In his latest installation on J’accuse, late night commentator David Borg tells us that “There are many serious ethical issues regarding in vitro fertilization which you conveniently failed to mention such as the freezing and destruction of human embryos. Besides there are studies showing that IVF births have a higher rate of birth defects.” Never missing a beat when it comes to marching in step with the latest Vatican diktat Borg is keen to tell us what J’accuse “conveniently failed to mention” while referring shadily to mysterious, unquoted “studies” showing higher rates of birth defects.
What this champion of vatican contradictions fails to point out is that this is another of the blind alleys up which the Vatican has walked in the same vein as the infamous “condoms are bad for thee” saga in Africa – I’m sure that there are studies that point that the Vatican is indirectly responsible for millions of deaths with this indoctrination. In any case the scientific miracle (oh the provocative oxymoron) of IVF might be guilty of being too close to nature. It is in fact not just man with his IVF dabbling that risks losing a fertilized egg or two in order to increase the chances of an unhappy, barren couple to become pregnant with child. Mother nature also has the “unnatural” habit of creating and fertilizing more eggs than become babies. Funny how the Vatican hath not declared mother nature an anathema – or God himself for having allowed such an abomination to happen.
Abraham, Sarai and Hagar the IVF Handmaiden
The insipid ease with which such men as David rush to judgement over a system such as conception by IVF is what I found most unnatural and revolting. Since the god in which they seem to believe is not as interventionist as in days past – when he toyed with the couple Abraham and Sarah endlessly (not to mention all the wombs in Abimelech’s household – Genesis 20:18), today’s couples do not resort to Hagar the handmaiden for the joy of procreation but have Professor Edwards (Nobel Prize Winner for Medicine, 2010) to thank for the greater possibility of having their own offspring.
Here’s the Times (UK) editorial on the same point:
Professor Edwards’s work has its critics. The Roman Catholic Church opposes some IVF, on the ground that it can involve the destruction of embryos. And it is beyond argument that this is what happens: fertility clinics generally fertilise many eggs, and often implant two, to maximise the chance that one will survive. The remaining tiny embryos are then frozen or discarded.
But there is nothing anti-life in IVF: the embryos are created to produce babies and allow the chance of parenthood to couples who want a child of their own. Nature itself creates and fertilises many more eggs than become babies.
The embryonic cell can also be taken apart, at an early stage, to yield stem cells. Research using stem cells offers the promise of finding a cure for debilitating conditions such as Parkinson’s disease.
As the US and Japan issue a terror warning for tourists visiting “Europe” – more specifically the UK, France and Germany an evident shift in the lines of nationality is surfacing in the news. Malta (the nation) woke up for breakfast with Tiffany (the person) – the next top model born in Wolverhampton but claimed by the Maltese nation. The UK born and Maltese bred Tiff has already begun to receive comments from well wishers and one of MT’s regulars (signed Tarcisio Mifsud) urged her:
“to remain a lady with a strong Maltese character and with strong Maltese values. Enjoy it.”
Whether there is much to enjoy is another question. Then again – what are the strong Maltese values? Are they embodied in the Kalkara ’94 video? Or should she be making use of her new found place in the spotlight to echo the latest Vatican ramblings against 2010 nobel prize winner Edwards – father of the test tube babies (the idea – not all of them)? There are now an estimated over 4 million persons who were test tube babies – and the Vatican still wonders whether this miracle is right.
