Categories
Mediawatch

Go back to your country

“Go back to your country”, he typed, he thought, he yelled, he spat, he fumed.

“They should go back to their country”, he reasoned with friends, he told his politician, he reckoned with the warden, he argued on the promenade.

“They’re useless good for nothings”, he supposed with no one in particular, he ruminated on the message boards, he mumbled lost in thought.

“This integration business will never work”, he concluded.

Then. When the anger subsided he put on the Manchester United football gear and bumbled away to support his idols…. Shinji Kagawa, Robin Van Persie, Javier Hernandez Balcazar (Chicharito), Nani, Anderson Luis de Abreu Oliveira,Rafael Pereira da Silva, Nemanja Vidic, Alexander Buttner, David De Gea, Anders Lindegaard. You know… the locals. I’d mention Rooney but he wants out.

From the Daily Mail:

Question: How many foreign players appeared on the opening weekend of the inaugural Premier League season in August 1992? Answer: 13.

Here’s another one. What percentage of foreigners made up Premier League squads when England’s top-flight celebrated its 20th anniversary last summer? Answer: 62 per cent.

“Foreigners go home” he squealed. 

(and before you say anything, the most expensive (valued) player in the English Premier League is… Welsh).

Categories
Politics

Sunshine

The tragic circumstances of the death of Osama Al Shzliaoy will undoubtedly rock the boat on a number of issues that are periodically touched upon in our public debates and politics. Sunshine was knocked down “outside a nightclub” (pace Times report) and succumbed to serious head injuries a few days later. Coming as it did hot on the heels of the court case that practically exonerated a bouncer from any wrongdoing in a death caused in similar circumstances the comparisons and conclusions will be inevitable.

Whether it is Fabrice Muamba or Osama Al Shzliaoy who is battling for life in a hospital, the effect is always such as to inspire great manifestations of solidarity. English football, fresh from weeks of scandals involving racism that peaked with the Suarez-Evra debacle needed the events of the Tottenham v Bolton encounter in order to be shocked into sensibility about respect for your brother. Or did it? Whether the global displays of affection are simply a passing fad related strictly to the facility with which an sms, a text message or a tweet is sent out remains to be seen. After all football has been there before – many times – only to revert to the booing, the banana throwing farces that are a shame for the sport.

But what about Osama? Sunshine seems to have been guilty of wanting to have a good time in Paceville. I had an Estonian guest over the weekend and I asked what she thought about Malta. This blonde from the North had great memories of the island (could be the fact that her beau hails from there) but I was particularly struck by here awe at the size of Paceville. That’s all really – awe… that so much entertainment can be found in so little a space. It does strike you as sick that depending on the colour of your skin and the tint of your hair you could come away with such a different experience from Paceville.  It’s not the Estonian’s fault of course.

We saw it in the evidence given in the last court case where the defendant championed by an aspirant parliamentarian (minister perhaps) had a panoply of witnesses from the entertainment industry prepared to swear on oath that the black man in question (sic) was a regular troublemaker. The court listened and the jury acquitted. The jury mind you. Men from the street – your average man called upon to believe a sworn oath for what it is and then to fulfil their duty. The jury system might have become an anachronism in this day and age – particularly with the selection practice that has developed over time.  Could the jury system be a problem causing an imperfect application of the law?

But back to Osama. Was his death foretold the day the Abubaker jury went out? Was there suddenly a license to kill “immigrants”? Does it tell us anything about racism? Knee-jerk reactions will put their proverbial two and two together and conclude that the fault lies at the feet of lady justice. It’s the law that is to blame isn’t it? And a life nowadays costs approximately 500€.

But that is too easy. Too simple to be true. I see intolerance before I see racism. I see discrimination between a caste of people who can be above the law and others who will suffer the consequences. The bouncer and the bouncer’s world is not the simple world of racism where “black” is discriminated against. It is the “I do what I want” because I am backed by powerful people. It is the world where rights are eschewed for brute force and naked muscle.  Even more worrying is that the brutes will find their rent-a-politician who will mentally muscle his way past the pestering laws with one hand only to blame the legislation and call for reform from the benches of the opposition with another.

The problem behind the deaths of Abubaker and Osama is not racism. It is intolerance and lawlessness. Paceville is just another petri dish where this is brought to light. I believe Deguara when he says that “he is not a racist”. Not a racist in Lowellian or Nazi terms. Deguara just has his list of priorities as a bouncer. His priorities were twisted and they would lead him to use disproportionate force in what he believed to be execution of his duties. The comfort zone of protection for people in his “profession” would even lead to exaggerations – there are no checks and balances because there are people out there who will stick up for you. On oath. In court.

