Mediawatch

Expression is free

expression_akkuzaOn his way to the Philippines Pope Francis conceded yet another few comments with regards to the Charlie Hebdo massacre in France. It’s the Pope speaking – don’t forget he was considered for a long time to be infallible. Bergoglio is a great communicator and has won back many sheep to the fold of Catholicism thanks to his attitude and humility. I don’t know if it is the euphoria of the moment or the relaxed atmosphere of a casual interview during a flight but Bergoglio’s qualification of the freedom of expression made me cringe.

“Imagine my assistant insulted my mother”, he said, “then he would be risking a punch.” Really Francis? Since when is that the standard Catholic answer? Whatever happened to turn the other cheek to begin with? But I am not here to tell Francis what his religion teaches as to how to react to violence or insult. What worries me is that there is little different between Bergoglio justifying a punch for an offence and an Imam in London claiming that the Charlie Hebdo journalists asked for it. It’s no different from the reaction in some quarters that called for a limit to the freedom of expression to be set at the prohibition of causing offence.

Right now it is tough for citizens of the nations that are run by the western democratic paradigm to reconcile their ideas of liberty with that of Charlie Hebdo’s freedom to insult and offend a cult. Can an opinion be damaging? Can it be allowed to be damaging? If I believe that stories like the immaculate conception and resurrection are absolute hogwash am I allowed to lampoon them in cartoon fashion? What does the freedom of expression say about that?

Well, in France the courts have already had to deal with this kind of question. There is a difference between the use of the freedom of expression to parody, mock and, yes, even offend on the one hand (which is allowed) and the use of the freedom of expression to incite hatred or call to violence. The reasoning is that nothing is sacred when it comes to the boundaries of freedom of expression. There are of course mechanisms to protect persons who feel damaged by another’s expression. You can see the right to protect against libel and calumny of course. But when it comes to mocking religious figures – there is no limit. Mock and be damned.

Why then are people arrested if they tweet or post on the internet in support of the attackers of Hebdo’s offices? Are they not expressing their opinion too? Well yes they are but they are also justifying the crimes by their acts. In France it is called “apology of terrorism”. It is seen as a step towards incitement to violence and hatred and that is why it is not allowed.

The difference is sophisticated. It requires a level of intellectual engagement that is not available to all. Living in a liberal democratic society requires that kind of sophistication. It takes a level of intellectual engagement to control the savage instinct of resorting to violence when one feels offended and instead to dismiss the efforts at lampooning as puerile schoolyard humour. Life in a western liberal democracy is not for everyone. Many would prefer to be shielded from offence by governments that censor and prevent caricature. Theirs is not the promised land of the west. They would prefer to be able to punch, flog, whip, punish a lampooner than simply look away and not take notice of anything that so deeply offends their sentiments.

They would resort to laws and bullying to silence where possible. If the law does not help them in that sense, if it is too liberal then they will exploit the weakness of the politically correct age and claim that this is about islamophobia, antisemitism, irreverent anticatholicism. “Je ne suis pas Charlie” they will tell you but they miss the point.

Because being Charlie does not mean having a predilection for infantile, sexually oriented humour and for easy (too easy) quips about prophets popes and saints. Being Charlie means having a sophisticated understanding of living in a society where others are free to express themselves in accordance to our charters and where the right kind of reaction is one of intellectual engagement not judicial or physical bullying and savagery.

Being Charlie means hearing yet another Yo Mama joke and not having the instinct to punch the joker in the face. Because being Charlie means understanding that the joke is always on you. And that’s as subjective as it can get.

Blasphemy the redundant

blasphemy_akkuzaThe first edition of Charlie Hebdo since the unfortunate events of last week is out tomorrow. The world has been given a preview of the front page which depicts a tearful prophet holding up a placard with the “Je suis Charlie” slogan. The background is in green – the colour of Islam – and the title is “All is forgiven”. The plan is to distribute the special 16 page edition (3 million copies are being printed) in at least 25 countries. It has been translated into four languages, including Arabic.

There is still a major problem though. To many muslims the mere depiction of the prophet is blasphemous. Charlie Hebdo’s irreverent treatment may be shielded from blasphemy laws in most of France (see next paragraph why most and not all) but when it tries to go worldwide in places such as India the issue of blasphemy might be raised all over again.

In the Alsace-Lorraine region they have a minor problem. On paper, blasphemy is still illegal under an article inherited from the German Criminal Code of 1871 when the region was transferred from Germany to France in 1918. I say on paper because when the League for the Justice defence of Muslims tried to have the law applied before a French court the court declared that the blasphemy law had become redundant due to “desuetude” which in layman terms means non-use for a very long time.

