The PM & the Black Knight

Appreciators of that fine vein of British humour that is the Monty Python collection will surely be familiar with the persona of the Black Knight that makes a fleeting (and diminishing) appearance in the movie “Monty Python and the Holy Grail“.  For the unfortunate few who are sadly unaware of the existence of such sublime sketches let me just say that the ridiculous Black Knight appears in a short sketch (see video below) in which he duels with other knights in order to fulfil his destiny ensuring that “None shall pass”.  While battling the hero of this epic (Arthur) he ends up losing limb after limb but insists on continuing to fight (“’tis but a scratch). Hopping on one leg, armless he still manages to yell “I’m invincible” – a state of absolute comic denial as to the reality of his hopeless situation.

I was reminded of this sketch this weekend when I heard the PM insist that there was no problem of governability in one of his meetings with the people. Crisis? What crisis? The government has survived all assaults on its position (read: votes of confidence in parliament) and therefore after 4 and a half years it will not accept any talk of crisis. The government, you see, is invincible. Now a   great philosopher had once mentioned something about not being able to fool all of the people all of the time and this quote has been doing the rounds in some Labour quarters for quite some time.

PM Gonzi need not bother with the weekly maquillage any longer. If anything, last nights summary termination of all things Franco within the PN should have (as if it was necessary) given the game away to any doubters. The government lost its position of being able to horsetrade away any possibility of surviving votes of confidence towards the end of the last parliamentary session. At that point, Dr Gonzi and his staff knew full well that the business of government was to be punched in on borrowed time. Come October (if we are to wait till then) there will not be much stretching and pulling left – and no amount of distractions such as half-baked civil union bills, sudden illuminations on the censorship issue that never was or even IVF roundabouts will be able to pull off any reprieve of governance.

The difference between the situation today and the situation, say, in May, is that while it is true that for a long time the main trouble with the system of government was that “provoked” by backbenchers, the government had found a way of compromising with the troublemakers : right up to the entente pas trop cordiale reached in the Cohabitation Pact with JPO. Such compromises allowed Gonzi’s government to try to promote a business as usual attitude against all odds. That possibility has now all but waned away.

The inclement weather of the past few days allowed for more of the gemgem and placing of blame at the government’s doorstep. We even had the Msida mayor calling for more funds from government to maintain two resrvoirs at the end of valley road and to clear the tappieri. We wonder why the country gets flooded every year around the same time with uncanny regularity that Arriva can only dream of when the real culprit is the national mentality of “I’m alright so f-you Jack” that leads to clogged arteries and escape routes for the water that will still come down from the sky no matter who is in government.

Here is your check list before the election becomes the here and now: 8th September festivities with accompanying press releases and exchanges of witticisms. 21st September celebrations with similar exchanges followed by 22nd September mass meeting by Labour on Il-Fosos. A short session of “my mass meeting was bigger than yours” chivalric beatings followed by the results of (a) Labour’s Congress about the Future and (b) PN’s budget projections/electoral document.

Then Bob’s your uncle. We’ve gone on record stating that “In this country we don’t solve problems, we nurture them”.

Either that… or we deny they exist.

ADDENDUM :

I had only just posted this on J’accuse when I checked the latest news on the papers. Here is the Times reporting that “PN sources” seem to believe that Gonzi is still eyeing an early 2013 election (do note that it is not an official position – just “sources” – another way of putting out feelers?). Meanwhile MaltaToday tells us that Debono is toying with the idea of a motion of no confidence against health minister Joe Cassar. As we could put it so succinctly in the vernacular: aħdimha! (Work it out!).

 

Facebook Comments Box

I.M. Jack – It never rains

Blogging being the very private enterprise that it is (and the one-man exercise too) there are times when the frequency and immediacy of posts is not exactly up to scratch. That this week has been one of those times is the result of a combination of circumstances that are best not delved into (especially since they involve exposing the lazier side of me). Having said that much has been happening that deserves the J’accuse once over and it would be a shame not to at least give the past ten days or so the I.M. Jack treatment.

