A reader joins the increasing number of J’accuse contributors. “As You Are” kicks off his contributions with a poem called Corradin No.
Corradin No
Maltese politicians will never know
what it’s like to do time at Corradino
and then, when it’s over, to go back home
to your mum, or your girlfriend, or your wife,
or whoever,
who will lovingly try to heal
all the wounds you suffered,
except the wounds deep inside your anus
and the wounds deep inside your heart
because, of course,
you’ll never tell anyone
about those.
Maltese politicians will never know
any of that at all.
They will never know Corradino,
no matter what they do.
But you can know.
And you will
if you push your luck too far.
Just grow some weed
and wait your turn.
It will come eventually
unless you’re a Maltese politician.
The list of speakers for tomorrow’s Civil Society Demonstration has been published and readers by now will have noticed that I am one of them. I have seen comments directed at me both on the Times and Independent articles on the event. According to one commentator I was an obvious choice because I wrote “against the PL” prior to 2013. Another commentator was convinced that my time served as president of the university student’s union was served in the capacity of a PN representative.
To be fair, that was just about it. Not much fodder it seems. Which probably means that I am sufficiently of an unknown factor to pass the grade of most suspicious observers. I could answer both the comments stating firstly that I have written “against the PL” both before and after 2013. My track record is such that my writings took me “against the PN” often too – especially when the PN deserved more scrutiny as the party in government. Luckily I have 12 years of blogging to back my claims.
As for my time in KSU – the allegation is risible to say the least. My time spent both in SDM and in KSU was at the service of students and the student community. I proudly state that together with my colleagues of the time I was responsible for a (albeit temporary) rift between the SDM and the Nationalist Party. The reason is simple – I did not take kindly to being dictated how to do politics for a party’s sake.
This is not an apologia for my past or for my credentials to address tomorrow’s crowd. This is more of a look at why I believe that the kind of activism that is developing in and around the current crisis is perforce a non-partisan one. The wider aims and goals of the civil society that has begun to stir go beyond the immediate demands made by the Civil Society Network. The fundamental aim is constitutional reform. Constitutional reform that is radical and has to be so.
Such Constitutional Reform must be party-free. Understand this. Party-free not party neutral. The thinking outside the box begins at that point. We have had a constitutional system that developed around and at the service of two parties. I have repeated this notion ad nauseam. The reason for the institutional rot is also because there is a limit to how much you can bend and twist the rules to serve two masters. The reason for institutional rot is not to be placed at the foot of one party or another. There is no measure that can blame one party more than the other. The reason must be placed squarely at the feet of both parties. Yes. The PLPN.
So think outside the box we must. The movement must become a constitutional movement. The proposals of what a new Malta should look like will be manifold. Already there are disagreements among proponents as to which system will be better however there is one crucial matter that must be remembered: the discourse has been brought to the forefront of the national agenda.
Before the election I founded the Advocates for the Rule of Law together with some colleagues of mine. Our aim was to highlight the deficit of rule of law that was becoming increasingly obvious. Yes, it became increasingly obvious under Labour’s watch but be careful, the problem was rooted much much earlier. Here is a snippet from a blog post (and from my Independent on Sunday column at the time) in March 2010: what many would call less suspicious times:
“All three branches of the state are currently under heavy attack and the levels of trust that “the people” seem to have in the administrative, executive and the judiciary appear to be alarmingly low. This is not healthy for our democracy – it’s a rot that is setting in. The rot must be exposed, not in a partisan, self-interested kind of way but rather in an objective attempt at rediscovering what we want for the future of our nation.”
I reread my posts over the years since 2005 and to me it sounds like a broken record. Not – as an observer on Daphne’s blog observed tauntingly very recently – the broken clock that is right twice a day. No, this was a constant consistent message. Over the years I and other like-minded individuals explored possibilities for constitutional change. We believed that the change should start from the house of representatives. Transforming it into a truly representative institution would mean proportional representation and having a clear cut separation from the executive. It did not make sense to have a third of parliament sitting in the cabinet.
