Categories
Politics

Ittra miftuħa lil tesserat tal-partit nazzjonalista li se jivvota għada

 

Għażiż tesserat,

Wisq probabbli ma nafekx u jekk nafek m’aħniex ħbieb minn ta’ ġewwa (kif jgħidu… ma nieklux kirxa flimkien). Xorta nixtieqek tippermettili ngħidlek kelma … tismagħni… kif sar wisq moda li ngħidu f’dawn iż-żmienijiet. Għandi xi ngħidlek u nixtieq ngħidulek għax il-vot tiegħek għada jikkonċernani ukoll – din id-darba iktar minn qatt qabel.

Forsi smajt bijja, forsi le. Blogger ukoll jien. Wieħed minn ta’ l-ewwel kieku – bdejt nibbloggja fl-10 ta’ Marzu 2005 u kont minn ta’ l-ewwel li għaraft l-utilita’ ta’ dan il-mezz tax-xandir f’Malta. Jafuni bħala l-akkuża għax biex għażilt isem is-sit tiegħi tnebbaħt minn kittieb u attivist franċiż ta’ żewġ sekli ilu li ma kienx jaf jżomm sieket quddiem inġustizzji. Emile Zola kien kiteb ittra miftuħa – magħrufa bħala J’accuse – fejn kien akkuża lill-istabbiliment u gvern tan-nuqqasijiet tagħħom u kixef il-ksur tal-liġi minn naħa tagħhom speċjalment fejn naqsu milli jirrispettaw id-dinjita’ tal-bniedem. Jien minix bi ħsiebni nakkuża lil ħadd illum. Kemm ngħidlek pero li kemm ilni nibbloggja ilni inwissi li s-sistema tal-partiti li għandna illum (sistema li saħansitra ġiet ikkonsolidata fil-kostituzzjoni u l-ogħla liġijiet ta’ pajjiżna) se twassal għal tiġrija lejn il-qiegħ.

Is-Sewwa

Iva. Sa mill-bidu (u anki qabel ma kont nikteb fi blog) kont għaraft li l-partiti ta’ pajjiżna ma huma xejn ħlief magni meħjuma u mibnijin biex isarrfu l-aspirazzjonijiet ta’ l-ambizzjużi fil-kilba tagħhom għall-poter. Kont għaraft li bilmod il-mod kienu ħallew warajhom il-prinċipji jew valuri li suppost kienu iħaddnu u minflok saru parti minn xibka dejjem titwessa ta’ interessi pekunjarji. Pajjiżna ma kienx baqagħlu min imexxih għaliex ma kienx għad baqa’ ideat imsejsa fuq valuri u proġetti għal futur aħjar għas-soċjeta. Minflok, kull ma jmur, rajna jiżviluppaw ġenerazzjoni ta’ politiċi li jgħixu biss għal din il-magna: biex jisquha u biex jieklu minnha.

Għal ħafna żmien kont (u sa ċertu punt għadni) nemmen li l-uniku ħaġa li twassal għal bidla ta vera fil-pajjiż kienet tkun il-mewt tal-partiti l-kbar. Minkejja li kien kważi impossibbli, għal ħafna żmien kont nemmen li jekk tielet u raba partit jirnexxilhom jiżżerżqu bejn iż-żewġ partiti l-kbar forsi kien jitkisser iċ-ċirku vizzjuż. Iż-żmien għadda u ċ-ċirkostanzi inbidlu. Fl-aħħar elezzjoni, konxju tal-qiegħda imwiergħa tal-pajjiż f’dak li għandu x’jaqsam mal-breakdown istituzzjonali u l-firxa ta’ korruzzjoni, għażilt li nitfa’ il-ftit piż tiegħi wara l-koalizzjoni li kienet qed twiegħed bidla. Konvint li ħafna ma fehmux li l-koalizzjoni ma kenitx is-soluzzjoni imma kienet l-uniku għażla li kien għad baqa’ f’tentattiv iddisprat li jirbaħ is-sewwa fuq il-korruzzjoni, fuq it-tmermir istituzzjonali. Il-koalizzjoni tal-Forza Nazzjonali kienet il-bogħod milli tkun perfetta u bagħtiet ħafna minħabba l-indifferenza ta’ bosta lejn l-idea li wieħed imur oltre l-idea ta’ partit wieħed, klassiku.

