Thursday night I watched a great documentary called Teenage Revolution on Channel 4. In it, stand-up comedian Alan Davies charts the political, social and cultural upheavals in the UK of the eighties. During the programme, Davies chooses to interview the then Labour leader (now Lord) Neil Kinnock, who was busy with a revolution of his own. At the time, the Labour Party was in turmoil and, as Gladys Kinnock (Neil’s wife) pointed out, “there was a feeling that the Labour Party was in danger of going under and that people where in absolute denial about where they actually stood as a party”. Kinnock explained how he had to battle the “short-term egos” – the ones he would describe in a historic speech at the 1985 party conference as “those who – in mockery of history and poverty of purpose – like to call themselves Social Democrats” and who, according to Kinnock, offered no means of progress because “they neither pacify Labour’s enemies nor inspire Labour’s friends”.

Kinnock was attempting a purge of his own. In the documentary he describes his opponents of the moment as “The Forces of Daftness”. He challenged them head-on at the 1985 conference: “You start with far-fetched resolutions, pickled into a rigid dogma or code and you go three years sticking to that, outdated, misplaced, irrelevant to the real needs and you end up in the grotesque chaos (…)”.

‘Sed libera nos a malo’ (Deliver us from evil)

Hardline extremists would have none of it. Eric Heffer, a Liverpudlian left-winger, felt aggrieved by what he deemed to be Kinnock’s attack on Liverpool Council and walked out in protest. In his interview with Davies, Kinnock points out that later on, when Heffer was on the point of dying, he told Kinnock: “You should be dying not me” – which only goes to show that it is not just in Malta that there are people (not just political) who are incapable of separating political grudges from personal hatred and who end up wishing the most despicable of things on their opponents long after they have left the scene.

Kinnock was battling against a species of extreme socialism that was grounded in the belief that the solution would be born of the deepening and widening of the suffering among the people. The slogan for the ultra-left was “it’s gotta get more grey before it gets more red”. Kinnock describes this movement as “infantile leftism” (a term originally used by Lenin) and at the time warned of the dangers posed by those “for whom politics is a diversion from undergraduate boredom or postgraduate senility”. Kinnock went on to win the battle in the party but not the next national election. He closed the 1985 conference with a messianic call: “We’ve got to win. Not for our sakes, but to deliver the British people from evil. Let’s do it.”

Still doing it (25 years on)

Politicians who present themselves as some form of messiah saving the world from evil have a long and hard trek trying to put their money where their mouth is. Just look at Obama and Blair. We have not been spared any of these shenanigans on our islands, of course. Last week we witnessed an ugly exchange between the main exponents of two very particular tribes in Malta – those who believe that we had a “Salvatur ta’ Malta” and those “Egging On for a Funeral Praesente Cadavere just to make sure he’s dead” and it’s not as if there is a lack of contenders for the throne of New Saviour.

Malta’s Labour has been belatedly going through the motions of renovation. A slap of paint there, a think-tank here and soon we will also have a kitschy new logo to adorn the flags of the fawning fanatics. You can distinctly perceive the message of “it must get more grey before it gets red” in the manner by which the Labourites go about their mission. It is patently obvious that with or without a bumbling, populist Nationalist Party living in denial of its representational obligations, this Labour Party would still be attempting a reinvention of the Maltese story – with the culmination being the dark ages of nationalist governance and of how The New Saviour – Inhobbkom Joseph – will deliver us from all evil.

Unfortunately, the more time that passes, the more we get to notice that what previously featured as hope (for those fleeting months post his election as il-Lijder) is now being uncovered as a 21st version of infantile leftism, packaged in a quickly assembled hamper of empty slogans, insubstantial

proposals and the kind of populism usually associated with the badly formed Nationalist rookies that populate Dar Centrali in Pietà. In other words, the Labour Party is busy depicting an axis of evil there where there is none, and painting the country grey in the wrongful hope that this will suffice to bring The Great Leader to power. On its path to this supposed redemption, it is committing error of judgement after error of judgement and only exposing the crass amateurism that is fuelled by short-term ego trips and misplaced ambition. Labour’s promise is not a new age once the Nationalists are long past their sell-by date but an era that will be a cornucopia of presents such as “poverty of purpose”, “the mockery of history” and the vacuum of a clear direction.

‘Crimen falsi’ (Crime of deceit)

Daftness and its forces are prone to act rashly in order to achieve their short-term objectives. This week’s saga, prompted by the resignation of Chris Said as Parliamentary Secretary, gave us much to ponder. Whether or not there is a direct political link between the origin of the happenings in court and the political maelstrom that followed will in fact be up to the people to decide – as Chris Said stated at his press conference. The issue though, is whether the judgement of the people – at least insofar as the political element is concerned – is allowed to run its normal course or whether those who are interested in painting a grey picture engage in the business of cultivating ignorance.

The farming and cultivation of ignorance is a speciality of those in power and of those who would love to achieve it. It is why our political parties hold on to their broadcasting facilities as if their life depends on them. It does. I do not mean “ignorance” in a denigratory manner but in the sense of “the veiling of the truth”. A people that is deliberately kept ignorant of the facts or fed half-truths cannot ever be in a position to pass political judgement, even more so if the political judgement is dependent on a clear understanding of the workings of the law with all its procedures and elements.

