Author: Jacques René Zammit

Categories
Jasmine Mediawatch

Ghaddafi's Umbrella

I gave up waiting for Ghaddafi’s “imminent TV speech” on SKY news after about an hour or so. I ended up watching his two-minute intervention this morning and what a sight that was. The dictator sat inside an old car holding up an umbrella and claimed that he was on his way to the Green Square to address the youths but had been held back by the rain. Meanwhile, reports from Tripoli – scant as they were – told us that the rain was really a shower of bombs and semi-automatic guns fired on the protesting crowd. The situation in Libya is turning into the greatest nightmare among the Jasmine revolutions but we should have expected this and more from Colonel Ghaddafi.

Here’s the J’accuse take on the goings-on:

  • One report had Ghaddafi’s men handing out meat, sugar, salt and other food as well as promising places in University or civil service positions in exchange for support. We are used to politicians buying the support of their electorate through the notion of favours – Malta in the eighties comes to mind as the most glaring example – but I was still shocked to see how far the control of the dictator could go to be able to convince people to renege liberty and freedom with the promise of food on the table or an education. Next time we wonder about the cost of education we should have this particular exchange in mind.
  • It has become evident that the Colonel has given orders for armed forces to bomb/shoot upon the people. This is the ultimate sign that any claim of popular sovereignty has whithered away. When a supposed leader of the people – whether a King, a President or a Prime Minister chooses to shoot upon his own people it is the ultimate sign that he is no longer their representative or guardian. This fact was reinforced by the defection of the two pilots to Malta and by the fact that it is clear now that Ghaddafi is relying on mercenary African forces flown in to shoot upon the people (the price quoted varies from $12k to $18k per mercenary). The Libyan envoy to the UN and a number of ambassadors as well as Ministers of Ghaddafi’s government were outraged by the use of force on their own people. Some resigned, others called on the UN to act and at least one General was under house arrest for refusing to obey orders.
  • The question arises whether an intervention by an international force is warranted at this point. Given the fact that Ghaddafi is no longer acting in the interests of his own people and that it is international (albeit mercenary) mercenary forces that are doing the damage is it still possible for the UN to tread on tip toes around the issue fearing that an intervention in “internal affairs” would spark a dangerous precedent? There is the fear of a split of the Libyan state along the Benghazi/Tripoli fault-lines but is that enough of a deterrent to intervention by a UN peace force? The democratic right to protest is at the foundation of the Jasmine revolutions. Until now governments have been swayed by the public demonstration of peaceful masses with limited loss of life. Libya opens a new chapter as the Colonel clings to power through brute force. How will the UN react? The Russian and Chinese seats at the Security Council must be very hot at the moment.
  • Ghaddafi’s regime has acted swiftly to cut most communication in and out of Libya. Surprisingly the shutdown has been quite effective leading to frustrating news items across the board from CNN to SKY to Al Jazeera. The internet still offers small windows over the goings on as J’accuse has shown via the Libya17feb stream on livestream.com. This has been another effect of the Jasmine Revolutions. The Idiot’s Guide for Despots in Trouble is being written as we speak. Chapter 1 is a huge chapter on effective counter-communication.  Ghaddafi’s henchmen patrol the streets with loudspeakers and the phone and internet systems are down. The role of information is crucial to an effective revolution. That  and roundabouts or squares.
  • Green Square joins Tahrir Square and Bahrain’s Pearl Circle in the panoply of revolutionary sites. Ghaddafi recognised this and used the Square as bait – apparently giving orders for the mercenaries to wait for people to assemble in the square before randomly opening fire. The butchery took place at night and then, as witnessed by fleeing tourists, the Ghaddafi team cleaned the square from all signs of violence in the morning: just in time for the first news of a calm and quiet Green Square. Until now the only call for assembly and unity in a Middle Eastern/Arab country that was not heeded was in Syria. Yemen, Jordan and Bahrain have all witnessed popular marches or protests – as has Iran. The latter is the other nation where a violent reaction by the rulers is to be expected.
  • On the periphery of the action we had David Cameron becoming the first foreign leader to visit Egypt after the revolution. Sadly Cameron was accompanied by eight leaders of the arms industry in what was evidently a sales pitch for the UK Arms market. Cameron’s protest that the UK has very strict sales conditions will not have impressed many observers.
  • Business is business and J’accuse does feel the need to express solidarity with all the Maltese workers caught up in Libya and attempting to get out of the nightmare (that includes the Fenechs… good luck Chris). There is however a tinge of hypocricy in the way some blogs have highlighted Malta’s interests in the Libyan revolution. First of all J’accuse is not at all sympathetic of all those who have in the past gone to bed with Ghaddafi and his regime in order to set up shop with the blessing of a dictator. If you are comfortable making money with his blessing then don’t expect tears of compassion if your investments go up in smoke with the first sign of democratic change. Funny how some people can weep rivers of tears for sweat shops in India, Pakistan or China but then have no qualms about Maltese investments in Libya for example. Business no?
  • Finally there was the appeal from some quarters – notably the Runs – for everyone and his brother to drop everything and concentrate on Libya. Forget about the divorce debate and glue yourselves to television waiting for the latest news? What exactly are we meant to be stopping the nation for? A Ghaddafi announcement? Or maybe, just maybe, the divorce discussion is has meant the shit hitting the fan for too many people and the Libyan revolution is a welcome distraction. Sure we are concerned with Libya and what is going on. Sure it must given its due relevance but spare us the bullshit of wanting to stop everything else. You’ve got to love the Runs’ logic by the way… here’s the best screamer of the lot:
  • “…it makes more sense […] to have people vote for or against divorce in the general election in two years’ time. Those who are against divorce can vote for the Nationalist Party, which has taken a position against it. Those who are for divorce can vote for… nobody, because Labour has not taken a position in favour of it…”