The truth is that outside the worlds where sharia or religious laws infiltrate or are one with secular laws, there is no place for a law on blasphemy. It is redundant. This applies all the more strongly in most liberal democracies where the basic charter of fundamental rights or variants thereof are applicable. Just before the attacks on Charlie Hebdo a group of representatives of the major religions (curiously the word “cultes” is used in French) had petitioned Paris to abrogate what the Archbishop of Strasbourg described as “an obsolete law”.

Blasphemy is inherently inapplicable in a secular state. The difficulties abound especially when it comes to the forces of law and order who are supposed to perform on the spot assessments of what could or could not be blasphemous in order to eventually effect an arrest. Blasphemy is in fact not restricted to one religious belief by definition (even the Maltese law on blasphemy that subsists to this day extends protection to all approved religons). So how on earth can your average policeman, called upon to intervene on a supposed commission of an act of blasphemy , assess the situation without being extremely well versed in the tenets of each and every religion which could be offended?

In truth the issue of offense  – which is the other side of the coin of the freedom of expression and which could constitute the barrier or eventual limit to such expression – is sufficiently treated and dealt with in other, wider provisions that deal with that very freedom of expression. Blasphemy is redundant, useless and archaic.

The other problem faced by  Western Liberal Democracies (my capitals) is that they must be able to explain the register of rights and duties that are expected of citizens wanting to partake of their civilisation and society. These rights and duties are codified in rules that form the backbone of society and that everyone is expected to abide by. The rules are enacted by representatives of the people with the sovereign will  entrusted unto them in open elections. They are applied by the executive branch and interpreted by the judiciary. This civic process ensures that we live in a system of rule of law with clearly defined rights and protection. Cives Europaeus Summus ut Liberi Esse Possimus – we are citizens of Europe (read Western Liberal Democracy) and thus we are free.

In a Western Liberal Democracy you do not take up arms and kill somebody who has insulted you or your beliefs. You react using the tools, rights and laws that are as accessible to you as they are to others. That is what is meant by integration too. You can be a fanatical muslim, an orthodox christian or one of those insufferable atheists pouncing on anything religious at any opportunity. You are expected to behave like a model citizen in order to integrate in the society that welcomes all and gives them a myriad of freedoms so long as they do not hurt others.

It’s simple really. A basic set of tenets that both Yeshua of Nazareth and Mohamet might have subscribed to. It is a society that allows you to be strong in your beliefs while respecting those of others – no matter how irreverent they may seem in your eyes.

Ours is a society where to resort to violence, bullying or savagery in order to impose one’s views is abhorred. In fact it is considered blasphemous.

#jesuisciveseuropaeus

Dear God (a letter from Charlie)

dear_god_akkuzaDear God,

It’s been a long time. It’s J’accuse speaking, but today and for a few more days to come you can call me Charlie. Excuse me if I don’t follow the protocols you dictated to/inspired the various prophets when it comes to addressing your divine self. It’s just that you have not been too present, have you? Still, I’m not using your name in vain because I needed to speak to you and it’s common usage to address someone using their name.

Anyway. You probably (some would say definitely) know what I am about to say and why I have re-opened this channel of communication. They’ve got hostages now. Yep, this morning. They got up (from what was surely not a comfortable sleep) hijacked a Peugeot and apparently have taken someone hostage. They’ve got kalashnikovs and a rocket-launcher for good measure. I don’t know if you’ve realised (technically you have) but they claim to be doing all this in your name.

Yep yours. And if this is not using your name in vain then I do not know what is. Sure, humankind has been doing things in your name for ages. Gott mit uns! Nobiscum Deus! We never learn. It’s also easier to blame the heavenly landlord especially when he has turned absentee. You see where I am going don’t you? Yes, I’m blaming you God.

According to the books and the prophets it was much simpler in the past. You got angry. You turned up in some burning bush or other manifestation and made sure that people understood how furious you were. Damn right. Pillars of fire, pestilences, storms, etc. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah. Ah those were the days. Patti chiari, amicizia lunga. No patronising intermediaries interpreting and executing. No Siree. It was you in all your glory. You saw, you disliked, you punished with gusto.

Where are those bygone days? Apparently after JC things went sort of awry. Gone was the God of Moses and Abraham and in stepped the intermediaries who “interpreted” your will and your laws. You went silent and your silent was deemed to be acquiescence. Chi tace acconsente. Oh yes we had a multitude of interpreters telling us about self-determination and control of one’s own destiny.

But there would always be the busybodies. In Maltese we say “a hundred men a hundred opinions” and Adonai do we know how bad opinions are when it comes to religion. Also the “men” section of humankind with all their pent up anger and sexual frustration (Freud came too late to explain) really endeavoured to turn all this into a hard time for everyone – especially the weak. Interpretations of your will and the ideas of those speaking in your name became more and more dubious – but you remained silent. Surely that meant they were right?