Nafu kif spiċċat dik l-istorja. Niżbaljaw pero’ jekk naħsbu li l-ħsieb wara l-koalizzjoni, l-ħsieb wara l-għaqda kontra l-korruzzjoni kien wieħed ħażin sempliċement għax ma rebaħx elezzjoni. Is-sewwa mhux dejjem jirbaħ. Għallinqas mhux mill-ewwel u speċjalment meta isib kontrih il-magni tal-korruzzjoni, tal-klijenteliżmu u taċ-ċejċa. Iktar u iktar mhux se jirbaħ meta kull ma jmur qed naraw li l-elettorat (jew il-biċċa tiegħu li tgħodd numerikament biex jifforma gvern) jippreferi fuq kollox il-filosofija ta’ l-aqwa li jiena sew. Anki meta iffaċċjat bl-iktar każijiet ovvji ta’ korruzzjoni. Anki meta t-tmermir sistemiku tal-pajjiż li se jħallu lil uliedhom qiegħed f’wiċċhom.

Ftit paċenzja oħra u ismagħni, tesserat. Il-partit tiegħek qiegħed fejn qiegħed illum għax għażel li ma jilgħabx il-logħba faċli u populista. Taħt Simon Busuttil għażel li jkun fuq quddiem bl-għajta kontra l-korruzzjoni. Din mhix sempliċement kwistjoni ta’ fejn sejrin il-flus. Din kwistjoni ta’ fejn sejjer il-pajjiż.. fejn jagħżel li se jkun ħames u għaxar snin oħra. Busuttil kien il-mexxej fis-siegħa tal-bżonn tal-partit… bid-difetti tiegħu ukoll, b’dik l-oratorija daqxejn irritanti, dik l-arja ta’ abbatin naqra iktar irritanti IMMA Busuttil għamel bħal ma għamel ħafna drabi il-partit nazzjonalista fil-passat. Għażel triq tas-sewwa. It-triq bla kompromessi. Issa kullħadd għaddej ġmielu jirrepeti il-mantra laburista – li kien wisq negattiv. Ma nistax nimmaġina pero x’ippretendew li jagħmel jekk mhux li jaġixxi kif għandha tagħmel oppożizzjoni vera li tkun għassa tal-prinċipji bażiċi ta’ rappreżentanza u demokrazija.

M’inix nazzjonalist

M’inix nazzjonalist u wisq inqas ma jien tesserat. Personalment ma nemminx f’tesseri ta’ sħubija f’partiti politiċi, speċjalment taħt is-sistema Maltija. Meta niġi biex nivvota nara x’qed jgħidu u joffru l-kandidati u nagħżel dak il-ħin. M’għandi l’ebda lealta’ għamja. Fl-1991 pero bdejt fil-politika fil-partit nazzjonalista. Proprjament konna grupp ta’ xi 30 żgħażugħ u żgħażugħa li ifformajna l-MZPN Għawdex. Konna attivi fil-laqgħat ta’ djalogu fi żmien it-tkattir u twessiegħ ta’ prinċipji veri. Tiftakarhom forsi : Solidarjeta’… dejjem… kullimkien. Sussidjarjeta’. Kien żmien li Malta mingħalina bdejna nedukaw rwieħna dwar it-tħaddim ta’ soċjeta miftuħa u demokratika. Ta’ sbatax il sena tkellimt f’laqgħa ta djalogu f’Marsalforn u niftakar li Eddie kien ikkongratulani (żgur bħal ma kien jinkoraġġixxi lil kullħadd) dwar id-diskors tiegħi dwar kif l-għaqdiet għawdxin għandhom jiġbdu ħabel wieħed.

Dak iż-żmien imexxi grupp ta’ żgħażagħ ħabrieka kellna lil Chris Said. Ilħaqt imbagħad tbiegħdt mill-partit għax ħassejt dik il-mewġa ġejja bilmod. Dik l-istess mewġa li issa tissemma għax iddejjaq lil ħafna. L-arroganza, in-nuqqas ta’ smiegħ, is-suspett li hemm klikkek kontra klikkek u kullħadd jiġbed għal djul għajnu. Dejjaqni ħafna ukoll għax kont bdejt nara partit li waqaf ikun mexxej fl-ideat. Minflok, waqt li kien jinħeba wara ħafna paroli ta’ smiegħ u valuri kien minflok spiċċa ukoll ikun populista Kont tinduna mill-kandidati li jintagħżlu mhux għax tajbin jew għax għandhom kwalitajiet u ispirazzjonijiet politiċi tajbin imma għax iġibu xi vot jew tnejn. Imbagħad tara fazzjonijiet jiffurmaw biex t-tali jilħaq ministru, t-tali għandu n-nies “tiegħu” u kull ma jmur tinduna li l-politika ftit li xejn tissarraf f’ideat oltre l-ħsieb ta’ lukru.