She doesn’t get it does she? In case anyone with half a brain in their head is reading…. there is a party with a clear position in favour of divorce. It’s just that Daphne Caruana Galizia would rather pretend that it doesn’t exist. At least until she can come up with some other wild story like the Harry Vassallo VAT saga come next election…

    Enhanced by Zemanta
    Categories
    Mediawatch

    Libya 17 Feb

    Streaming from Libya. UPDATE. The site manager for this stream has stated that Benghazi is in the hands of the revolutionary groups. He also adds that they are determined to move to Tripoli to free it. Among other things, he appealed for professional doctors who can do operations.

    Watch live streaming video from libya17feb at livestream.com

    Link to Livestream

    The UK government has revoked eight export licences to Libya since the violence broke out, the prime minister’s spokeswoman has said. She was unable to say what the export licences were for, but said they usually cover such things as arms. Mr Cameron has described the sitiuation in Libya as “completely appalling and unacceptable”. He said: “The protesters want to see the country make progress. This is one of the most closed and autocratic regimes, the response they’ve shown is really quite appalling.”

    The London School of Economics says it is reconsidering its links with the Libyan government “as a matter of urgency”. Saif al-Islam Gaddafi received a PhD from the LSE in 2009 and also gave the university’s Global Governance Research Unit a grant of £1.5m in the same year.

    A number of European oil companies – Norway’s Statoil, Austria’s OMV and Royal Dutch Shell – have moved some staff following the violence in Libya, Reuters reports. Production at the Murzaq oil field run by Spain’s Repsol has been unaffected so far, as has output from Eni’s operations.

    Portugal’s government says it has sent a military plane to Tripoli to begin evacuating EU citizens from Libya. In Brussels, Portuguese Foreign Minister Luis Amado said a second plane was on standby to evacuate some 50 Portuguese nationals from the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi.

    The situation in Libya is becoming increasingly confused and chaotic, says the BBC’s Jon Leyne in Cairo. There are several reports Col Gaddafi has now left Tripoli, possibly to his hometown of Sirt or to his desert base of Sabha.