The discourse of reform needed a crisis to be kicked off. Sadly the crisis took the ugliest form that one would never have wished for – the death of a vociferous journalist. The agenda of reform that had been hinted at mildly during Panamagate and its aftermath was now catapulted to the forefront. The Advocates for the Rule of Law (AFTROL) had managed to put the words on the nations mouth: Rule of Law. The discussion had remained at a technical level and the election had pummelled a people into silence.
The new crisis has brought the discussion back with a vengeance. What needs to be understood is that this is not about asking Joseph Muscat to resign. It is not about advocating or pushing for the usual alternation. It is much deeper than that. The nation desperately needs the reform for its own good. Citizens need to understand that so long as they pin their hopes on the partisan assessment of politics then all hope is lost. The two political parties will always be in survival mode. It is parallel to their need to be in power to make the system work to their advantage. The rules must stay the same – even if they will pay lip service to constitutional reform.
Now more than ever it is imperative that we are not partisan. The part I don’t take is the part in part-isan. It is imperative that we begin to understand that the Civil Society Movement must establish itself with even higher standards than the temporary ones that are being asked for right now. Constitutional reform must come from the heart of the nation. From its sovereign. We the people.
I am not partisan. I don’t need to be and cannot be. My duty as a civil activist is to fight for constitutional change that brings about the proper reforms. That brings about the rule of law.
We are servants of the law so that we may be free.
“The murder of blogger Daphne Caruana Galizia triggered off a difficult moment for Malta, but it should not be allowed to derail the country’s long-term plans, Prime Minister Joseph Muscat said today.”
Muscat was speaking in a pre-recorded message to the audience of the EY annual conference in Malta. It had to be a video tape because Muscat was busily back to business-as-usual peddling passports in Dubai (he actually stopped for a meeting with an Oil Magnate from the Emirates before that, he’s not one to miss this kind of beat). There would be more Newspeak from Muscat in Dubai where the Henley & Partners contracted speaker would tell an audience of potential buyers that the cash-for-passports scheme was not there simply for Malta to make money. He went further… “Malta’s cash-for-passports scheme was not about making a quick buck and the country’s economy is not dependent on it”. A surplus of newspeak for the day.
Back to his earlier taped speech though. We “should not be allowed” to derail the country’s long term plans. He told the audience. Look into his eyes, look into his eyes – you are hurt but don’t let this stick for too long. Get back on the script. Everything is fine and dandy. The economy is booming. It is not thanks to Malta’s increasing dependence on shady deals. You’ve got it good. Do you want to ruin it all? Rule of law? Of course we have institutions. We have a police commissioner and an attorney general too. Joseph Muscat trusts them and while he hears your complaints he begs to differ. (Sorry, I said begs, I mean haughtily dismisses).
It is all too easy to speak of Nero fiddling while Rome burns. It is crucial though that we get to focus. This is the defining moment of civil society. It cannot rely on either of the traditional parties. It must build its own momentum and take the battle to the front on its own steam. The most important element is constant education, constant information, and constant refreshing of memory. The machines are in motion to convince you that this is business as usual. The hideous strategy of targeting critics as being non-patriots cannot be allowed to work.
Civil society must learn to look in the mirror and recognise itself free from all the shackles of partisan interpretation. The key for identification is simple. Civil society criticises and advocates for change for the good of the country. Anyone working for the good of anything else – particularly for the revival or strengthening of one or other of the PLPN hegemony is not part of this new battle.
Here is a message to Joseph Muscat. Civil society is not out to derail the country’s long term plans. Civil society is here to set the country back on track in spite of the existence of both parties. The movement will grow. It is inevitable. Constitutional reform must and will come from the ultimate sovereign: the people. We will not let you fake that one too.
The exchange in court between Minister Cardona’s lawyer and Matthew Caruana Galizia prompted me to start a meme using Matthew’s reply. #iamnotemotional. Later I received a private message from a member of Daphne’s family pointing out that the full quote that day included the phrase “My head is cold”. Eleonora saw this exchange and was inspired to write this new contribution to J’accuse.