Listening to the Labour mouthpieces you would be forgiven for believing that the Criminal Court judgement that led to Chris Said’s resignation had already found him guilty of the “crimen falsi” or perjury. The rushed popular judgements and counter-judgements were not aided in any way by the performance of certain elements among the representatives of the people. Sure, had I been the Prime Minister I would have avoided appending the equivalent of a political “get well soon” when accepting Chris Said’s resignation. It is, however, a huge leap from that lack of tact to the allegations of prime ministerial interference in judicial autonomy and independence.

V for Vendetta

Joseph Muscat opted for the “very worried” (“ninstab imhasseb”) stance with regard to the Prime Minister’s wishes of a speedy return to the governmental fold. Over at J’accuse we were also deeply worried. What worried us mostly was the Pharisee-like zeal displayed by the prime minister-in-waiting that was contemporaneous with the obvious fact that he had not given the slightest of legal considerations to the actual weight of the perjury accusations. Given the choice between fuzzy grey and transparent clarity, Muscat will blindly leap into the grey any day if it serves his purpose.

The journalist who posed the question regarding Justyne Caruana’s involvement in the case opened up another can of worms as the honorary member from the Isle of Calypso slowly (very slowly) moved to deny her direct involvement in the perjury proceedings. There was something amiss, though. And strangely not many in the fourth estate were willing to go beyond taking the politician’s various assertions at face value (that would be “prima facie”, no?).

So back to the case. It’s a mother who just lost control of her still breastfeeding infant. Try not to lose yourself in the emotion and the passion of it all. Simply focus on the case. Enter Chris Said – the mum’s lawyer. He files an urgent rikors (application) before the Magistrates’ Courts requesting that the child be entrusted to the care of the mother (not “custody” which has far greater legal implications). The rikors lists the points of urgency among which is the fact that the mother needs to have the child because it is still being breastfed. For some reason, the first court to receive the rikors ignored the urgency pleas and set up the first sitting for three weeks later. As the lawyer of a desperate mother seeking immediate access to her offspring, Said had one option. He withdrew the first rikors and filed a second before the Magistrates’ Courts in the hope that the plea of urgency be held (an action that is incidentally not prohibited by the Code of Ethics).

In this case it worked – and the mother was entrusted with the child – not with the custody thereof which remained joint.

At one point the mother decides to institute a case for permanent custody and it is in this case that Chris Said’s testimony is required. By this time Chris Said is no longer the mother’s lawyer and has also become Parliamentary Secretary but he is called to bear witness about the historic events of the case. The father’s lawyer is Justyne Caruana. It is at this point when Chris Said states that “during an evening sitting the Court decided that the baby be returned to my client”. Interestingly, this happens during the hearing of witnesses. At this point, if Caruana had any doubts as to the veracity of the time of the sitting she was within her power to challenge Chris Said’s statement during cross-examination. Had it been relevant to the proceedings she probably would have. But she did not.

What happens next is interesting. The custody is awarded to the mother by the court and there is an appeal from that decision. In the meantime, the father requests the police to investigate a possible perjury by Chris Said. When the police refuse he opens a new application before the Court of Magistrates. In this case the application is signed by the father – not his lawyer at that point – and as I argue in the post entitled “The Leap of Faith” (see blog), it is hard to believe that this application is made on the sole initiative of the applicant without any advice from his legal counsel in the custody case. The court is not actually being asked to investigate the existence or otherwise of perjury but has been called upon to decide whether the police were right not to institute proceedings for perjury themselves (article 541 of the Criminal Code). The Court of Magistrates found that there were insufficient grounds for such proceedings and rejected the application.

Which brings us to the Criminal Court that decides upon the application challenging the Magistrates’ Court decision. That is the Criminal Court decision of the 23rd September 2010 by which time Roberto Montalto is definitely the father’s representative. This court went into the legal issue of what amount of proof is necessary in order to convince a court to order the police to institute proceedings. There is much ground for legal arguments here – and very interesting arguments at that – but at this point it is worth noting that the court chose to order the police to institute proceedings. Which means that the matter of the existence of Chris Said’s error in deposition will now become subject to a court decision of whether or not it constitutes perjury.

‘Legum servi summus’ (We are slaves of the law)

We are all servants of the law so that we may be free. I invite readers to join me on the blog for further elaboration for I have long run out of space here. Ours is not the first society in which politicians and lawyers mix their professions for the sake of their short-term advancement – just ask Cicero. We are the people being asked to judge each step for what it is. There is the distinct professional matter of Chris Said being accused of perjury (coupled with all the colourful courts dabbling in the questionable politics of guilt by association viz: Tasteyourownmedicine who are being so disgustingly true to their promise – we only have their inspiration to thank). In that we hope that the law will serve its purpose and give us a clear result.

There is also more than a hint of suspicion that the Labour Party is trying to make a meal out of the whole issue long before it reaches its legal end – and a final judgement. The reason may be that they know full well that once the court speaks its final words they might find very little fodder for their zealous machines. Now is the time of mud-slinging politics and the no-holds barred methods that are prepared to put a person’s career on the line as collateral damage for the greater cause.

Consider these facts (1) the parliamentary hullabaloo on Justyne Caruana’s vote –misheard by many – occurred on the eve of the 7th of May. (2) The original application relating to the perjury charges was filed on the 9th of May. (3) By 28th August ONE TV news was reporting the fact as though Chris Said had already been found guilty of perjury (Chris eventually threatened to sue for libel). Those are all factual statements – deal with them as best you deem fit.

It is times like these that make it abundantly clear to all that the PLPN grip on knowledge and information is detrimental to the health and sanity of this democracy of ours.