Tag: courts

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

By Appointment

appointment_akkuzaI was asked recently to give my two cents’ worth for an article being prepared by a MaltaToday journalist. He was looking into the recent history of KSU and more particularly the trend of ex-KSU council members becoming politicians (even more particularly Nationalist politicians). Was the university student council simply a machine geared to churn out potential nationalist MPs? Why only nationalist? Was (is) the university a nationalist party enclave? Is there a reason SDM still win a majority of votes at the elections? And of course… what is wrong with the “first past the post” system?

I will not delve into the answers that I gave here but what intrigues me is the perspective that is taken on the question of what we can call political careerism. Let me just say (I admit rather idealistically) that the whole KSU structure as conceived in the mid-90s only becomes counterproductive when allegiance to representing political party interests takes precedence over the aim of student representation. Back to careerism. The question is, is it only the nationalist side of our great divide that operates a school of aspiring careerists? A place in SDM, eventually a seat on the KSU council, a bit of coverage, maybe a spot of Local Council sparring and then a place in the party mechanism only to be nominated on a board or two once your party is in government. Who knows?

Would it take an anthropologist to really uncover the liens that intertwine in our very local and islandish form of networking that uses certain DNA traits such as “better the devil you know”? Take one step back. Look at the Aaron Farrugia’s of the Labour constellation. Sure they may not have made it to the coveted KSU executive post (though, had they done their representation homework properly they would have discovered that they had quite a role to play in the Social Policy Commission through Pulse). Still, you will find that the current administration is peppered with young, green, inexperienced hopefuls that are projected (many would add undeservedly) onto various committees, boards, and whatnot. All By TaghnaLkoll Appointment you would say. And you would be right.

It’s two sides of the same coin though. 25 years of nationalist administration, plus a petri dish of cliches as is the university population might have meant that SDM had the upper hand and were more prone to scrutiny when it came to careerism in the public eye (particularly after the idealist non-affiliated SDM petered out following its three year stint battling the impossible). This does not mean that what was true for the nationalist greasy pole is not true of the labourite one. People are so obsessed with this idea that there is some kind of nationalist infiltration of the university that they tend to forget that the two “schools” of partisan interference have sown (and reaped) their seeds in the university campus.Whether it is intentional or just an adaptation of the campus to the realities of political careerism is anyone’s guess.

It’s not just university you know. The ivory tower is only one field of recruitment. The networking system upon which our political parties have relied means that in every sector – from business to health to entertainment – there are massive interests that very often verge on the economic. We have seen how in the last few months the Labour government has scarcely been able to hide the web of interests that lie behind every supposed “policy” move. The brazen approach of discovery taken by Caruana Galizia’s Running Commentary is expediting the discovery of a web of interests that is being accommodated. From advertising brochures to insurance contracts to appointments on public boards. As Benigni would say “Qui è un mangia mangia generale”.

Surprised? Surely not. Also today former PN activist Frank Psaila “blogs” on MaltaToday about “The untouchables“. His is a particular slant about “people of trust” being necessarily appointed in particular strategic posts. Strategic to the government of course. Psaila can say a thing or two about what happened during the time of the PN administration because he was part of it. Caruana Galizia will have multiple willing “leakers” eager to disclose the secret entanglings of labour.

The real question is whether had there been an equally popular system of discovery during the previous administrations – one that lends itself to subtle contributions by “international networks” – whether it would have also uncovered a similar web of intertwined interests and favours. We had a former PN secretary general refer to a system of barter to explain how the party works. Combined with the aforementioned “better the devil you know” approach, you get the nagging feeling that just as a series of not too serendipitous connections would link the PM to a newly formed advertising agency or insurance company nowadays,  you could have done very much the same exercise a while back.

True. The Labour system is much more outrageous and ostentatious with its careerist appointments. Competence and relevance (of qualification) are thrown out of the window. Within 21 months we have been able to witness arrogant dog-headedness and a multitude of forms of brazen nepotism. A dark shadow looms on most government tenders and nowadays when you hear the prime minister say that “he respects the court decision” (as in the case of the prohibitory injunction on the transport issue) you get the feeling that the tone is more “I will tolerate for now” than “I will humbly prostrate myself before the decision of the courts of law”.