But back to nations and nationalism. Does nationality automatically impart a set of values? Are both nationality and values part of our DNA set up? We get contradictory messages. Germany’s president told the nation that :
“Christianity is, of course, part of Germany. Judaism is, of course, part of Germany. This is our Judeo-Christian history. But, now, Islam is also part of Germany. “When German Muslims write to me to tell me ‘You are our president’ – then I answer wholeheartedly: Yes, of course I am your president! And with the same dedication and conviction of which I am the president of all the people who live in Germany”
Which makes sense really because you cannot suddenly put up mental borders and block out anything new – a new form of religion – simply because it does not form part of your past. Well you could try – but that involves the kind of eradication that goes contrary to the core values which our liberal society holds dear. The problem is that we are still at pains to come to terms with the new realities and identities. Here is the BBC reporting the latest US activity against Al Qaeda in Pakistan:
At least eight al-Qaeda militants – some of whom were German nationals – have been killed in a drone attack in Pakistan, officials have told the BBC. The suspected US drone fired two missiles at a house owned by a local tribesman in the Pakistani region of North Waziristan, the officials said. At least three of the dead were said to be German – of Arab or Turkish origin.
The language of the reporting is interesting. Incidentally the title was ‘German militants’ killed in Pakistan drone attack. “German militants” had to be decorated with inverted commas and further down in the article we get the second clarification: “German – of Arab or Turkish origin”. You can sympathise with the reporter coming to grips with the “Us vs Them” nature of the “War on Terrorism”. He or she could never come to terms with the notion of a German Al Qaeda Militant. The Arab Al Qaeda is a stereotype we are comfortable with (at ease with the label not with the menace of course). Even the curious laxity with which the word Turkish is slapped on, almost as an afterthought, betrays a general compartmentalisation that goes beyond the national.
The ‘Turk’ is to Germany as the ‘Pole’ was to the EU before membership – a mass of people (Turks/Arabs, Poles/East Europeans) in search of work who would bring their own culture along to their new hosts. It is the Turk, mainly, who brings Islam to Christian Wulff’s Germany. It is the Turk who Wulff has to thank for the infusion of cultural and religious diversity and from those letters from “German Muslims”.
The War on Terrorism forced a radical revolution in terminology – most evidenced in the press. It obliged us to create the “Us and Them” mentality and oftentimes we struggle to understand that this is not really a battle of cultures/civilisations but an underpinning new battle of ideologies and that both the redneck yankee and the arab terrorist are just overblown stereotypes that serve to confuse us further in this “war”.
If the Tour Eiffel were under threat there is more of a chance it would be the French equivalent of the UK’s Tiffany. Someone with a French passport bearing an Arab surname – born and bred in Marseilles but with very very strong ties with the people back home (in the Maghreb?) urging her:
“to remain a lady with a strong Arab character and with strong Arab values. Enjoy it.”
Picked off youtube (seen on facebook … so it must be getting viral). From the little I get it seems to be a very public bust up on a public Maltese bus. Again, if I understood part of the argument well it was all triggered off by an accusation of “pogguta ” “ghandha t-tifla pogguta” but I cannot really be sure. What is impressive is the attitude of all those not involved in the argument – passive observers with grins. I could not believe my eyes when I noticed that the bus is actually moving and picking up more customers as though a haranguing match between two commuters is the most normal thing under the sun. Baffling and mind-boggling. The title of this post is simply the number of the video (not a year) plus the name of the presumed destination (Kalkara) – again from the conversation. The battle is between two alpha females while the very omega male sits back in submission on the side. This too is Malta today. Xarabank… oh eeeh oh!
Labour (Inhobbkom’s Labour not Ed’s New New One) is busy conferencing this weekend. They’re huddled cosily in the university’s Aula Magna for a full day of talks in a conference entitled “Revisting Labour’s History” and I still cannot get over the fact that I was unable to make it there. Yes, you read that right, I would have loved to witness at first hand this conference of sorts that is part of the wider Labour strategy of “Re-”s. They’re re-visiting their history, re-inventing their logo, re-gurgitating old economic principles, re-moving their facial hair and (once again) re-cycling an image that has been a work in progress since is-Salvatur ta’ Malta went into re-tirement (never a minute too late).
There’s something manifestly wrong in the way Labour went about this whole “re-” business though, and this weekend’s conference contains some clear pointers to what that could be. Someone, somewhere is guilty of a gross miscalculation when choosing the title first of all: “Revisiting Labour’s History”. It’s the political equivalent of a Freudian slip combined with all the evident trappings of a modern day “Pimp my Party” in the making. The term “revisit” is a few letters away from becoming “revise” and I have a hunch that this is not a small coincidence.