Imbagħad kien hemm il-mument fejn il-PN nixef għal kollox mill-ideat. Kien il-mument wara li Malta ssieħbet fl-Ewropa. Ma kien baqa l-ebda utopia għall-futur li tipprovdi l-metru tal-ħidma politika. Kaxkarna ftit ieħor taħt il-gwida għaqlija ta’ Lawrence Gonzi pero il-partit kien ilu li spiċċa minn ġewwa. Il-kollass kien se jasal minn mument għall-ieħor. U wasal meta sab il-mostru tal-klijenteliżmu quddiemu. Il-fenomenu Muscat kollha nafuh. M’huwiex fenomenu interessanti għal min jemmen fid-demokrazija u fil-valuri tal-liġi tad-dritt. Huwa fenomenu inkredibbli minħabba s-suċċess li kellu darbtejn fuq partit li kien ilu li għaddielu l-expiry date.

Futur fis-Sewwa

Daqt nispiċċa tibżax. Għada int mistieden tagħżel il-“kap” tal-partit. L-għażla issa bejn tnejn. Hemm Adrian Delia illi jidher li qed jikseb popolarita’ b’rata mgħaġġla. Miss qalb ħafna minnkom, forsi anki lilek, speċjalment meta flok spjega fil-konkret kif se jbiddel il-partit intefa jlissen kliem l-innu psewdo-faxxista tal-partit. Għad hawn ħafna li mhux qed jifhmu d-dieqa li jħossu u li jaħsbu li l-malinkonija tagħħom – “l-uġiegħ” kif iħobbu jgħidu – huwa frott tat-“telf” li ġarrbu dan l-aħħar. Li mhumiex jindunaw hu li dak li jonqoshom m’huwiex partit li jirbaħ imma partit li jaġħżel is-sewwa bħal ma kien fil-passat. Għadhom irrabjati għaliex ma “rebħux” l-aħħar elezzjoni u jemmnu li allura din tal-korruzzjoni bilfors kienet gidba – xi spin qarrieqi u li għalhekk issa huma itturufnati fil-wied tad-dmugħ. Kliem Delia sabiħ f’dan id-dawl għax iwiegħed rebħ u tiġdid u li ma jibqax ikun partit (fi kliemu) “negattiv”. Attent pero tesserat. Anki meta tqis il-partit qabel il-pajjiż nistiednek tqis sew.

Il-partit nazzjonalista (u kull partit ieħor) m’huwiex l-innu, m’huwiex il-carcade, m’huwiex il-pick and mix ta’ valuri konservattivi biex kumbinazzjoni jintogħġob  mas-saff tal-elettorat li huwa maggoranza fost it-tesserati (over 60s), m’huwiex bandiera jew simboli. Tista’ iddum issabbat fuq sidrek u tgħajjat b’rabja qisek Mikiel Falzon isejjaħ l-iljuni. Il-partit veru hu dak li jagħraf jinseġ storja ta’ valuri li tkompli tibni fuq kisbiet passati. Li tiċċita x-xogħol, ġustizzja u liberta, is-solidarjeta, u d-djalogu ma hux kliem fierah imma il-bidu ta’ riforma ġdida li xogħla għandha tkun li ttejjeb id-determinazzjoni ta’ saff importanti tal-poplu li għal darba oħra ikun it-tarka ta’ dak li hemm bżonn għall-futur ta’ nazzjon.

Biex temmen f’dan kollu trid tkun tħaddan il-politika umana bħala punt ta’ tluq u tħaddan ukoll ir-rieda li fi spirtu demokristjan aġġornat għaż-żminijiet tal-llum tkun ippreprat titqabad għal dak li temmen fih. Fuq kollox trid tkun temmen li qabel ma tivvota biex tibni partit rebbieħ, tivvota biex tibni partit ġust li jemmen fil-ġustizzja. Trid temmen verament li jitkompla x-xogħol siewi ta’ dawn l-aħħar tletin sena u tasal biex tagħżel dak li l-iktar jiggaranixxi t-taqbida fit-triq għas-sewwa.

Is-sewwa jirbaħ żgur.