On 20 July 1992 Lucia goes to the Law Faculty of Palermo to sit for an exam. Her father, Italian judge Paolo Borsellino, has been killed the day before by a car bomb in Palermo, near his mother’s house. When she sits down in front of her professors, Lucia is asked whether she’d like to come again in another session, given the circumstances in which she currently finds herself.
Notwithstanding her deep sorrow, Lucia answers that she’ll go ahead with the exam on that very day. The day after her father has been murdered and somehow failed by the same institutions that he gave his life to represent.
On 17 October 2017, Matthew publishes a post on facebook explaining why “a culture of impunity has been allowed to flourish by the government in Malta” and listing the names of those who did not take action and therefore were responsible for this. The name of the Maltese PM is among these. Matthew’s mother, Maltese blogger and investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, has been murdered the day before by a car bomb in Bidnija, near her own house.
When asked to comment on Matthew’s facebook post by CNN journalist Christiane Amanpour, the Maltese PM stated that in those words he saw a son who had just found his mother in pieces and therefore that he “would be insensitive to take exception to anything he says”. He also added that he would have written or said worse things if he had found himself in Matthew’s position.”
On 23 October 2017, Matthew, Andrew and Paul go to court along with their father Peter to replace respectively their departed mother and wife in the libel cases against her instituted by Minister Chris Cardona and his personal adviser Joseph Gerada. As reported by Maltese media, when the court informed both parties that it would adjourn the cases to December so as to allow time for things to settle, Matthew indicated his wish to make a statement.
He declared that he wanted to “make it clear that we want the case to continue,” because “Chris Cardona has an interest in stopping the case to go forward.”
Mr Cardona’s legal advisor answered that there was no such intention on their part, but that he fully understood that the comment was the result of strong emotions experienced at present.
At that point Matthew answered: “No, I’m not emotional. My head is cold.”
When I read about this last episode in court, I immediately connected it to the answers of the Maltese PM to Christiane Amanpour and felt deeply offended.
Firstly, because it reminded me of when I began my legal practice and I had to accept sharp comments from my senior colleagues because not only was I young and inexperienced, but I was a “young lady” who wanted to become a criminal lawyer. You have to understand that until the end of the 80s, most European legal cultures did not really allow the idea of women practicing criminal law because of those “special days when they get so emotional”. Unfortunately for our male colleagues, we had brilliant examples to prove them wrong – one of them being Donna Clio, the wife of Italy’s former President Giorgio Napolitano.
Secondly, and most deeply, I was offended as human being. You do not exploit someone’s sorrow to build yourself a potential excuse if you find yourself in the public eye for the actions you have allegedly committed. You simply do not.
Because the fact that someone is currently mourning the loss of someone does not mean that his or her mental abilities are impaired. Would you have called Matthew “emotional” had he decided to go to a grocer to buy some bread? No. And given that going to court or posting on facebook a clear summary of why the situation ended up being this desperate requires a bigger amount of intellectual skills (no offence implied), I’m pretty sure that Matthew was fully aware of his actions when carrying them out. Even – or better said, especially while mourning the loss of his mum.
Finally, I was offended as European citizen. While the fact that the family is actively taking action in order to pursue Daphne’s quest for the truth notwithstanding their pain is labelled as “emotional” in Malta, the European Parliament, the most representative EU Institution, has invited that very family to Strasbourg. The family today were present at a plenary session during which there was a minute of silence to honor Daphne and a debate on the status of freedom of expression at EU level. The same Institution paid its respects to her memory by naming its newsroom after Mrs Caruana Galizia.
In today’s speech, the President of the European Parliament, Mr Tajani, said that “Our Union is far more than just a market or a single currency. It is the manifestation of our values, of our identity, at the heart of which stand freedom and dignity of the individual. If we are to defend that freedom and that dignity, inside and outside the Union, we must safeguard the independence of the press. I am proud that this Parliament has always been in the front line of that battle. Daphne’s murder must not go unpunished. How can we credibly claim to defend journalists around the world if we cannot even offer them protection and justice here at home?”