Even Ridley Scott got the wrong end of the stick when he revisited the story of your interaction with Moses. So little God, so many special effects and scientific explanations for plagues and storms. I promise God, Exodus as interpreted by Hollywood is a complete waste of time. By 2014 you became a cockney speaking little boy having a battle of wits with Batman (sorry, Christian Bale) as to who has the strongest power to sway a pharaohs opinion. See? We have forgotten how mighty your Word was. It’s been such a long time since the beginning. Too much absenteeism and the landlord’s tenants are running amok.

So yes. I blame you when two idiots with the IQ of a vegetable arm themselves to the teeth and wreak havoc in the onzieme arrondissement all the while claiming to do it in your name.

Really God, are Gabriel, Michael and the rest all on Sabbatical too? Wouldn’t one quick missive from the celestial levels -a little cherub – do the trick? Just whisper in their ears that Charb and Co. are really, really funny and that they too perform your will on earth by spreading smiles and keeping the right people on their toes. Because you too have a sense of humour and you like that kind of thing don’t you? How else do you explain the platypus and Maltese politicans?

Instead nada. We have silence. Don’t give me that storms nonsense. You know the type – there are people down here who claim that you send storms and other abominations to punish us for such sins as gay marriage. No cryptic messages. No rainbows or sandstorms. What we need is a good clear voice in the sky that reminds these freaks who are committing all sort of atrocities in your name that they are not on your side.

Really God. It’s that Simple.

Just say the Word.

regards,

Charlie.

Ched’s no billboard material

Evans_akkuzaThe fuss about Hibernians’ non-attempt to not sign disgraced footballer (is he a footballer?) Ched Evans was a mighty boon for Muscat’s government. Any distraction is welcome in a time of gaffes and defaulted promises. As it turns out, it was the player who was offered to the Paolite team and not Hibs who went to the UK on the look out for a cheap option (he must be, given how he is not really wanted in most respectable clubs).

The issue itself – as to whether or not a convicted rapist should be given a second chance at a footballing career once he has served time (avec or sans remorse) – is definitely one that merits much debate. I tend to reason that the character of a footballer is just as important to the team as his skills and that this, on its own, would make Evans unemployable by any serious team wanting to avoid disruption and bad influence. Cynical, I know, but Evans should not be playing anything more than Sunday football with his village XI. The professional career was shot long ago.

And that is where we get the link back to Muscat. The story was, as we said, distracting. The Times obliged with a full Timestalk program on what was by then a non-news locally speaking : Hibs never asked for the player, he was simply offered to them by a common sponsor. It was welcome chit chat away from the “OK Siehbi” business for Muscat though. Or was it?

Muscat tweeted about Hibs needing to do the right thing. He clearly implied that deciding to employ a convicted felon might not always be a good move – particularly for Malta’s “image” abroad. Ah yes,  image – obsessed as we are that the consequences of our actions are not measured by right or wrong but by perception. Suddenly Ched Evans came back to explode in Muscat’s face like the proverbial pie. Here was the Prime Minister who has openly embraced convicted criminal Engerer (for a lesser crime but nonetheless a heinous one) suddenly preaching from the pulpit as how to deal with convicted felons.

We could not help but be reminded that following Malliagate, the Prime Minister was quick to point out that it would be sad to completely lose the services of Manuel Mallia. There are many other examples of disgraced politicians being quietly reinstated in the fold of Taghna Lkoll after a period of “penitence”. In the “OK siehbi” world of Muscat everyone deserves a second chance, and a third and a fourth. If your face was on a billboard or if you backed the “moviment” in any way then – subject to the right conditions of “perception” – you are afforded the Taghna Lkoll equivalent of a “Get Out of Jail Free”.

Ched Evans’ mistake was not that he raped a drunk girl in a hotel room and subsequently failed to show remorse for his actions. Ched Evans’ mistake was simply that he did not appear on a Taghna Lkoll billboard when he had the chance.

 

Let them eat baguette

baguette_akkuzaA Happy New Year to all J’accuse readers and diehards. This blog starts its heavy trek towards celebrating ten years of blogging after an unforced hiatus. No, that is not a word stolen from Varist’s vocabulary. I return well rested from a visit to the islands that are fast becoming the second home with a wealth of newly absorbed information about the daily travails of the Maltese citizen.

The general outlook on Malta seems to be fair. My partner likes to think of Maltese as hobbits because, as she says, “You think of food first and foremost, wherever you go.” In a way it is true. Back from a trip abroad? Visiting a new city? Our first enquiries and experiments are culinary. Veni, Mangi, Judici. Our trips are coloured and defined by food. Panem et circences does take on a new meaning where the Maltese are concerened because we are a foody people.