Then Osama gets beaten up and is left for dead. It’s the bouncers again? Are the suspects bouncers? We have read that the suspects are Romanian. Sure. Foreigners. They’re only trouble. Right now the problem is putting the issue in perspective. What is the criminal we are looking for? What is the crime?

There is violent aggression in a very public place. Racism would classify it as a hate crime. Was Osama killed because he was black? Was he killed because his aggressors felt they are above the law? Or was this another crime in what has become the cowboy, unregulated world of entertainment in Paceville?

Our reaction to this crime is just as important as the laws that we will apply. All too often we create ghosts that are not there that distract us from the real problem. Will the sad case of the death of “Sunshine” Osama be relegated to another case of noisy distraction?

 

markbiwwa has also blogged on the subject here.

Categories
Politics

The Right to think Racist

Lou Bondi has been forced to justify his choice of interviewing Norman Lowell after the BA Authority accused Bondiplus of violating the Broadcasting Act and subsidiary legislation aimed at ensuring the promotion of racial equality.

Presenter Lou Bondì insisted yesterday he chose to interview Mr Lowell in order to delve beyond his thoughts on illegal immigration and help the Maltese understand the full force of the horrors of racism. “I am convinced that the best way of dealing with objectionable ideas is to discuss them, investigate them and expose them…,” he said. (Times)

Well. If the best way of dealing with objectionable ideas is to discuss them, investigate them and expose them I guess we should expect many more discussions on a large number of PLPN policies in the coming weeks. Of course we did not expect Lou to inform the BA that Norman was the only subject he could think of and that the investigative minefield (administrative law, tendering procedures, interested party amnesia, party interests etc) posed by the awarding of the BWSC contract was too complicated a task when compared to just putting a man with objectionable ideas on prime time national TV and letting him talk.

This nonsense of fining, shutting up and gagging people who have different ideas must stop. If our only way of countering their arguments is by obliterating them from view then we have reached a sad point in our society. Let him speak I say. The day we elect a crazed right winger to parliament then only one thought comes to mind: we deserve it.

I cannot fathom how we can talk of representative democracy on one hand and then engineer the rules to twist the representation to obliterate ugly elements. By that standard I’d like to see less and less of PLPN in the current format: how about defining them as objectionable too?

Lou is guilty of contributing heavily to the mediocrity of national discourse and engagement. He should not pay for this via some ridiculous assault on the freedom of expression. He cannot use this as his defence but frankly I think it is much stronger than his objectionable nonsense.

***

ADDENDUM

I had almost missed this one since I stopped checking on this column some time back but hey, curiosity pays. Another opinion on the Bondiplus Lowell farce.

This time it’s a friend of Lou’s doing the run down – and you can tell the extreme difficulty Joe had in constructing a critical argument to blame PBS, the producers (not Lou?)  or anyone but Lou (you just have to love the “presenters of lesser stature than Lou” (does he mean shorter?))….

Anyways here is what Media Expert (Fr) Joe Borg had to say about the programme. Do note – PBS must publicly apologise for the mistake. Lou, the poor man, is just a cog of certain stature in the big wheels of the machinery.

What irked me most about the programme was its lack of context which could have perhaps justified the hurt caused because of some overriding public interest. A friend of mine smsed me with the question: is there a survey going on now? His is a very cynic position. Many people will accuse Lou of selling himself for ratings. I do not share this position. I am sure that the reasons Lou had for producing the programme were good and praiseworthy. I think he did it believing the programme would discredit Lowell. I do not doubt his intention but I also believe that he was totally off the mark.

I fear that now presenters of lesser stature than Lou would invite Lowell to their programme as this is how the media circus works. They would not be as prepared as Lou was and consequently Lowell would fare better in such programmes. This would give Lowell more publicity.

Lowell is a nobody. Election result after election result showed that he has not succeeded in riding the xenophobic attitude of many Maltese. He has been given his fair share of exposure which could have then been justified by the argument that people had to be informed about the monstrosity of his ideas. To-day, I think, that argument is no longer valid. He is just a fringe politician spouting hate. There is no place for the propagation of hate on public service TV.

PBS should take an editorial decision that Lowell would not be given coverage on the station barring exceptional circumstances due to some overriding public interest.

Would I be asking too much if I urge PBS to publicly apologise for this mistake?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]