictated by the Office of the Prime Minister. In Baldacchino’s words this was a report made to fit certain prerequisites (or as he said in Maltese “biex il-bocca tingab qrib il-likk) and there was nothing scientific about it.

Buttigieg’s feeble defence rested upon the classic “orders from above” defence that only went to show how the independence of our authorities and directorates is in tatters. Asked why the Environmental section (and experts) were not used in this report Buttigieg could only mumble something about confidentiality being imposed from above. In short he seems to mean that since this was a strictly confidential report that would not be made public they dispensed with the uncomfortable obstacles that might arise in the environmental sphere.

Through a reasoned and well argued approach Baldacchino unearthed one of the main pillars of dishonesty that underlies Joseph Muscat’s dealings with regards Zonqor Point. This was no tree-hugging conspiracy theorist on his spare time but a real scientist asking pertinent questions and exposing the gaping holes in the report. It was a report written to make the Fake University at Zonqor happen come what may.

Marlene Farrugia courageously reminded Johann Buttigieg that his duty was towards the taxpayers dishing out his and Sai Mizzi’s pay (I added Sai but it’s the same coffers) and not to suck up to his political superiors. That it might be a case of talking to a brick wall was immediately evident when Buttigieg was also told that on these issues it was he who would be made to answer not his superiors. The civil servant replied with a “no problem” that implied that taking the bullet was part of his curriculum.

In other related news it is also interesting how the other institution currently being grilled by the Front Harsien ODZ for its environmental credentials is the Church. The problem here lies in a couple of requests by the Church to build schools in ODZ area. Having become another outspoken campaigner in favour of saving Zonqor, the Curia is also being required to do some homework about its past applications in ODZ areas.

The timing could not be better. Back at the big Church HQ in Rome, copies of the upcoming papal encyclical “Laudato si’, sulla cura della casa comune” were leaked to L’Espresso. It appears that the conservative movements in the church want to undermine the progressive stance of Pope Francis in this respect but leaks apart we will have another possible set of value guidelines from an institution that does its homework well on a deontological level – one that cannot be ignored, especially by Malta’s Curia.

Alfred Baldacchino spoke not only as a well-researched scientist who knows his job but also as a man with clear values and vision. The renewed discovery of environmental sensitiveness in this country might be a welcome trigger to explore the understanding of our values in this and other fields.

In which case… laudato si’….

Categories
Citizenship Constitutional Development Mediawatch

Expression is free

expression_akkuzaOn his way to the Philippines Pope Francis conceded yet another few comments with regards to the Charlie Hebdo massacre in France. It’s the Pope speaking – don’t forget he was considered for a long time to be infallible. Bergoglio is a great communicator and has won back many sheep to the fold of Catholicism thanks to his attitude and humility. I don’t know if it is the euphoria of the moment or the relaxed atmosphere of a casual interview during a flight but Bergoglio’s qualification of the freedom of expression made me cringe.

“Imagine my assistant insulted my mother”, he said, “then he would be risking a punch.” Really Francis? Since when is that the standard Catholic answer? Whatever happened to turn the other cheek to begin with? But I am not here to tell Francis what his religion teaches as to how to react to violence or insult. What worries me is that there is little different between Bergoglio justifying a punch for an offence and an Imam in London claiming that the Charlie Hebdo journalists asked for it. It’s no different from the reaction in some quarters that called for a limit to the freedom of expression to be set at the prohibition of causing offence.

Right now it is tough for citizens of the nations that are run by the western democratic paradigm to reconcile their ideas of liberty with that of Charlie Hebdo’s freedom to insult and offend a cult. Can an opinion be damaging? Can it be allowed to be damaging? If I believe that stories like the immaculate conception and resurrection are absolute hogwash am I allowed to lampoon them in cartoon fashion? What does the freedom of expression say about that?

Well, in France the courts have already had to deal with this kind of question. There is a difference between the use of the freedom of expression to parody, mock and, yes, even offend on the one hand (which is allowed) and the use of the freedom of expression to incite hatred or call to violence. The reasoning is that nothing is sacred when it comes to the boundaries of freedom of expression. There are of course mechanisms to protect persons who feel damaged by another’s expression. You can see the right to protect against libel and calumny of course. But when it comes to mocking religious figures – there is no limit. Mock and be damned.

Why then are people arrested if they tweet or post on the internet in support of the attackers of Hebdo’s offices? Are they not expressing their opinion too? Well yes they are but they are also justifying the crimes by their acts. In France it is called “apology of terrorism”. It is seen as a step towards incitement to violence and hatred and that is why it is not allowed.

The difference is sophisticated. It requires a level of intellectual engagement that is not available to all. Living in a liberal democratic society requires that kind of sophistication. It takes a level of intellectual engagement to control the savage instinct of resorting to violence when one feels offended and instead to dismiss the efforts at lampooning as puerile schoolyard humour. Life in a western liberal democracy is not for everyone. Many would prefer to be shielded from offence by governments that censor and prevent caricature. Theirs is not the promised land of the west. They would prefer to be able to punch, flog, whip, punish a lampooner than simply look away and not take notice of anything that so deeply offends their sentiments.

They would resort to laws and bullying to silence where possible. If the law does not help them in that sense, if it is too liberal then they will exploit the weakness of the politically correct age and claim that this is about islamophobia, antisemitism, irreverent anticatholicism. “Je ne suis pas Charlie” they will tell you but they miss the point.

Because being Charlie does not mean having a predilection for infantile, sexually oriented humour and for easy (too easy) quips about prophets popes and saints. Being Charlie means having a sophisticated understanding of living in a society where others are free to express themselves in accordance to our charters and where the right kind of reaction is one of intellectual engagement not judicial or physical bullying and savagery.

Being Charlie means hearing yet another Yo Mama joke and not having the instinct to punch the joker in the face. Because being Charlie means understanding that the joke is always on you. And that’s as subjective as it can get.