 

 

Categories
Uncategorized

The State of Our Unions

Chris Said must not be too happy with the reception that has been afforded the Civil Cohabitation Partnerships Bill. The MGRM and AD as well as the Civil Rights group Aditus have all slammed one aspect or another of the bill. It must be said that the greatest hype has been around the expectations that had been instilled among the gay community with regards to a move that would finally constitute the adoption of a gay marriage law in Malta. Not being an infallible sentient being I am not sure whether I am getting all the signs right but I do have more than a modicum of suspicion that there is more than a strong tinge of confusion in the matter from all parties concerned – either wilfully and in line with particular agendas or unwittingly and underlined by a particular level of ignorance of what the law is about.

On PACS and othe civil partnerships

Let us begin with the abstract – away from the hustle and bustle of what is the current line of thought in Malta. The first point that must be clearly established is that a law on civil partnerships and a law on gay marriage are two very different pieces of legislation. The fact that the former (a civil union law) could facilitate the life of gay couples (and that is an understatement) does not in any way make the two any less different. The clearest and most straightforward example is France and French law where thankfully the confusion that may be brought about by the religion inspired forms of marriage is virtually non-existent.

Since the 15th November 1999 France has what is called a PACS -translated in English as a civil solidarity pact. By definition it is an agreement between two adults (see: no mention of gender or blood relation) who enter such an agreement with the purpose of jointly organising and administering their lives. It changes their situation in the eyes of the law: couples are said to be pacsé on their status description and they stand to be considered as a unit in different situations such as fiscal calculations and entitlements as well as presumptions in the case of inheritance. PACS was introduced in France when marriage was on the downturn and was definitely not exclusively considered as a marriage solution for gay couples (in 2012, 94% of PACS were between opposite sex couples). It goesd without saying though that the concept of a civil union or a recognised cohabitation includes the possibility of same-sex couples.

PACS was never intended to replace or come close to the concept of marriage – the civil concept mind you. Most civil unions are intended in this manner.

Same-sex Marriage

Very different from PACS is the legislation of gay marriages. If we look at our Wikipedia fact machine we will see the following verbal venn diagram:

Currently 22 of the 51 countries in Europe recognize some type of same-sex unions, among them a majority of members of the European Union. Eight European countries legally recognize same-sex marriage, namely Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. An additional fourteen have a form of civil union or unregistered cohabitation. San Marino only allows immigration and cohabitation of a citizen’s partner. Several countries are currently considering same-sex union recognition.

Do note the difference. 22 countries recognise some type of same-sex unions. Of these eight recognise same-sex marriage. The additional fourteen have a form of civil union or unregistered cohabitation. Malta’s Bill would add it to the latter fourteen. It has nothing to do with the formal recognition of gay marriages. Even after the Cohabitation Bill is passed we would still be aeons away from any form of legal sanction of marriage between same-sex couples.

So what’s happening in Malta?

I have it on quite a reliable source that on the eve of last election a deal was struck between a panicking Nationalist party and the MGRM. The deal was simple: MGRM would block vote for PN and PN would enact a cohabitation law. That got some uber necessary votes away from the PL (the hopeful vote) and the AD (the protest vote). Let’s call this the Xarabank deal for want of a better description. Now we know how the PN legislative agenda has been disrupted ever since the divorce surprise but the Bill had to be shoved through as promised otherwise the next election would find the PN with its pants down… and we don’t want any of that do we?

So we have a cohabitation bill being drafted at gunpoint so to speak and whatsmore – as Raphael Vassallo pointed out – being piloted by a former head honcho of the anti-divorce movement. What we end up with is a bill that seems to be blatantly discriminatory and fails to produce the goods insofar as the goal of a solid civil unions law is concerned. It’s the second (non-couple) part of the law that has drawn much attrition – mainly for what are being described as discriminatory conditions.

The bill fails to take into consideration the situation of siblings sharing the same household – failing to factor in recent ECJ case law in this regard. It also ignores completely the tax issues relating to the civil union – practically neutering one of the most important aspects of the law. These criticisms – and, if they are proven to be true, the criticisms aimed at the different time-frame for the recognition of civil unions depending on the type of union – are not only founded but very important if any bearing is to be had on the final version of the law.

There is though the issue of “family” and “gay marriage” that has been thrown into the discussion by most of the groups reacting to the bill. Such talk is highly misplaced. Fine tuning the Cohabitation Bill is not only good but imperative. The criticism and constructive suggestions should be confined to the declared aims and intentions of the bill. Same-sex marriages is definitely not one of them. Don’t get me wrong –  it will never be too soon for a discussion and process to be opened in order to have a same-sex marriage law in Malta. It is important to recognise the difference though and not to be drawn into facile conclusions.