In legal terms, when a court revisits an earlier decision it normally does so because of the necessity of reinterpreting the earlier position – there would be not other reason to revisit and reopen the case. In historical terms there is another “re-” word that is of relevance here. It’s the idea of revisionism. Revisionism need not always be extreme as in holocaust denial. Reading through the agenda of this weekend’s conference, I couldn’t help but think that Labour is sorely tempted to rewrite some chapters of history of its own. They’ve been at it for a while now and we have all become used to the polyphonic history of our islands – whether it is sung by Mary Spiteri to the tunes of Gensna or whether it is yelled from the pedestals of il-Fosos by the latest crowd-stirring nationalist orator – the messages are always excitingly dissonant and cacophonous: the result of two virtual realities and perceptions colliding.
Rapid eye movement
The political audience is already, as it is, doomed to the regular resurrection of revisited myths and legends in our political discourse. The narratives woven by opposing parties are now firmly ingrained in our collective minds and it is hard to reasonably detach from them completely. It is extremely significant that, bang in the middle of the process of change and reinvention, Labour chose to “revisit” its history and discuss, among other things: “The Worker Student Scheme: 1978-1987”. As I type (11.30am, Saturday, 2 October), Peter Mayo is about to launch into an explanation of how Great Leader Mintoff (May God Give Him Long Life and Order a Hail of Stones on All His Evil Wishers) sowed the seeds of the stipend system and how we must be eternally grateful for his insights that allowed us to progress to a university accepting 3,000+ freshers this year.
The irony will be lost on the listeners sitting in that cosy hall of the Aula Magna on the 2nd of October 2010 that 33 years and one day before this the atmosphere in that very same place would best have been described as tensely electric. I wonder whether Peter Mayo will stop for a moment to explain to the young listeners (I’d imagine a Nikita Alamango fawning in the audience – one who according to her latest Times “blog” post cannot stand the PN reminders of the past) that on the 3rd October 1977 the opening ceremony at university featured heavy protests by the medical students who had just been shut out of the course (and always risked brutal cancellation if the thugs decided that it was open day at Tal-Qroqq).
Sure, it was not yet 1978 so it might (just) be beyond Peter Mayo’s remit. He will be forgiven therefore for not reminding those present that only two days later, on 5 October 1977, the man dubbed as is-Salvatur tal-Maltin would walk past a group of students chained to the railings in Castille oblivious to the fact that his government’s decisions in the educational sector (the much lauded Worker Student Scheme) were about to deny thousands of young people the path to tertiary education and send them abroad in droves.
Remember, remember the 5th of October
To be fair to Peter Mayo he probably couldn’t dare criticise the workings of the Great Leader. Not after a wonderful morning discussing his battles with the church in the sixties and his “electrifying” speeches to the proletariat. The electric effect Mintoff and his handymen had on some parts of the population would best be described as “shocking” actually. Whatever you may think of Labour’s dim-witted purposive ignorance of the past and bulldozering of historic relevance, don’t you for one moment run away with the idea that it is only the party of Joseph, Evarist (Bartolo – of removed stipends fame) and Alfred (Sant – of interview boards at university) who is in the business of revising historical facts.
You see, I sympathise with such Young Turks as Nikita Alamango who are frustrated at having to carry the burden of Labour’s past every time they squeak a new idea or criticise the current regime (sorry – did I say regime? – it’s the “Re” word fixation). Hell, this week even the German Republic paid the final instalment in World War I Reparations (started paying in 1919 and was suspended as long as Germany was split). Ninety-two years on and the German conscience is slightly freer – so why not Labour? Most times they are right. PN lackeys all too often emerge from the primordial slew of infertile political ground and rely on historical mudslinging for want of a better argument.