In essence Labour are much more expert at exposing the ugly warts of the way our democratic system functions. What is sure is that 25 years of nationalist administration failed to strengthen the appropriate watchdogs that would be barking madly at this point. “Authorities” of all sorts are feebler and weaker. Labour fast-forwarded this weakness in the system by exploiting it further and further. The decline and fall of the police and army system under the able (not for good reasons) hands of Minister who has long lost the plot is the most obvious example. Weakened institutions – the ombudsman, the attorney general’s office, MEPA come to mind – abound. Elsewhere ministers disband independent committees with a simple phone call, MPs are suspected of toying around with tender documents… need I go on?

So the tune has not changed. The need for new politics remains greater than ever. The tragedy is that the system is ever so desperately ingrained in its methods that it becomes harder to see a way out. In such a small democracy as ours it it difficult (or impossible) to imagine the ultimate watchdog turning out to be the catalyst for such a change. Who is the ultimate watchdog? Oh that would be “the average voter”. But he might be too busy trying to expectantly get his foot into the gravy train (by appointment) to bother with the complicated nuances of the absolute reform that is ever so urgent and necessary for this country.

That is the sad truth of it all. A truth that Joseph Muscat turned into the secret underpinning of his strategy: That within the vast majority of the electorate lies an illusion of a legitimate expectation to get a piece of the pie by appointment and for free. So long as that illusion lasts the nation will continue to resemble a suicide of lemmings running towards a cliff’s edge*.

 

* Actually this is an urban myth. Lemmings do not really commit suicide** by collectively jumping off cliffs (see here for example). Voters on the other hand….

 

** The collective term for lemmings, though, is actually a “suicide” of lemmings. As we say in Maltese … Ħu il-fama…

Categories
Mediawatch Values

Private dancer?

A news item on a Belgian radio last week spoke of how students were turning to new forms of income to subsidise their studies. One form of income was a new service being provided whereby students agreed to perform cleaning services (the French term is “technicien des surfaces”) while wearing sexy underwear. Persons buying the service presumably got their kicks from watching scantily dressed women perform household chores. The company providing the service had strict rules including “no physical contact” and would cream 30% of the charge for having provided the contact.

The debate was obviously centred around whether this was a form of “proxénétisme” (another funky French word for prostitution). Apparently the issue of voyeurism does not fall strictly into that category. Another issue was whether this amounted to exploitation (or sexploitation) of the fairer sex and the reply by the company was that they were also planning to introduce male versions of the service.

Back on the island for a short break I have just come across a new report from the Maltese courts. A magistrate has just held (in the reported words of the press) that “Baring breasts while lap dancing not a scandal“. To begin with, it is not strictly speaking a business of the law whether or not a “scandal” exists so the title is more than just misleading in this sense. The real fact of the matter is that a court of law in Malta has finally held that what goes on in strip clubs is not exactly secret and that it is up to a mature person to decide whether or not he wants to go there or not.

In many a way this can be seen as an important development and not just for strip club issues but also in situations like drama or theatre where the question of censorship might have been brought into play. The first thing that came to my mind was the “Stitching” question which could have benefited from that kind of assessment in the first place – once you are warned that a play will have adult/mature content you should not then complain about the content being offensive to your particular morals.

In the case of strip clubs we might be spared the pathetic “my bra fell off” kind of defence that made a mockery of the very public secret of why people frequented the kind of establishment such as Steam. Such as this one:

Camilleri herself testified and said that she works as a lap dancer and the Police had gone in. She was wearing a bikini top and boxer shorts.  She said that her bra had loosened a bit because she had been dancing, and when she noticed what had happened she immediately put the bra back into place.

The case in question probably does not itself solve the issue of the legality or otherwise of strip clubs in Malta. The legal twist lies in the fact that prosecution of such “offences” hinged on the notion of “public indecency” and “performing immoral acts in public”. In both cases the “public” element of the offence was crucial and what this case seems (again I only comment on the press report) to do is to confirm that the offence does not exist once it is carried out in a private establishment – where as the court report goes: “mature people should know what a type of club “Steam” and others similar are. It is the person who chooses to go in or not.”

So as far as legalese goes what we have is a confirmation of the fact that what goes on in strip clubs does not violate the provisions of public indecency or public offence to morals. What remains to be seen of course is whether the country has a policy on stripping in private places or whether the hypocritical lacuna will remain as it is. Businesses have spread across the red quarters of Paceville and there’s no denying that it is a booming trade.