The Cohabitation Partnerships Bill does seem to need more than a bit of fine tuning. It would be unfair and very underhand of all parties concerned should the remit of such a bill be extended to the introduction of same-sex unions. Such an introduction does not deserve to be made surreptitiously. Rather. It should be made openly, consciously and following an open national consultation – possibly including a vote (unless all our parties include the proposal in their next manifesto – in which case we will just be voting in the government that would turn the proposal to legislation).

If the country was deemed mature enough to debate, vote upon and ultimately enact a divorce law then there should be no reason why the same should not hold true of same-sex marriages. I for one believe it’s inevitable.

Change. You want it? Vote for it.

 

Categories
Articles

J'accuse : Tunnel vision indeed

Much as I respect Chris Said and his work, I cannot help thinking that the whole “let’s build a tunnel from Malta to Gozo” is the latest in a series of red herrings commissioned specifically by Gonzi’s PN. Ever since the hullabaloo about the Coupé Convertible Opera House subsided, there has been a desperate scramble for another controversy of the pointlessly popular kind. I was worried for a second that the Nationalists would resort to streaking MPs in Parliament just for the sake of not having to get down to the nitty-gritty of resolving the Gordian knot of divorce (Gordian from a conservative point of view). Instead we get “an immediate, in-depth technical and financial assessment of the tunnel idea”.

It sounds so Yes, Minister, doesn’t it? Actually “in-depth” studies are step five of the 12-step delaying tactics as described by Sir Humphrey (the full list being: informal discussions, draft proposal, preliminary study, discussion document, in-depth study, revised proposal, policy statement, strategy proposal, discussion of strategy, implementation plan circulated, revised implementation plans, and cabinet agreement). Needless to say, most ideas drown somewhere along the way, never to resurface – the mere supporting of the idea having won the relevant minister the necessary brownie points in his constituency.

I may have mixed feelings about the tunnel myself, but I will not be drawn into discussing the usefulness of a €150 million project right now. This is not to say that the project might merit discussion at some point in time in future and wealthier days (‘future’ being the key word here). The feeling I get is that, notwithstanding His Master’s Voice’s efforts to prod its readers into discussing this project, it has been given as much serious consideration as the fact that Malawi’s government is about to outlaw farting in public.

In the dark

I don’t know why they bothered with this tunnel business, really. I mean, the rules of the game perforce mean that we are constantly given the choice of bulk buying plus one (that makes it two products and only two) when it comes to election options. Right now, all Gonzi’s PN have to worry about, come election time, is that they are seen to be a better solution for government than the PL. Easy-peasy really, since Joseph Muscat has been all over the place trying to dispel any leftover worries that he could actually be the chosen one.

We have already assessed his sensibility on the international scene, thanks to his brainwave regarding tourism theft from the ailing Maghreb and Mashrek. This week we also learnt that the brand new Labour’s election manifesto will be drawn up by an old hat of the tried and tested variety. It’s not a question of character assassination, as the victims of criticism are so ready to point out these days, it’s a question of a running curriculum vitae and, frankly, Karmenu Vella’s doesn’t quite fit the bill, does it?

For all their talk of grass root openness and discussion, both parties are really milking the constitutional advantage of a virtual numerus clausus on parliamentary representation. The Nationalist Party discusses basic issues and projects behind closed doors, leaving the Academy for the Development of a Democratic Environment (AZAD) floundering as a token think tank, while Labour commissions the one-man authorship of an election manifesto, completely ignoring the fact that it is supposed to have a fledgling think tank of its own that should supposedly be the prime contributor at this stage (Fondazzjoni IDEAT).

Double insularity?

The tunnel project would end Gozo’s supposed affliction (personally, I think of it as benediction) of double-insularity but, unfortunately for the Gozitans, they will only be linked to Malta and I doubt whether there is any truth in the idea that this would limit the “sister island’s” insularity. Certain mentalities are hard to ditch and a tunnel to the land of partisan crassness loses much of its charm, doesn’t it? That hundreds of Labour’s partisans stood by Joseph Muscat’s rant about Egypt and Tunisia says much about how far the core voter base will stick to their party, come hell or high water. They were not being asked to vote against him, mind you, just disagree. Yet the only answer I came across was “even the Nationalists took advantage of Greece by making a profit on the loans”.