1. What’s so gay about marriage?

We have to begin with the number one pet peeve that J’accuse has had all this week. If I was to pick it up from its backside then I’d say the whole issue is about gay marriage – or to give it the politically correct moniker: same-sex marriage. We have seen the protests, the rock stars (!) gone political, the pressure groups getting miffed, the supposed civil rights groups getting hoity toity and the inevitable bandwagon politicians yelling “What-ho” and all that. Why? Well apparently Minister Chris Said, is guilty of not having introduced same-sex marriage or a legally decent equivalent when he produced the Civil Partnerships Cohabitation bill (or whatever its name may be) out of the Nationalist government’s pre-electoral hat.

Really MGRM? Say what Aditus? No same-sex marriage eh? How horrible. Devastating. The only problem is that the bill intended on putting civil unions within a more sound legal framework was never intended to introduce gay marriage. What various pressure groups were “given to understand” is legally, constitutionally and politically irrelevant. A cohabitation bill is a cohabitation bill is a cohabitation bill. Across Europe one can witness a variety of do-it-yourself models of civil partnership laws. They are all intended to be a sort of package of rights for people who live together but who DO NOT WANT TO or CAN NOT get married. Siblings living together is the least controversial of examples.

Not gay marriage though. It has absolutely nothing to do with it. Of course you can site examples of countries where short of obtaining the ultimate (and most obvious) solution of legally sanctioned same-sex marriages, the nation has settled for a similar package of rights that does not go by the name of marriage but gets rather close to it. This was never the case in Malta. At least not from a legislative point of view. Civil unions, cohabiting persons or what have you – the idea is to get this set of persons a bundle of rights under Maltese law.

Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with this. Neither does the concept of family which the Minister was drawn into commenting upon. All the ruckus about discrimination within the context of “marriage” is a false alarm. Now if we were talking about a bill to introduce same-sex marriage in Malta. Now that would be another thing altogether – and J’accuse would be right behind the inevitable process where persons of the same sex are allowed to tie the knot and have that union recognised as a marriage under civil law.

2. So what is the bill about?

Sadly for the nationalist party it is beginning to be a bit of an enigma what the bill should really be about. This blog still sticks by its theory that the bill is being forced through because of a pre-electoral pact struck hurriedly around 2008. As has rightly been pointed out in other quarters (MaltaToday methinks), the inability of the conservative elements of the party to come to terms with the liberal content of this kind of legislation has led to a half-baked law that manages to insult sectors of society by treating them as second class citizens. Even without the useless conflagration about what constitutes family, the nationalist government could not really believe to get away with a law that blatantly discriminates between classes of citizens when defining the same right.

It should have been so simple really. A clearly defined framework of rights that would be available to any two persons entering a civil union. Property rights, fiscal rights and social service rights to begin with. Issues of gender would have been cleanly skirted and most controversy would have been set aside barring the few nitpicking details. That we are where we are – and that controversy has not only not been skirted but is dancing naked on the tables of Said’s ministry – is a clear indication of the Faustian pact entered into before last election. The gay sector is very obviously (and rightly, in an opportunistic sense) up in arms. On the one hand it has every reason to do so given the bumbled manner in which the law discriminates between types of partnerships and on the other it is taking advantage of the sudden outburst of public sympathy to drive same-sex marriage into the agenda even though it was evidently not the original aim of the bill.

Just what the doctor ordered innit?

3. Joseph and the Rainbow Coloured Fence

Muscat is having a hard time disguising his glee at the PN’s latest faux pas in the world of gays, lesbians and other happy people. He should be careful. The MGRM community is thankfully not headed by a bunch of gullible sods who will drool at every ambiguous word thrown at them by politicians. I am sure that by now they can tell a bandwagon riding politician (and party) when they see one – even if it flies the rainbow flag on party HQ on gay pride days. What the MGRM could do is try to take advantage of the apparent openness of someone like Joseph Muscat – and boy would they be courting trouble.

Take his declaration yesterday when he stated that politicians have no right to decide who is a family. Would you really yell bingo? Is this really as liberal as it sounds? Let me spell it out for you: it is about as liberal as the pope’s underwear. What this is, in fact, is a declaration of yet another open season of fence-sitting by dear Joseph. Just like in the divorce debate, Joseph plans not to lead but to fence-sit and declare “free vote” season again. Joseph is correct when he says that it is not a politician’s right to determine who forms a family.