“Kemm kilt pastizzi ja hanzir?” It is hard to speak collectively about taste in food. There is the eternal battle between quality and abundance. Somewhere along the lines there is a dividing line (or lines) that might set aside a different set of classes from Joseph’s Mittilklass. Food in all its simplicity might be venerated for the simple purpose of gratification – fenkata tajba or a simple but spot-on meal at Rita’s at Ghar Lapsi. It might take on a whole new fifty shades of implications of perceived class like when we sell a recipe book as being the one “miktub mir-ragel tal-President”.

The quest for honest to god simple good food is now complicated with the invasion of the little italians. Sicilians, Apulians, Neapolitans and Tuscans all giving a thumbs down to Renzi’s dream and scuttling their euros to Joseph’s Malta. So long as he does not get the bright idea to hike up VAT on drink as they did in the Duchy this year (up to 17% from 3% – a pint now costs 5.40 euro) they will keep coming. Is your divine tagliata di manzo con rucola parmigiano simply a culinary venture or your tiny participation in a money laundering venture set up by the sons and relatives of the camorra, mafia, ‘ndrangheta or sacra corona? Does it taste the same once you get to know that?

And what of that burgeoning empire of Hugo’s? Surely those millions cannot all come from selling a delicious platter of sushi or a well-aimed shot at making a digestible pad thai? Is it the jet-set factor? Does it pay to be seen eating at Hugo’s tapas/oriental and now middle east or burger?

Cook at home? You can shop at Lidl’s now that More has bitten the bullet of the fast money laundered buck. Nobody need know the origin of your faux foie gras once you’ve unpacked it out of the box. As for the idea of plenty I was overwhelmed when I was told that I had 24 litres of water for free since I had spent the right amount at the exquisitely stocked GS supermarket in Naxxar. Then there are charities trying to set up funds to bring fountains to remote African villages or stoves to Guatemalan denizens. It’s all so confusing.

But back to class and food. Muscat’s dream of creating a new mittilkless has hit the metaphorical brick wall when it comes to AirMalta. The people who are so used to measuring their travelling experience by the food that they eat (and the more it seems to be “free” the better) have been told that henceforth they are to be handed only baguette and water on all Air Malta flights. For baguette read a tiny bread roll that would not satisfy even the most Mittilkless of desires.

The point is not really the food on board the flights (the longest of which is around the four hour mark) but the principle of telling the people of the bountiful plate that they will have to make do with the snacklet in order to save those “ghasafar tac-comb”. There does not seem to have been a shift in ticket prices. No lower fares to reflect the lower (food) fare on board. The government obsessed with class and class aspirations, the one that makes a meal of free lunches on the taxpayers account has told the people that “they can eat baguette”.

Deep down it has little to do with the economics of saving a faltering national airline. It has much to do with the hunger of the aspirant mittelklass and their aspirations for inflight microwaved chicken or lasagne.

To some people it might have just been an amusing snack on board a quaint airline. To the emancipated wave of mittelmaltin that Joseph inspired it meant the world.

No Bridge for Troubled Waters

bridges_akkuzaIt’s such an annoying habit. The moment the government of the day feels that it is losing the PR plot somebody in the communications department rushes to the file cabinet marked “Red Herrings” and pulls out the thickest file of them all. “Bridge to Gozo” has all the makings of controversy à-la-carte that might only just satisfy the need to distract – to draw attention away from the real problem.

It has happened again. Labour’s absolute incapacity to deal with the basic tenets of the rule of law have been laid embarrassingly bare by a series of unbelievable events. Unbelievable in the sense that you could not invent them if you wanted to. We have reached a point where our members of parliament – the people’s representatives – are informed that they (or their entourage) will no longer be allowed to bear firearms within the parliamentary precincts. No shit Sherlock. Where they ever?

Forget the Black Rod having the door slammed in his face and having to knock three times to gain access to the hallowed halls of popular representation. Forget any semblance of institutional respect (let alone reverence). Forget, in short, the basic fundamentals of the rule of law.

Potevamo stupirvi con effetti speciali… but we’re just throwing this bridge idea at you. Of course we’ve royally screwed the public transport “improvement” we promised, and don’t forget we’ve absolutely bungled the whole issue of a new power station; we’re not exactly hiding the fact that property developers have us by the balls and we will be selling off huge chunks of the littoral for their enjoyment, BUT of course we can ask you to consider trusting us with a 1 billion euro project to span the fliegu. Piss up in a brewery anyone?

I’d say Jesus wept. But he is running out of tears at this point.