Really? Which part of “all of Europe lent money to the Greeks” did these Labourites miss? Did they not notice that Joseph’s position sticks out as madly as a Mintoff position in his heyday and makes us look like complete jerks? Or they probably did, and the similarity brought out misty-eyed feelings of nostalgia that further compounded the sad truth that we are really two realities living on one island and that there is no way out – no, not even with a tunnel to Pozzallo.

Underwater

The divorce position has forced hitherto unseen cracks in the modus operandi of both parties. For the first time we are seeing the possibility of parties “taking a position” on an issue without, however, binding their members to vote one way or another in Parliament. Cake and eating it comes to mind. Although Malta’s myriad experts and thinkers have rushed to the Pavlovian reflex of drawing up the pro and anti tribes in a jiffy, the divorce question has, more than any other issue, exposed the limits of ‘umbrella politics’ within both parties. It was the ‘anything goes’ policy of the Nationalist Party candidate selection before the election (not to mention the Mistra Crusade and JPO’s crocodile tears with the whole party behind him) that led them into this unprincipled corner.

Needless to say, progressive Joseph is as progressive as Karl Marx in his coffin for the very same reason. Too many contradictory strands of politics (if they may be called politics) are harboured within his party. The magic number of 50 per cent plus one haunts the PLPN in every step of their operation. They are constantly too fixated with garnering votes to be able to concentrate on the politics. Sure, the Daphnes of this world can croon that better a haphazard government of the relative majority than a throwback to Mintoff’s Club once again, but the truth remains that both parties are spineless when it comes to being principled representatives (bar anything short of miraculous happening next Thursday in the PN camp).

Yes, Austin is right. A party should take a position based on its principles and that should be a condition for membership of the party and for contesting elections within the ranks of the party. If JPO leaves the PN ranks and keeps his seat in Parliament, the PN cannot cry foul: they backed him ferociously (and unfairly) to get into Parliament and, lest they misread the Constitution, it is his seat, not theirs.

bert4j_110205
Building bridges?

For reasons completely unrelated to J’accuse’s bias towards a multi-party environment, I strongly believe that AD’s strength this time around is its consistency on yet another social issue. AD has been pro-divorce and has no qualms about declaring it. Notwithstanding the dearth of manpower and the unfortunate lack of plucky charisma that constantly plagues the party, AD has proven to be the only party in Malta that is able never to compromise its principles for votes. I argued this week on the blog that, given the dearth of principled parties in our politics, this might be the time for AD to aspire higher than simply being a third party. It is the time for AD to aspire to become a main party in its own right – to the detriment of one of the other two, of course. Unfortunately, the voting public has proved to be as discerning a public as a gathering of Inter supporters, which means that we are heading straight down the tunnel of unprincipled representation, come 2013.

Outside, in the real world, Jordan seems to be next in line in the wave of revolutions in the Arab world. The Egyptian movement has given us a new twist. For the first time, social networking on the Internet reacted to the revolutions and not vice versa. With the Internet down, Google collaborated with Twitter in order to allow Egyptians to tweet via phone lines. An interesting development – it is these times of revolution that could provoke a speedier change than we are already witnessing.

That’s all this week from gloomy Luxembourg.

www.akkuza.com – daily blogging for free public consumption.

ADDENDUM:

And his Master’s Voice is fast at work, eager to dispel the idea that this is just an exercise in mental entertainment. The Times carried an article yesterday entitled “Gozitans welcome tunnel idea”. Well J’accuse welcomes the idea too but does not believe the timing. On the other hand you really have to ask what made the Times dish out the superlatives such as:

“Massive support for the proposal was shown this morning but it was pointed out that Gozitans should have a very big say in the decision. They proposed a referendum in Gozo to see where Gozitans stood on the issue.”

Really? So what exactly is the “massive support” if a referendum is needed? then the GRTU came out strongly in favour of the tunnel. If you consider Vince Farrugia a strong unbiased voice that is. On the other hand, if you remember that Vince was part of the umbrella coalition for MEP votes then you might think again. The Times’ eagerness to shower plaudits was unbridled:

Some of the organisations in Gozo had already appointed sub-committees to work on the proposal, while a survey held by the GTA found had 90 per cent support of members of the Gozo Tourism Authority.

I bet the Xewkija Tigers social committee got an early head start on that one. And you’ve got to love the survey by the GTA (Gozo Tourism Authority) that obtained 90% support of the … wait for it… Gozo Tourism Authority.