Joseph forgets a second, more important, and responsible corollary though : that it is a politician’s duty to listen to the needs of society – the interest of the common good and the rights of minorities – and ensure that these needs are properly safeguarded by participating in the enacting of laws to that effect. A same-sex marriage law will not write itself while Joseph, Owen and Varist are busy waving rainbow flags in some protest walk. A same-sex marriage law will be drafted, presented and voted in by responsible politicians who responsibly read the signs of times and legislate the obviously inevitable. Something tells me it won’t be Inhobbkom Joseph.

4. Franco rebutted

Before I start the usual rant about Malta’s unpreparedness come the first storms let me just point out that this evening’s rebuttal by the PN executive of any Franco attempt to get reinstated onto their list of candidates is just par for the course according to J’accuse’s pre-estival predictions. The time-table has long been set and parliament does not have a very long life beyond the opening session once summer recess is over. Trust you me… the PN is not counting on Franco voting for any bill and Franco knows this only too well hence his latest private members’ bill regarding fuel oil – a bid to get voters for his inevitable splinter “party” come next elections.

5. It never rains…

Xita happens. Nuff said.

 

 

Facebook Comments Box

The State of Our Unions

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

On PACS and othe civil partnerships

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

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

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

Same-sex Marriage

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

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

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

So what’s happening in Malta?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Change. You want it? Vote for it.

 

Facebook Comments Box

Strasbourg on embryo screening

In what is set to be a landmark judgement, the Strasbourg based European Court of Human Rights held that an Italian ban that prevented a couple of healthy carriers of a genetic disease (cystic fibrosis) from screening embryos for in vitro fertilisation was in violation of their right to respect for their private and family life. (Costa and Pavan vs Italy, application 54270/10 – Judgement of 28th August 2012 not yet final).

The couple in question had already had one child. It was through this child that they found out that they were both healthy carriers of the disease cystic fibrosis .  Italian law prohibits “PID” (preimplantation diagnosis) and therefore the couple would be unable to go through a pregnancy without first ensuring that the new child would not suffer from the dangerous and fatal disease of cystic fibrosis.

From the ECHR press release:

Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicants complained that the only course open to them to have a baby that did not have cystic fibrosis was to start a pregnancy by natural means and medically terminate it every time the foetus tested positive for the disease. Under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), they claimed that they were victims of discrimination compared with sterile couples or those where the man had a sexually transmissible disease.

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 20 September 2010. At the applicants’ request, on 4 May 2011 it was decided to give the case priority (Rule 41 of the Rules of Court).  The European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ), the “Movimento per la vita” association and 52 Italian MPs, as one third party intervener, and the “Luca Coscioni”, “Amica Cicogna Onlus”, “Cerco un bimbo” and “L’altra cicogna” associations, together with 60 Italian and European MPs, as another third party intervener, were authorised to submit  written observations (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3 of the Rules of
Court).

The Court considered that the applicants’ desire to resort to medically-assisted procreation and PID in order to have a baby that did not suffer from cystic fibrosis was a form of expression of their private and family life that fell within the scope of Article 8. The fact that the law did not allow them to proceed in this manner therefore amounted to an interference with their right to respect for their private and family life which was “in accordance with the law”5 and pursued the legitimate aims of protecting morals and the rights and freedoms of others.

The Italian Government justified this interference by the need to protect the health of the mother and child and the dignity and freedom of conscience of the medical professions, and to avoid the risk of eugenic abuses. The Court observed first of all that the notions of “embryo” and “child” must not be confused. It could not see how, in the event that the foetus proved to have the disease, a medically-assisted abortion could be reconciled with the Government’s justifications, considering, among other things, the consequences of such a procedure for both the foetus and the parents, particularly the mother.

The Court stressed the difference between this case, which concerned PID and homologous insemination, and that of S.H. v. Austria, which concerned access to donor insemination. Furthermore, although the question of access to PID raised delicate issues of a moral and ethical nature, the legislative choices made by Parliament in the matter did not elude the Court’s supervision. The Court noted that of the 32 Council of Europe member States whose legislation it examined, PID was only prohibited in Italy, Austria and Switzerland (regulated access to PID was currently being examined in Switzerland).