The dangers of exploitation and what is called white slave traffic remain rampant and now that the traditional form of discouragement – the prosecution on the basis of public indecency – seems to have fallen there should be an informed and responsible attempt at proper regulation (which does not necessarily translate to banning the Full Monty) in order to ensure that all actors in the trade are sufficiently protected. The business of strip clubs cannot and should not remain the elephant in the room that is only mentioned to contribute to some form of  voyeuristic entertainment in the media industry.

 

 

 

Categories
Mediawatch

Gays and bendy buses

Magistrate Peralta’s decision this morning seems to have caused quite a ripple effect in the ether and beyond. What seems to have irked most people is the assertion that the accused in the case in question was justified in feeling provoked by an Australian (drunk) man’s implication that he (the man) was gay. Prominent among the court’s considerations was the fact that the events took place in the village of Mellieha and that it appeared to be “part of the mentality of society there” to feel offended by the insinuation that one was homosexual.

Conclusions are drawn quickly by the public jury but we might be missing the wood for the trees. Magistrate Peralta’s assessment is not that it is ok for people to be provoked whenever there was an insinuation that they were gay. What the Magistrate was bound to do is to assess whether any man in the same circumstances and context was justified in claiming that he felt provoked. It is a sort of “when in Rome standard”. Unfortunately, in such situations, the court is called upon to take a snapshot of our society as it is and work with the tools at hand.

I find it hard to believe that anyone can seriously think that in our country (and not just in Mellieha) the general feeling when someone implies that you are gay is not one of contentment and pride. Last I checked the term “pufta” was not exactly used within the context of lauds and accolades. Which is not to say that I agree with the judgement handed down – I have an absolute aversion for people who hide behind the “I saw red” theory – whatever the provocation they might feel to have suffered. All the derision of Mellieha and its residents can only be extended to all of this sad country of ours that seems to be genuinely shocked whenever one of its warts props up in the mirror.

Speaking of warts, Minister Austin Gatt surely has better things to do than to attempt (feebly) to reply to Boris Johnson (not Johnston) and his bendy bus statements at the Tory conference. To begin with I do not feel that Malta was given pride of place in that comment and was only a postilla to the primary idea that Boris’ mayorship had actually gotten rid of the bendy bus affliction that had littered the London streets like a latter day pestilence. To follow, Gatt and his minions best keep their mouths shut when it comes to anything Arriva, let alone the bendy buses. For heaven’s sake what’s all this nonsense about “mathematical calculations” when we all know of the bendy buses stuck in Mrabat and Mater Dei roundabout?

So what? Johnson’s joke about getting rid of bendy buses was at Malta’s expense. So what, Emmanuel Delia cannot take a jibe lying down so he gets his master’s ministry to type what he must have felt believed to be a witty retort (hoho the Labourites are agreeing with the Tories) and doesn’t even manage to get the Mayor’s surname right. Once again we demonstrate an incapacity to stare the truth of our warts in the face (or warts on our face). Bendy buses suck, Austin (and Manuel) and no amount of attempts at replying to the magnificent stage master that is the Mop of London will change that.

Next time, Austin (or Manuel), if you want to really get the feel of your average Maltese reaction in such situations just write a short telegram to Boris. One word would suffice…

“Pufta”.

Categories
Divorce Politics

J'accuse : This Damn Nation

I read through Mgr Said Pullicino’s fire and brimstone sermon before the assembled judiciary and other representatives of the legal profession with the patience of a Job tried and tested. Earlier in the day I had published my initial reaction on the blog and for the benefit of those who are lucky enough not to yet have the words reverberating in their ears, I shall translate what LorSignor Said Pullicino (Their Sir – definitely not mine) said:

“Before such a clear doctrine of its Teacher (aka Jesus of Nazareth) the Church has nothing to discuss about divorce and the introduction thereof. She (the Church) must limit herself to teaching that whosoever cooperates in any way with the introduction of divorce into the laws of Malta, whosoever applies the law of divorce and whosoever makes recourse to such a law (not being the innocent party), is breaking the Law of God and therefore will be committing a grave sin (ghalhekk ikun qed jidneb b’mod gravi).”