As for copying Nordic countries, the last time we experimented with their ideas in the Fliegu we ended up with flat bottomed boats that were ideal for fjords but that rocked like crazy whenever the Libeccio was here to stay.

Could do better.

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

PerjuryGate – Justine's Dilemma

There’s one more thing that’s been at the back of my mind in this Chris Said saga. It took Justine Caruana quite some time to distance herself from the perjury challenge that was made by her client. We then got Roberto Montalto explaining to the press that “his client’s decision was not a personal vendetta against Dr Said but simply a necessary step in his battle to gain custody of his only child”. It is not that easy to separate the political from the legal in this matter given the position held by Chris Said and given the way the Labour leader tried to gain whatever political mileage could be had from the issue at the first opportunity.

The nagging thought I have had relates to both the legal and the political side of the matter. I need to give you a hypothetical case for you to see this clearer. Imagine (just imagine) we were talking about theft or (heaven forbid) a more grievous crime such as murder. Imagine (just imagine) that we had a similar case but instead of perjury, a Parliamentary Secretary is being accused of theft or murder. Now imagine you were a lawyer whose client is claiming that the PS is guilty of one of these crimes and that you also happened to be a member of parliament for the opposition party.

You’d have two options available:

(1) In the first option you would be the one to strongly pursue the allegation because (a) you believe it and (b) it is your duty both towards your client as well as towards society to uncover the criminal acts of a representative of the people currently entrusted with governmental responsibilities.

(2) On the other hand you may feel that the accusation is actually not well-grounded and that being identified as the initiator of such an accusation would not have very good repercussions on your political career in the long term – so you make sure that you are not identified with such an accusation.

Legally this argument is not relevant since it is a lawyer’s duty to inform the client of his options and repercussions of such options but in the end he will take whatever action (within the boundaries of ethics) that the client requires.

Politically though the argument is important. In tis cynical age, there is much mileage to be made by a politician who actually uncovers the misdeeds of another politician. The graver the accusation the greater the duty of the politician to uncover it if he or she believes that this is the truth.  Even without the cynicism though there is much to be said in favour of the politician uncovering this kind of truth as a duty towards society. Politically this is the work of the servants of the people, ensuring that anybody else posing as as servant of the people is not tainted with a criminal record that could put into question his ability to handle his public duties.

So the nagging thought I have is this. We have Joseph Muscat trying to gain short-term brownie points BEFORE the actual case is decided by tut-tutting at Gonzi’s rashness to back his PS. At the same time though, we have Justine Caruana who is extremely eager to create an ocean between herself and the case in question – we are led to presume that this is because she is not entirely convinced that Said is actually in the business of the crime of perjury.

Can we presume that she believes that his was a genuine mistake that opened a window of opportunity for Mr Xuereb and his new lawyer to try their luck with a very wide interpretation of the law? Incidentally, the luck starts and ends with the right to institute proceedings for perjury – i.e. no need of very high level of proof at that stage pace the Criminal Court – once the actual perjury proceedings start Mr Xuereb’s lawyer might find that judges will require stronger arguments than “this is not a vendetta”.

The nagging thought is that if Justine were certain that the perjury proceedings would be successful (having been Mr Xuereb’s lawyer throughout the civil side of proceedings) she would be squarely behind her client in that step too – if not legally as his representative (for whatever reasons she may have) then politically. There is nothing wrong with Justine Caruana the politician distancing herself from the proceedings – nothing at all. She is fully entitled to do so. In doing so though, the political message she sends to many (and that she should have insisted upon with her dear leader) is that behind this cloud of smoke there lies nothing much. At least nothing that a politician acting in good faith would deem worth pursuing in the courts of law and taking up in the political forum.

There. Now we wait for the courts to get moving on Tuesday.

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

The Leap of Faith

Many are rushing to “apologise” to MP Justyne Caruana for the rash judgements they had made with regards to her potential role in the resignation of Chris Said from the post of Parliamentary Secretary. It’s an interesting development and one that requires a leap of faith. The association began yesterday when the press conference called by Chris Said in order to announce his resignation. A journalist (PBS? Times?) asked Chris Said whether the fact that Justyne Caruana was the lawyer for the person accusing him of perjury meant that this case had a political element. Chris Said replied that he would let the people decide.