The problem I have with Labour is twofold – disputing the relevance of past actions is one thing. Revising (sorry, revisiting) them is another. Revisiting them on the anniversary of events that marked the watershed of Old Labour’s hopeless politics of the late 70s is insulting – insulting not just to the PN hardliners but also to neutral observers like myself who can see through the charade. Labour cannot expect this to go unnoticed. It is strategically stupid and politically insensitive. It does not stop at conferences: Recently, someone from Labour’s “think-tank” (IDEAT) was busy on Facebook quoting a party press release which stated that the current government’s agreements with China are a confirmation of the Labour vision of the seventies. Sit down and weep.
Virtually real
Mine is not simply an angry case of indignation though. Labour’s Revisionist Conference is part of a wider mentality that is the inner workings and thinking of the two major parties in this country. In this day and age of multimedia and mass communication, the modes of communication might be evolving at such a rapid pace that we will soon be tweeting in our sleep, but there is one basic constant whether it’s TV, radio, newspaper or Internet and that constant is the word. In principio stat verbum (in the beginning was the word) and it’s going to be with us for a long time yet.
Words and their meaning are at the basis of whatever construction of reality we choose to live in. Einstein once stated that reality is an illusion but a very good illusion at that. The PLPN (un)wittingly engage in a constant battleground of establishing the reality in which we live (and that is why they NEED the media influence). Whether we are considering the “cost of living”, the “minimum wage” or the “living wage”, we sometimes fail to notice that a large number of constants that we take for granted in these arguments are the fruit of elaborate definitions of perception suited to whatever party is making its claim. We are not that dopey really – there is a general acceptance that “parties colour the world as best they see it”, and although as a nation we struggle to come to terms with irony and sarcasm we still manage to joke about the PL-PN chiaroscuro worlds.
I am not sure however about how much the electorate is in control of the button that switches us between perception and reality. How capable are we of switching off the virtual reality and putting our foot down when we believe that things have been taken too far? Can we decide when we want to open our eyes? Are we, like the character in Almodovar’s Abre Los Ojos (open your eyes – spoiler warning) still able to opt out of the programme that creates a “lucid and lifelike virtual reality of dreams” and yell that enough is enough? Worse still – have the very parties that are responsible for the manufactured realities that we inhabit become so embroiled and enmeshed in them that they are unable to find the switch themselves?
Denial
Take the Nationalist Party. They are an incredible subject for this sort of test. This week they engaged in a mind-boggling collective exercise of denial of truths. We had Minister Tonio Fenech and his cataclysmic Tax-Free Maid slip. Watching The Times interview that gave Tonio a chance to right his previous wrongs was like watching an exercise in verbal prestidigitation featuring a ministerial equivalent of the Mad Hatter. Quizzed on VAT he replied on Stamp Duty and vice-versa, and then went on a trip about not having to answer about private affairs that he himself had brought up as a public example. You could only squirm in your seat as you watched Tonio attempt to make his statements vanish into thin air. Apologists tried other tactics – the cream of the crop coming from the Runs claiming that since the law is inadequate then Tonio and his maid are right in not following it to the letter. Perception? Forget the doors… they’ve swallowed the key.
Meanwhile El Supremo del Govermento was busy wearing the party hat, having been asked to pass summary judgement on the PBO-VAT saga. Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi found absolutely nothing incongruous with the fact that his very exacting sec-gen failed to apply his own standards of political propriety when faced with a legal crisis of his own. Same same but different – just like in the alleyways in Thailand when they sell fake brands. Fake – it’s just an illusion of reality but not exactly so.
As if PBO and Tonio were not enough, we also had the DimechGate spin-off in the form of the uncomfortable presence of Robert Arrigo – the last of the disgruntled backbenchers. PN councillor Yves Cali was the latest to slip in a frank interview with The Times in which he more than just alleged that Arrigo was in the business of throwing his weight around the council to get what he wants. Yves (or Bobby) tried to retract his statement so an irritated Times published a transcript of the interview in which the allegations were made. A transcript – that’s a word for word proof that the statements were made. Quizzed about this, Paul Borg Olivier (fresh from his own reality check) came up with the quote of the week by insisting that the transcript published by The Times was “not faithful to the statement of clarification made by Yves Cali”.