My initial reaction was simple: The Church, being a private institution (even though we are press-ganged into its membership at a moment in life when we cannot raise much objections), is within its rights to determine the parameters of what constitute bonus points towards an eternity of roasting in hell in the egregious company of infidels. True. There are no two ways to go about that. This is no democracy – it is a Universal Catholic Top Heavy Illumination claiming that its dogmas and precepts are inspired by the Old Man in the Sky. Since the witch doctors, druids and augurers of the past, this has been an absolute unqualified condition of religious authority and it is not up to mere mortals to contradict that.

I bow my head low (as low as is politely possible) to such authority over their flock of fervent followers as I would bow my head to the authority of whatever religious leader has over his particular flock. When Said Pullicino does his pick’n’mix selection of biblical tracts and papal encyclicals in order to substantiate the conclusion that the Catholic Church reaches in this particular corner of the world, I cannot be bothered to cross-refer him to other similar collective quotations used by other denominations to reach dramatically different conclusions since I already know the retort that lies in such a battleground, and it involves diabolical citation of scriptural writings.

The Books of Our Judges

Sure. We cannot interfere in Said Pullicino’s expounding of Catholic dogma – nor can we question his absolute statement, which rules out any form of discussion with the Catholic Church on divorce. It’s their problem. “Their” being Catholics. The problem is that gathered before Said Pullicino was no ordinary flock but the representatives of our legal community (oops I almost said brotherhood) gearing up for the opening of another Forensic Year. I am told that such gathering is by invitation and does not form part of the official events of the legal fraternity so presence at such a gathering was optional.

Having said that, I do find it jarring that a symbol of the wisdom of the secular state and a group of people representing one of the main institutions that guarantee the balance of power in the land gather so forcefully before a particular confession to the point that the speaker from the pulpit could claim that “The tradition in the Church that at the beginning of the judicial year, the Judges and the Administrators come to the Altar to request the help of God, the Holy Spirit, in order that he can help them in their ministry (his words not mine) of administration of justice began in the Middle Ages”. So that’s it then? They gather for the sake of perpetuating tradition, right?

The eminent LorSignor goes on to expound the principle of illuminated decision implying that secular law is really an expression of Natural Law (the Law of God expressed by man in recognition of His Justice) and that such service as is given by administrators of justice is in order to put into effect this natural law for the COMMON GOOD. What follows is a rambling about no man being an island and then a warning of the dangers of a secular society. The cheek. The absolute gall. He WAS speaking to representatives of the state with a duty to apply the laws of that secular state when sitting at the bench.

LorSignor went on to attack the consequences of certain “secularisation” and lists the offending laws with the usual confusion of evils (divorce, abortion, homosexuals) that benefits those who have already ruled out any discussion on any one of them. Which is why he concludes the first part of the Sermon and the Rant with the unequivocal condemnation of collaborators with an eventual law on divorce to the status of “committers of grave sins”. Speaking to an assembled congregation of servants of the Constitution, he actively urges them to break the law by not performing their duty before the law.

And my reaction to that was simply: resign. Not Said Pullicino, but the judges called upon to refuse to administer the law of the land. Should they decide to do so then their position is untenable. We cannot have “conscientious objectors” sitting on our benches in court. We cannot have servants of the law subjecting their discretion to their moral values. Should a judge decide that Said Pullicino’s brand of Catholicism is also his then he is free to do. What he is not free to do is to usurp the workings of a secular state with the morals of a Church that dwells in Middle Age traditions.

The Satanic Versions

bert4j_101010What Said Pullicino fails to notice is that having judges sitting on secular courts but applying religious principles above secular law is equivalent to the final admission that this state of ours has succumbed to the Catholic Version of Sharia Law. Which is worrying. Because what will stop Said Pullicino from reviving Mosaic Law in his next Medieval Traditional Sermon next year? And what will he stop at exactly? Given the propensity to confuse adultery with divorce, and given the willingness to throw divorce, homosexual marriage and abortion in the same basket, what will stop LorSignor reminding next years’ legal beavers listening in to his rant that Leviticus 18:22 was confirmed by Paul the Tourist in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Romans 1:28?