Over twelve  hours passed in this day and age of internet and immediate newspaper updates before Justyne Caruana issued a clarification explaining that she was not the lawyer who presented the perjury challenge. Interesting. Or as we say on this side of the looking glass… curiouser and curiouser. Now without in any way questioning the factual side of the statement by the labour MP for the greater isle: i.e. that she was only the representative in the civil case but not in the cases alleging perjury we require a leap of faith. This leap of faith is that the civilian represented by Justyne Caruana in the civil domain of his legal battles is fully empowered with the knowledge of legal niceties related to a the laws and regulations that apply to lying under oath – or perjury.

To be more exact this client of Justyne Caruana’s would have to have had the insight, knowledge and quick wit to move for criminal proceedings di sua sponta, or of his own volition. For you see. Not only is the matter for which Chris Said is being accused infinitesimally technical – and far beyond the auspices of relevance to the ultimate outcome of the civil case – but it is also a legal conundrum visible only to the legal eye with which are endowed the most litigant and perfidious of practitioners of my not so humble trade. In other words you would have had to have been party to the civil proceedings in your lawyering capacity and to have spotted the possibility of creating a devious obstacle to the opposite lawyer concerned – full knowing that the ultimate effect of this case (for it is blatantly obvious to even the non-legal eye) will in no way impinge on the civil rights being claimed by the client concerned.

In other words. Between the moment Justyne Caruana’s client pounced on the opportunity to tackle Chris Said with a frivolous claim of perjury (we all know those facts) and the moment he got himself a lawyer to move on to the criminal stage of perjurial accusation there must have been an informed, intelligent and qualified person who must have pointd out this legal avenue afforded by Article 541 of the Criminal Code – his lawyer in the civil case for example? Are we allowed to doubt the client’s capability to do so of his own accord?

Worse still. (Ho-hum). Are we not allowed to consider the (admittedly) circumstantial fact that the perjury proceedings came within a short period of the hullaballoo in parliament when Chris Said was deemed to have slighted the pregnant Justyne by having misheard her vote? As at the time of Plategate J’accuse insists on motive and sincerely wishes that a couple of investigative journalists (preferably not of the bondi travesty kind) take up the challenge and look further into this mess. It deserves it.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Cultivating Ignorance

If Malta wasn’t sufficiently steeped in partisan ignorance, Inhobbkom Joseph would have to invent it. His latest intervention in the light of Chris Said’s resignation does not just defy logic but it creates a whole new universe of abject insensitivity, crass opportunism and is the political equivalent of the cheap whore that nobody would pay to sleep with. Inhobbkom Joseph may (and I say may out of whatever modicum of respect is left) have the excuse of having no inkling of the law and how it works since his studies took him far far away from the logical and the rational and into the world of lies and statistics. Having said that however he is surrounded by a bunch of people who might (again might) claim to have an idea about the workings of the law them having been proferred with the dikri (and probably their sporting such dikri on a plakka outside their offices).

Inhobbkom is appalled because Gonzi’s letter accepting Said’s resignation implies a readiness to reappoint Said as PS once this is over.  Inhobbkom “jinstab imhasseb” (is worried) that the letter does not leave the judiciary the necessary comfort zone of independence and burdens them with undue pressure. What should worry the electors is that here is a man who will soon be in a decision making position and is able to shoot such weighted bullshit out of his pen in order to gain political mileage. There is no other explanation. The facts of the alleged perjury are known to everyone and his brother (except… it seems… the Maltastar crowd who are intent on depicting Said as a criminal). Mr Leader of the Opposition (should I say Dr?) seems to be very willing to ignore these facts and prefers to murk the waters even more.

Who knows though? This might not be a mistaken attempt by inhobbkom but a concerted effort to sabotage the government’s workings. Given the weak stand of the perjury allegation and coupling that with the fact that Labour MP Justyne Caruana is the “politician/lawyer” handling the allegation on behalf of the supposed victim we would all be forgiven for being convinced that this is yet another Labour attempt to engage in the wrong form of politics. Inhobbkom might inflict damage to Chris Said’s reputation among his detractors but I am firmly convinced that Said will bounce back stronger than before.

Maltastar’s purposive selectivity is not the first we saw this week. The Times of Malta was equally damned when reporting the developments in the Nikki Dimech case. Given that it was reporting different witness statements it was somewhat worying that it chose to highlight the statement of the former contracts manager (the alleged perpetrator or victim of the bribe depending on who you believe) and failed to point out the alleged improper behaviour of a Member of Parliament. It was alleged that Robert Arrigo insisted on the contracts manager being compensated and also that the same Arrigo entered the council and shouted (intimidated) at one of the members. FUnny how the Times developed amnesia about these particular allegations which have as much weight as the allegations that it eventually chose to place in the headline.