He then directly addressed the family, saying that “Her family is here with us today in the gallery. To them, I would like to say that we are together in spirit with the thousands of Maltese who on Sunday took to the streets to call for justice and to pay tribute to Daphne’s work.And today 500 million Europeans stand together with the people of Malta.
Mr Tajani did not call them “emotional” for being there. Instead, he underlined the fact that we all, not just Daphne’s family, stand united to call for justice and, most important of all, to pay tribute to her work.
Because even if you’re still mourning the loss of someone, your genuine quest for the truth is the only true homage you can pay to someone whose life has been lost while searching for it.
As Judge Borsellino used to say, ““The brave dies once, the coward a hundred times a day.”
Reproduced with the kind permission of the author.
Nhar it-Tnejn Daphne inghatat il-piena kapitali minn xi hadd li tant hassu omnipotenti li ddecieda li jhassar mid-dinja gurnalista li bil-pinna taghha kienet saret tehdida…
Meta smajt l-ahbar hassejt vojt…il-vojt li thoss meta thoss li pajjizek tilef bicca minn ruhu. Ghalhekk wara giet ir-rabja.
Xoghol il-gurnalist mhux li jinghogob mil-poter imma li jzomm distanza minnu biex ikun jista jwassal il-verita. Speak truth to power ghandu jkun l-motto taghna lkoll.
Inhossni mcekken quddiem il-karba tal-qraba u t-tfal ta’ Daphne, karba ghal gustizzja mhux ghal ommhom biss imma ghal Malta taghna li tant inhobbu.
Tajjeb li l-gvern qed jibghat messagg qawwi li se jaghmel min kollox biex jaqbad lil kriminali.
Imma fuq kollox Pajjizna irid fejqan.
Ghax pajjizna ma jixraqlux hekk. Pajjizna ghandu ruh.
We do not want to live in a mafia state. Ma nridux inkunu washing machine tal-flus mahmugin tal-kriminali u d-dittatturi. Il-flus ma jixtrux kollox, wisq l-inqas il-gustizzja.
Fuq kollox quddiem tehdida daqshekk kattiva mill- kriminalita organizzata, hemm bzonn twegiba politika ghal kwistjoni morali li qed tifni lil Malta taghna.
Hadd m’ghandu jipponta subghajh lejn hadd ghax lkoll ghanda parti mit-tort kull meta harisna n-naha l-ohra biex naghmlu lira zejda. Imma din mhix skuza biex inhallu kollox ghaddej.
Biex ninghaqdu u nuru li ahna ahwa Maltin u nibghatu l-aqwa messagg lill- kriminali li qatlu l-Daphne inridu nuruhom li Malta ghanda istituzzjonijiet li ghandhom is-snien u jgawdu l-fiducja taghna lkoll.
Fl-ahhar ftit snin ma rajnix rieda tajba. L-istituzzjonijiet fallewna bl-ikrah f’bosta kazijiet bhal Panamagate li gew midfuna taht it-tapit tal-konvenjenza. Kellna paralizi istituzzjonali fejn l-istat u l-pulizija ma resqu lil hadd quddiem il-qrati biex jigi gudikati.
Ghalhekk biex ikollna fiducja fl-istituzzjonijiet jehtieg bidla fl-istituzzonijiet.
Irid isir ezami serju ta’kuxjenza u kull min ghandu jwarrab ghandu jwarrab illum qabel ghada.
Rajna wkoll rigress kulturali fejn xi whud f’partiti differenti bdew iseksku li onestsa u l-indafa huma xi zvantagg fil-politika. Kwazi li tkun parti mid-dinja tat-tahwid bdejna narawa vantagg.
Rajna kultura tal-libelli li fija l-prova tal-innocenza tigi billi tfajjar xi libell.
Iva ghal ghexieren ta’snin gvernijiet minn partiti differenti ma ghamlux bizzejjed biex insahhu s-saltna tad-dritt. Hallejna hafna xquq min fejn setghu jghaddu d-delinkwenti politici ta zminijietna.
Imma flimkien nistghu naghmlu d-differenza… kurragg.