The Court observed that the inconsistency in Italian law – prohibiting the implantation of only those embryos which were healthy, but authorising the abortion of foetuses which showed symptoms of the disease – left the applicants only one choice, which brought anxiety and suffering: starting a pregnancy by natural means and terminating it if prenatal tests showed the foetus to have the disease. The Court accordingly considered that the interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life was disproportionate, in breach of Article 8.

Article 14
Discrimination, within the meaning of Article 14, meant treating persons in similar situations differently without an objective and reasonable justification. Here the Court noted that, where access to PID was concerned, couples in which the man was infected with a sexually transmissible disease were not treated differently to the applicants, as the prohibition applied to all categories of people. This part of the application was therefore rejected as being manifestly ill-founded.

Just satisfaction (Article 41)
The court held that Italy was to pay the applicants 15,000 euros (EUR) in respect of nonpecuniary
damage and EUR 2,500 in respect of costs and expenses.

Facebook Comments Box

Staring at the Sun

I have already written about the imagery surrounding Mintoff or rather the cult of Mintoff. From Saviour to Father of the Nation the persona is aggrandised as far as is superhumanly possible. Today’s Times includes an article by Joseph Vella Bonnici (My time under Dom Mintoff). Even if we dwell for a moment on the psychological implications of the title – “under” Mintoff – we find the implication of submission and subjugation. Our history books are replete with stories of Malta having been under the hold of this people or another- amazingly, no matter how independent, republican or free we may have become there are segments of the population who will speak of having lived “under” Mintoff. They reign, our leaders do you know.

Title psychology aside, Vella Bonnici’s article goes along very much in the vein of a militant Mintoffian – no harm there (I have been warned off picking on “mourners” as though questioning their historical revisionism is some form of disrespect). What really struck me is his concluding aphorism, straight off the mouth of an old friend of his:

A close friend of his once warned me that “Mintoff is like the sun. He is best seen from afar; if one gets too close there is a risk of getting burnt”.

Really? Mintoff is like the sun now? Comparisons to Le Roi Soleil and his famous “Etat c’est moi” would be facile – easy picking right? My reflection would be a little deeper – and is a direct consequence of the friend’s aphorism that fits so nicely with all that is being said and done about the Mintoff cult.

For you see Mr Vella Bonnici, it is a known fact that when you stare at the sun for too long  (no matter how near or far) there is only one consequence that is inevitable (oh the beautiful word)… you tend to go blind.

The blind followers of the sun king… now that’s a new one I hadn’t heard before.

 

Don’t try to hard to think, don’t think at all
I’m not the only one,
Staring at the sun.
Afraid of what you’d find
If you took a look inside
I’m not just deaf and dumb
Staring at the sun
Not the only one
Who’s happy to go blind

(U2 – staring at the sun)

 

Facebook Comments Box

The Council’s Shit

The Qawra dumping news has only just made the headlines. Some contractor had been asked to dredge a part of Qawra in order to clear an area close to the slipway, only that whoever gave the contractor the order omitted to tell him what to do with the sludge. The solution? The contractor dumps the sludge – not once, not twice, but thrice – in a bathing area. His excuse? “I have permission”.

The much maligned MEPA stepped in and stopped the ridiculous activity as soon as it found out. Council Mayor Paul Salerno was quick on the scene only to inform the press that the council was fully informed of the sledging part of the deal. It turns out that while the Council had contacted MEPA with regard to the sledging business it failed to inform MEPA of the full details of the operation.

What I see in this business is the botched operation by empowered local councils. It is well and good for the “inconveniences” to be summed up and put at the doorstep of whatever government there is on the day but on the other hand what we fail to see is that these examples of hapless management are aeons away from what happened when every fart required central permission. We will surely have more complaints of Gonzi this and Gonzi that with regard to this latest episode of environmental shame but in doing so we fail to recognise one fundamental factor: this time we cannot blame “the government”.

The local council experiment is almost 20 years old now and yet we continue to elect party approved apparatchiks  who settled into their seats of decentralised power and decided to lord it in their respective joint.Without wanting to denigrate a whole tranche of Maltese politics – I am sure that many a local councillor ended his term on full marks – we ended up having an exacerbation of incompetent power politics at a lower level.

The next time your council decides to dump shit in your bathing water remember that it has nothing to do with MEPA or the government – and a lot to do with who you chose to elect to manage your locality.

Facebook Comments Box