Open your eyes
Take your time and read that short, Orwellian PBO phrase. If ever there was an example of the convoluted logic somersaults performed by parties to twist your perception of reality, here it was.
The transcript (a text bearing witness to reality at its crudest) was not faithful to the statement of clarification (an attempt at revising/reinterpreting that reality). And which reality does PBO want you to believe? No prizes for guessing.
We need to open your eyes. This is a political generation that one week expresses its love for the environment on car free day while parading in front of journalists using alternative modes of transportation and then, in the following week, the collective parliamentary group (PLPN) self-allocates a huge chunk of (previously pedestrian) Merchants Street for reserved MP parking in connivance with the Valletta Local Council (remember Cali? “We serve our MPs and Labour serve theirs”). The excuse? It will free up more parking for residents and visitors. Park and Ride anyone?
It’s time we opened our eyes – and remember, sometimes actions speak louder than words.
Fascinating. There’s only one way to describe the PN handling of the Arrigo spinoff of DimechGate. Fascinating and of course, unbelievable. Literally unbelievable. DimechGate included allegations of improper behaviour (let’s settle on that term) by Nationalist MP Arrigo, implying that he threw his weight around the Sliema Local Council quite a bit. Notwithstanding the pooh-poohing of columnists engaged in other important matters (footnote – 1) who tried to hide the glaring wart on PLPN politics that is the Sliema Local Council there was much there that merited consideration – and no it’s not Lilliputian, it’s the face and result of the “responsible voting” that went on last election (remember the accusations at those who urged for a vote for change?).
So Arrigo is under the microscope and this because, among other things, councillor Yves (Bobby) Cali went on record with the Times pointing his finger at Arrigo’s bravado actions in the council. He subsequently denied having actually said that so the Times published the transcript of what he said (footnote – 2). Then we have a PN MP accused of impropriety (“another one?” I hear you say). Which prompts the service of the PN disciplinarian bodies into action. The question is do they (A – not a footnote) Use the heavy hand of Paul and come down on the MP like a ton of righteous christian democrats and expect such punishments as “immediate resignations” et cetera et cetera? or do they (B – also not a footnote) Do the “Stand by Your man” tactic reserved for such elite politicians as PBO (VAT) and Tonio Fenech (VAT/Stamp Duty)?
It turns out that parliamentary considerations of a numerical kind – better known as the fictitive extra seat obtained thanks to a relative majority of seats thanks to the PLPN amendments – force the PN to deny the known truth. You see, the PN cannot and will not afford to toy with its one-man majority that can bring Humpty Dumpty, all the kings men, all his horses and all his disgruntled backbenchers tumbling down. Which is why when faced with a TRANSCRIPT of factual statements recorded by a journalist and a subsequent denial by the same person who uttered the transcribed words here is what the PN smart machine churned out:
The general secretary stood by the party’s declaration earlier this week when it took Mr Calì’s word that he never made the allegations, insisting that the transcript published by this newspaper was “not faithful to the statement of clarification made by Mr Calì”.
Lordy, lordy. Do they actually read what they are saying? A transcript of a recorded conversation was not faithful to a statement of clarification. “He said that but he did not mean it… and we choose to believe what he meant not what he said”. Which is why PBO is still secretary general of the party. Because he is a medium and voyant and he can read the minds of his party members better than any other. Funny how the very same party chihuahas who described the attention afforded to the Sliema Council affair as watching “trouble in lilliput” barked (or should I say yapped?) this about Arrigo:
As Robert Arrigo tries to wriggle out of the Nikki Dimech/cocaine addiction/patronage/bribery mess down in Sliema, he must know that his chances of persuading the prime minister, against his wisdom, to make him part of his cabinet are now shot to hell. (…)
The party hierarchy, however, lost the battle to stop him standing for election to the Sliema council on its ticket in 1994, and he contested every Sliema council election after that until 2003, when the party finally relented and allowed him to stand on the PN ticket in the 2003 general election, no doubt because of the ‘all hands on deck’ nature of that election which would decide on Malta’s EU membership.