    Categories
    Uncategorized

    Why Free Vote is not a position on Divorce

    I’ve been active on Facebook today trying to spread the J’accuse list of indictments on the divorce debate in Malta. At one point I was trying to post links to the note on the wall of any politician who ventured onto Facebook to discuss divorce. One of my posts was on Evarist Bartolo’s wall as the labour MP had added another “parable” about a married man who has seen the light and will not be an obstacle to divorce for other people. Varist is one of the Labour MP’s who tries hard to give the impression that the PL actually has a position on divorce – so I asked him. I asked a simple question: What is Labour’s position on divorce? No answer from Bartolo of course, although I did get accused by some guy that I was some kind of mouthpiece for Lou Bondi (!).

    In any case, at one point I got to have an interesting discussion with Marlene Mizzi who pointed out that the PL’s stand on divorce is actually the free vote fin case of a vote in parliament. I’m reproducing the rest of the exchange (till now) here in the hope that this kind of discussion can provoke more comments on this issue.

    Marlene Mizzi:

    ‎@JRZanmmit: this insistence for some to keep asking the PL to ‘take a stand’ reminds me of those who who are deaf not because they cannot hear, but because they do not want to listen.

    The PL HAS taken a stand in the divorce issue and that is to give their MPs a FREE VOTE. It would be very contradictory for this statemnet to be credible with the PL simultaneously stating it’s position for/ against divorce.
    The PN on the other hand has taken this incredible stand where declaring itsefl agaisnt divorce but also giving its MPs a free vote .Ara kif jistgha jkin it-tnejn!! Now we will wait and see how many of the NP MPs will vote ‘ freely’ and not tow the party’s line- as should be expected from them once the PN took an official stand.

    I am all for political parties to take stands . It is what is expected of them. But I make an exception in this case and agree entirely with the PL . Infact i know for certain that a number of PN MPs privaelty opine that the PN should have never taken an official political stand and the insistence for the PL to do likewise is to neutralise this strategic mistake. I do not think that Josph Muscat will be falling for this one!

    Jacques René Zammit:
    The PL stand on a free vote is NOT a position on the divorce issue. FREE VOTE is an ABDICATION of political responsibility and an opportunist move that reads: as a party (a progressive party to boot) I refuse to take a stand because I am unable to refer to set of basic values that I represent.

    There is nothing for JM to “fall for” here. It is actually a move for leadership. I am for divorce legislation because I believe divorce legislation brings into force a civil right that can be availed of by a minority. As a party that claims to be on a progressive high this “position” on divorce is a double abdication of responsibility. The pro-divorce movement should have found a natural home in a progressive party – instead it is an orphan of a party too busy trying to please everything under the sun.

    Read the comments of labour supporters Marlene. They are very obviously labouring under the impression that labour means divorce and that Joseph’s party automatically means a transition away from conservative Gonzi’s policy. How wrong they are. How unable to see spinelessness of this position of Joseph’s. Does he not realise that the free vote is a usurpation of a parliamentary seat and vote?

    I’ve made my position clear here:
    http://www.facebook.com/notes/jacques-rene-zammit/i-accuse-an-indictm…ent-related-to-the-divorce-debate-in-malta/10150139555532744

    I stand by what I said. For those who will answer me by comparing PL to PN I will simply say that they miss my point. I am angry at both PL, PN as well as other social groups involved in this referendum debacle. I am angry because they have ALL abdicated from their social responsibility – all this in the name of short term gain.

    Both Joseph’s faux progressives and Gonzi’s procrastinating conservatives are doing a disservice to a relevant minority in this country who would love to have the opportunity to exercise a choice – a right to remarry.

    That is a fact. Free vote is a false vote. A usurpation of parliamentary democracy, an abdication from representative duties and the biggest heist of democratic liberties yet.

    Marlene Mizzi:

    JRZ: you have made some valid points and some I do not agree with. If I were adn MP I would rather have a leader give me a free vote on this ‘sui generis’ issue ,than a leader who tries to take the mickey by declaring the party’s official stand AND tell me I can vote freely. Perhaps that is why the PM was having meetings one to one today at Castille– to tell them to vote as they see fit. U hallina!