Intom ragg ta’ dawl f’din i-lejla mudlama tar-repubblika Maltija…Intom l-Malta t-tajba, dik il-Malta li ma tiskotx, dik il-Malta nadifa
Ghax inhobbu l-pajjizna inridu inkomplu dak li bdejna illum u ma nifqux qabel pajjizna jerga jikseb il-hakma tad-dritt f’kull qasam tal-governanza.
Grazzi li qomtu mir-raqda. Viva Malta nadifa. Viva l-Maltin li issa qed jghidu issa daqshekk.
The first edition of Charlie Hebdo since the unfortunate events of last week is out tomorrow. The world has been given a preview of the front page which depicts a tearful prophet holding up a placard with the “Je suis Charlie” slogan. The background is in green – the colour of Islam – and the title is “All is forgiven”. The plan is to distribute the special 16 page edition (3 million copies are being printed) in at least 25 countries. It has been translated into four languages, including Arabic.
There is still a major problem though. To many muslims the mere depiction of the prophet is blasphemous. Charlie Hebdo’s irreverent treatment may be shielded from blasphemy laws in most of France (see next paragraph why most and not all) but when it tries to go worldwide in places such as India the issue of blasphemy might be raised all over again.
In the Alsace-Lorraine region they have a minor problem. On paper, blasphemy is still illegal under an article inherited from the German Criminal Code of 1871 when the region was transferred from Germany to France in 1918. I say on paper because when the League for the Justice defence of Muslims tried to have the law applied before a French court the court declared that the blasphemy law had become redundant due to “desuetude” which in layman terms means non-use for a very long time.
The truth is that outside the worlds where sharia or religious laws infiltrate or are one with secular laws, there is no place for a law on blasphemy. It is redundant. This applies all the more strongly in most liberal democracies where the basic charter of fundamental rights or variants thereof are applicable. Just before the attacks on Charlie Hebdo a group of representatives of the major religions (curiously the word “cultes” is used in French) had petitioned Paris to abrogate what the Archbishop of Strasbourg described as “an obsolete law”.
Blasphemy is inherently inapplicable in a secular state. The difficulties abound especially when it comes to the forces of law and order who are supposed to perform on the spot assessments of what could or could not be blasphemous in order to eventually effect an arrest. Blasphemy is in fact not restricted to one religious belief by definition (even the Maltese law on blasphemy that subsists to this day extends protection to all approved religons). So how on earth can your average policeman, called upon to intervene on a supposed commission of an act of blasphemy , assess the situation without being extremely well versed in the tenets of each and every religion which could be offended?
In truth the issue of offense – which is the other side of the coin of the freedom of expression and which could constitute the barrier or eventual limit to such expression – is sufficiently treated and dealt with in other, wider provisions that deal with that very freedom of expression. Blasphemy is redundant, useless and archaic.
The other problem faced by Western Liberal Democracies (my capitals) is that they must be able to explain the register of rights and duties that are expected of citizens wanting to partake of their civilisation and society. These rights and duties are codified in rules that form the backbone of society and that everyone is expected to abide by. The rules are enacted by representatives of the people with the sovereign will entrusted unto them in open elections. They are applied by the executive branch and interpreted by the judiciary. This civic process ensures that we live in a system of rule of law with clearly defined rights and protection. Cives Europaeus Summus ut Liberi Esse Possimus – we are citizens of Europe (read Western Liberal Democracy) and thus we are free.
In a Western Liberal Democracy you do not take up arms and kill somebody who has insulted you or your beliefs. You react using the tools, rights and laws that are as accessible to you as they are to others. That is what is meant by integration too. You can be a fanatical muslim, an orthodox christian or one of those insufferable atheists pouncing on anything religious at any opportunity. You are expected to behave like a model citizen in order to integrate in the society that welcomes all and gives them a myriad of freedoms so long as they do not hurt others.
It’s simple really. A basic set of tenets that both Yeshua of Nazareth and Mohamet might have subscribed to. It is a society that allows you to be strong in your beliefs while respecting those of others – no matter how irreverent they may seem in your eyes.
Ours is a society where to resort to violence, bullying or savagery in order to impose one’s views is abhorred. In fact it is considered blasphemous.