Because he was allowed to contest then and brought in enough votes to allow him to throw his weight around, he was selected for the PN ticket again in 2008.
And now the party of values that confirmed the “all hands on deck” approach thru 2008 is having to back Arrigo come rain or shine as trouble is afoot in Lilliput. You know what they say … if you’ve got Lilliputian values don’t cry if you get Lilliputian politicians.
And Paul Borg Olivier ends up denying the hype…. you heard it first from Public Enemy….
The Footnotes
(1) Such as convincing the world that since the law on VAT and income tax makes no sense with regards to maids/cleaners/whateva then we are free to break it at will until a more sensible law is in place. Go figure – you’d actually think these people are experts on VAT (and its payment).
(2) and boo to you conspiracy theorists – the Times DO have priorities and this shows clearly that the moment they are backs against the wall being accused of lying they will forget their other loyalties
First we had a hopeless car-free day with some ministers and MPs going through the whole charade of forgoing their favourite mode of transport (and status symbol) once a year and now we have this. It speaks volumes about the sincerity of certain political messages by both parties. Bollocks to Car free Days. You know what – bollocks to the whole business of environmental conscience. Bollocks to it all so long as I can park my car as lazily close to the Parliament as possible.
Part of Merchants Street in Valletta, which has been turned into a pedestrian zone, has become a car park for Members of Parliament and ministers. The decision was taken last week following consultation between the whips of the two sides of the House and the Valletta local council, which agreed with the proposal since it would free up other parking spaces that could be used by shoppers and residents.
The icing on the cake must be “since it would free up other parking spaces that could be used by shoppers and residents”. Here are a few J’accuse off the cuff notes:
1) All the drilling into the spanking new Merchant Street lava stones (how long ago since the inauguration for the greater comfort and pleasure of the people?) for what in practice amounts to a temporary parking spot. Upon completion of the new house of parliament (Pace Piano) the Ministers and MPs on both sides of the plagued house will surely want the parking bays to be shifted closer for their greater convenience. What short-brained bulldozering of any kind of sensitivity could come up with this sort of mass cock up in PR? The kind that reasons that “if we do this together – both sides of the house agreeing – then we risk losing an equal number of votes – and we both know that we won’t coz people are people you see.
2) Then there’s this very Maltese thing of having to have the cars PARKED as close as possible to the parliament. To set an example, and if they really have to drive to and fro their meetings of mass hand clapping (see yesterday’s sitting reserved for eulogies before they adjourned for the long weekend) why not have a ParliamentaryPark & Ride? Identify/block a parking area within reasonable distance from Valletta and then just drop off your car there. Use the 1€ electric cabs for christssakes! Naaah. That would not work would it? Better block off the entrance to the Market with a parade of ego-heavy MP cars and show the people that their representatives cannot be bothered to make the effort.
The whole issue just falls in line with the myriad others that demonstrate the facility with which faux eco-policies of the PLPN kind are unmasked. After the “lilliputian” discoveries in Sliema – you know “we serve our MPs and Labour councillors serve their MPs” – I am still wondering what more will it take before the people open their eyes the next time they vote.
Government for the people by the people… now that’s becoming one hell of a joke.
Addendum (with a nod to a Mr. P. Galea) – listen out at 1.30
This website stores cookies on your computer. These cookies are used to provide a more personalized experience and to track your whereabouts around our website in compliance with the European General Data Protection Regulation. If you decide to to opt-out of any future tracking, a cookie will be setup in your browser to remember this choice for one year.