What was that about? I’ll tell you what that was about. Here’s Leviticus: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” And here’s Corinthians: “Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” What guarantee does Said Pullicino give the secular members of this state that homosexuality will not become his next pet inspiration and anathema? And if it will not? Why not?
strong>To’ebah (abomination)

All is not lost though and it is important to keep matters in perspective. Others have begun to react to this Medieval Speech – Here’s what just-retired Judge Philip Sciberras had to say: “I am a practising Catholic but I believe the state is obliged to regulate such situations by introducing laws. Members of the judiciary should not object to hear divorce cases because of some medieval imposition.” Michael Falzon (of the Constructor’s Association) pointed out the apparent contradictions in Roman Catholic practices in his blog on MaltaToday (“The Tribe that lost its head”, Friday 8 October) and I.M. Beck also had something to say as to the insensitivity of some arguments.

The truth of the matter is that much as we might find it interesting to try to “convince” the Church and its flock of the politically and democratically heretic nature of this latest intervention, we might as well be arguing with a gagged, blindfolded and deaf monkey. Said Pullicino told us that clearly: “the Church has nothing to discuss”. And so be it. In doing so the Church (in the guise of Said Pullicino) is also abdicating its tradition of social contribution that started in the early 1800s.

I count myself among those who argue in favour of a social role of the Church in discussions about family, social cohesion and solidarity. What I refuse to consider is the Church of indulgences, fire and brimstone, mortal sin and whatever other superstition it chooses to revive. By shifting the argument from social participation as a peer with valid experience in society to the field of supernatural abomination and fear, the Church does not only not wish to discuss but it also finds itself in a position when it stops being anybody with whom it is worth discussing. The Church has abused the supernatural before to meddle with the secular – remember the abuse of the Fear of Mortal Sin in the 60s when reading a newspaper could win you a timeshare in hell?

Kill your idols

This is a secular society at the start of the 21st century. We are proud members of a wider community that recognises basic fundamental rights as being the foundation of harmonious living in which society strives towards a common good. These include respect for the dignity of man, the right to life, the right to integrity of the person, the right to private life and to a family and the right to marriage and the founding of a family. This society believes in freedom of thought, conscience and religion and believes that we are all equal before the law, which is why it is founded on the principles of non-discrimination and recognises cultural, religious and linguistic diversity.

This society has enshrined such principles as solidarity, equality and justice in its basic tenets and now, thanks to the Charter on Fundamental Rights within the European Union, we have added an extra cushion and guarantee to these rights and principles. The preamble to the Charter states that: “Conscious of its spiritual and moral heritage, the Union is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity; it is based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law. It places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing the citizenship of the Union and by creating an area of freedom, security and justice.” The ultimate aim is a future of peace based on common values.

Given the choice between the comfort of secular law inspired by the common fundamental values of mankind and the volatile superstitions of the Catholic imposition I know where my heart lies. What I do find disappointing is the abdication of responsibilities by the majority of our political leaders. It is evident that they are biding their time – unable to really fathom which way the wind is going to blow in the end. They have been dealt quite a blow by Said Pullicino since any MP voting for the law will surely be branded a “co-operator” and public sinner – so a huge big up (well done) to Pullicino Orlando for continuing his crusade. It is not a sinful crusade. It is a crusade to grant a civil right and possibility to numerous individuals who would love a second, civil chance at marriage. No amount of Taliban-like rhetoric should prevent that right from being enacted at law and applied in the courts of our land.

Pauline Privilege

I had not heard of the Pauline Privilege until the whole ruckus began. Look it up – it is an interesting, exceptional circumstance that relates to ‘pagans’ (who incidentally don’t only live in the African bush). It is an interpretation of another of Paul the Tourist’s letters (1 Corinthians 7:10-15) and is interpreted “as allowing the dissolution of a marriage contracted between two non-baptized persons in the case that one (but not both) of the partners seeks baptism and converts to Christianity and the other partner leaves the marriage”. In that case the Church is perfectly happy to recognise the divorce for the sake of greater proselytising.

Pauline Privilege or no Pauline Privilege, we are not meant to be discussing the contradictions of the Church. The issue at stake is the secular laws and their application. There is no doubt that Said Pullicino’s faux pas has not contributed in any good way to the issue of the introduction of divorce. When I say faux pas I repeat that this is not in any way a judgement on the beliefs and interpretations of the religious institution but on its evident intent of holding the servants of the state in a moral blackmail and preventing them from performing their duty.

It is in that sense that we risk being damned as a nation. Condemned to the damnation of the imposition of the beliefs and values of the few over the laws for and by the many. It is, in its own way, another watershed in the defining of this young nation of ours.

www.akkuza.com is recovering from a savage bout of the common cold and flu.