    I can just about imagine the converstion this morning at Castille” I called you in just to remind you that you can vote freely in the divorce issue , ta…. as long as it is a NO. Ok ?Understood? Trid li Gordon jibghatlek email ha jfakkrek?”

    Jacques René Zammit:

    Interesting Marlene. But that’s not the point is it? Predictably, you are lost comparing PL and PN – it’s good fodder for the circus audience used to comparing their champions but is it really what is needed for a debate on the introduction of divorce legislation? Not really is it?

    Your reasoning is as an “MP” and his preferences vis-a-vis his leader’s instructions. Fine it’s a preference. But it has nothing to do with the duties of representation towards the electorate. What do we elect parties for? What do we elect MPs for? What does an MP represent? His conscience? That’s bullshit and you know it. He represents his constituency and more directly his voters. That is how our electoral system defines representation.

    Political parties are our only way of identifying the values and principles of those elected on their ticket. The free vote not only cuts off the umbilical chord from the party but it also renders them unanswerable to the electorate that put MPs in parliament in the first place. You will note that this applies to BOTH PN and PL. Frankly I don’t care which is the worst position of the two – in my mind they are both hopelessly out of order.

    What does a free vote tell the electorate? It tells the electorate I don’t care what you think, I don’t have a position as a party ON DIVORCE, so I’ll just leave each MP to vote as he wishes. I emphasise the as he wishes. Did you vote for Silvio Parnis, Evarist Bartolo Karl Gouder or David Agius so they can sit in our house of representatives and vote as they wish on issues related to specific civil rights?

    You’re right we may disagree. But please be clear about the fact that the position you prefer is one that renders parliamentary representation redundant. Might as well have dukes and barons voting as they will…. as for the people… who cares no?

    Categories
    Divorce Politics

    I accuse : a writ of summons

    Over the past few weeks the intelligent Maltese voter has had the opportunity to witness at first hand the abdication of its politicians from their duty as effective representatives. Two of the three branches of an effective democracy have been all but neutered and hijacked in the name of political opportunism. This opportunism is a direct result of the constitutional interpretation of our politic by the two main parties fettered as they are by the chains that they have wrought around our constitution through practice and custom.

    Government and parliament have shed aside their duties towards the electorate and engaged in a battle of confutation motivated by their eternal short-term concern for the 50+1 Holy Grail and in absolute defiance of any representative logic. The first foul committed was the turning the debate over a civil right into the cliché ridden political football we have long gotten used to. The second, greater foul, was the treating of the electorate like a cheap strumpet – easily bought and easily shed away. In this there is no distinction to be made between the conservative nationalist heritage and that of the progressive labourite – both are contriving to scrape the bottom of the barrel of zero-sum partisanism where losing out only means surviving in opposition warming the benches of the smaller side of parliament.

    J’accuse would like to denounce this sorry state of our nation and its inability to maturely discuss an issue such as the civil right to remarry. I have prepared my inquisitorial accusation on the following points:

    • I accuse the partisan parties of PLPN of willfully failing to treat a civil right with the dignity and relevance it deserves, of falsely imputing moral reasons to their machinations and shenanigans when it is blatantly evident that the paramount concern is the electoral vote come the next round of elections;
    • I accuse the conservative and supposedly progressive parties of failing to assert a basic set of principles which they believe in and in which a voter could identify himself come election time, of preferring the rainbow spineless option where ‘anything goes so long as it gets us votes’;
    • I accuse the nationalist party of lack of conviction, of declaring that it is against the introduction of divorce while toying with the representative element of parliament by allowing a free vote to members of parliament who have absolutely no popular mandate on the issue – whose vote would consequently transform into a personal usurpation of a seat obtained by public vote and support;
    • I accuse the labour party of crass opportunism and of manipulation of the misinformed, of willfully misleading voters to believe that support for a referendum is tantamount to a position on divorce, of hijacking the possibility of any debate by linking a civil right issue to the making or breaking of government, of being unable to put money where its mouth is when it comes to explaining what being progressive is all about, of abusing – in the same way as the pn – of the pretext of the free vote in parliament in order to abdicate from its responsibilities;
    • I accuse the academic and informed establishment for not speaking out sufficiently on the ridiculous notion of submitting a decision on a civil right for a minority to the vote of the general public, of not having taken a reasoned position on the issue – whether individually or collectively in groups purposely assembled for the purpose – of why a civil right is not an issue for referenda in 2011;
    • I accuse the fourth estate, made up of what is left of the independent media, for having actively collaborated with the cheap thrill of “controversy” stirred up by the media machines of the partisan establishment and thus for having contributed to shifting the debate from the real point of divorce to that of “who wants a referendum” (read who is a friend of the people);
    • I accuse the third parties and movements (AD, pro- and anti- divorce) for not having come out strongly against the idea of a referendum, for not holding the partisan parties up to their principles, for not boycotting any referendum solution that allows the pontius pilates of this nation to thrive on confusion, for not insisting on a parliamentary solution – preferably after an election by popular mandate;
    • I accuse the Maltese public and voter, for whom I should have the utmost respect, for once again allowing the circus that is our representative political system to take him for yet another ride and allowing himself to be convinced that the “yes, no, maybe, depends on the majority and on how they vote” way of politics is actually a serious way of running a representative system – and for measuring the PLPN by that meter;
    • I accuse the Roman Catholic Church in Malta for not sufficiently believing in its power to convince believers to do the right thing in an open and liberal society where the door of divorce is open to whoever wants to take it but is not forced on anyone, of being unable to instill among its political flock the idea of an open and  tolerant society in which they are free not to divorce but in which others, who might not share the same beliefs (or for whom those beliefs no longer hold true) are granted the civil right to do so, of not sufficiently believing in itself and in its capability to transmit the messages upon which the idea of indissoluble marriage is built;
    • I accuse myself of not having sufficiently contributed to the debate and of having allowed myself to be disheartened by the huge wave of ignorant rhetoric and opportunistic politicking that has invested the Maltese political landscape for the umpteenth time. And yes, that is a proud and pompous statement from this blogging wankellectual.

    I hereby summon those who are still willing and able to take on the gargantuan movement to join J’accuse in this struggle. It is not a revolutionary struggle that will be fought in the squares with bombs and molotov cocktails. You will need a pen, the instruments of modern democratic expression – such as this blog and social networks, and plenty (but plenty) of patience.

    Scire tuum nihil est, nisi te scire hoc sciat alter

    (your knowledge is nothing when no one else knows that you know it)

    Related articles
    Enhanced by Zemanta
    Categories
    Mediawatch

    Libya

    Such is the way of the world
    You can never know
    Just where to put all your faith
    And how will it grow

    Gonna rise up
    Burning back holes in dark memories
    Gonna rise up
    Turning mistakes into gold

    Such is the passage of time
    Too fast to fold
    And suddenly swallowed by signs
    Low and behold

    Gonna rise up
    Find my direction magnetically
    Gonna rise up
    Throw down my ace in the hole

    Related articles
    Enhanced by Zemanta
    Categories
    Admin

    J'accuse Labs

    I know I’ve been absent for a while but I’ve got a couple of excuses and they come in this order (a) work (lots of that), (b) I’m getting married in November, (c) I’m moving house in May, (d) J’accuse is currently undergoing some background tweaks in the little spare time that is left after a,b and c.

    Anyhoo. We’ve got a few posts coming up about representation (the divorce referendum) and freedom of expression the Farrugia vs Caruana Galizia vs role of the press and blogs. Meanwhile look around the blog and try printing some posts. We’re hoping that some of the tweaks will be working to your advantage.

    Finally a big, big secret has started to take shape. A new prime address on the internet. I am not allowed to say more for now but you will not be disappointed.

    First page of Areopagitica, by John Milton
    Image via Wikipedia
    Enhanced by Zemanta