Library

Attagirl

Deborah Schembri’s on warpath and she’s got the bull by the horns. No matter what Raphael (Vassallo) might say the issue was clear from the start – the Church cannot have the cake and eat it when it comes to the choice of lawyer in annulment proceedings. Either the Church-State agreement is scratched (and annulments do not have any civil link) or the Church drops all conditions for lawyers appearing before its courts.

See? It’s not that J’accuse thinks that everyone else should have the same priorities as us. It’s all a matter of focus.

Simples.

P.S. The Malta Chronicle is back up and running for a 21 day open forum on divorce starting on the 7th May. Also look out for the Divorce Debate Network of Blogs – linking blogs on the Maltese Blogosphere that have opened their pages to the debate in the run up to the referendum – the blogroll is also available on The Malta Chronicle.

P.P.S. – Just seen this on the Times’ Quote of the Week:

“The Church has pinched where it hurts.”

Pro-divorce campaigner Deborah Schembriwho is without a salary after the Ecclesiastical Tribunal stopped her from practising in the Church’s tribunals

Really? Are there really lawyers who ONLY practice in the Ecclesiastical Tribunal? Drama queens and drama spins.

.

The Political Class

One of my current “thinking post” books (i.e. books read while spending time in the restroom) is “The Triumph of the Political Class” by Peter Oborne. The book is a damning exposure of the mechanics of the political system in 21st century Britain. As I read through Oborne’s thesis I cannot help replacing the term “Political Class” with PLPN and apply the reasoning to analogous circumstances in Malta – and I am surprised with the results. It’s a perfect fit.

Oborne uses the term “Political Class” constantly with capitalised P and C with reference to the new class of cross-party political careerists and examines their impact on the magical democracy that is Britain.

Here is an excerpt from the chapter entitled “The Ideology of the Political Class”:

For most of the twentieth century governing elites brought with them to Westminster a set of principles, tightly aligned to general party political thought and beliefs, which they sought to apply in government. When they felt the temptation to strike cross-party deals or renege on commitments, they were liable to be met with accusations of betrayal by the party membership. Today, political ideas no longer emerge from within the party structures and belief systems. They are manufactured. Rather than referring inward to the party membership, politicians look outward to the general public. Instead of engaging with voters directly, however, marketing experts and political ‘consultants’ are employed to discern popular will. Policies are constructed and later marketed in exactly the same way as consumer products and very often by the same set of experts. The evolution of ideas becomes an essentially private form of activity, associated with a specialist elite whose primary purpose is not putting into practice any system of ideologies or beliefs but rather the shaping of policy for the mass market.

Ideas in the era of the Political class are therefore converted into weapons or tools to be deployed or used for tactical convenience. The key function is the denial of territory to opponents, the strategy of ‘triangulation’ first associated with the Democrat presidency of Bill Clinton and identified in particular with his consultant Dick Morris. This technique was first used, and with especially gratifying effect, in the presidential election of 1992, and involved a series of forays into Republican issues, above all law and order.

The over-riding purpose was the conquest of the central ground of politics, forcing political opponents to take up territory which could then be labelled extremist. The overwhelming aim of this form of tactical positioning was emphatically not to win the the battle of ideas. Rather it lay in the ability to lay claim to a positional victory at the end of the day.

Oborne leads on to an analysis of the cult of “modernisation” – devised by the Political Class as “a strategic device to distance the Political Class from what it saw as out-of-date or antiquated ideologies. It was meant to appear sensible, managerial, pragmatic, in touch. But in due course it became a powerful ideology on its own. It presented the British ruling elite with a conceptual structure which was based on a dislike of the past, a contempt for traditional institutions, a unique insight into the future, and a guide to ethics”.

Oborne’s thesis has not ceased to surprise me. Above all it is evident that the path trodden by our Political Class (the class of PLPN) is the very same that has been trodden twenty years back in the US/UK. It is all there… like some latter-day Nostradamus prediction. You will find all you need to know (and foresee) about the predictable activities of our Political Class – and sadly, you will become aware that the writing is on the wall as to our future development in line with very European trends of neutering of political values, aims and ideologies: in the name of a Polticial Elite.

Foyles Synopsis:
Both an extension of and a companion to his acclaimed expose of political mendacity, THE RISE OF POLITICAL LYING, Peter Oborne’s new book reveals in devastating fashion just how far we have left behind us the idea of people going into politics for that quaint reason, to serve the public. Notions of the greater good and “putting something back” now seem absurdly idealistic, such is the pervasiveness of cynicism in our politics and politicians. Of course, self-interest has always played a part, and Oborne will show how our current climate owes much to the venality of the eighteenth century. But in these allegedly enlightened times should we not know better? Do we not deserve better from those who seek our electoral approval? Full of revealing and insightful stories and anecdotes to support his case, and with a passionate call for reform, THE TRIUMPH OF THE POLITICAL CLASS is destined to be the defining political book of 2007.

Cheap Spin by the Times

The Times of Malta has its moments of cheap spin tapping on the volatility of your average voter in order to feed on the quickfire commentators response. Shortly after couching the appointment of the new head of the EU Representation in Malta in purely economic terms (here we go again… does Martin Bugelli earn more than the President? Does he? Oh the shame!)… we now have the bestseller: those bastards earning a living abroad.

Far be it for the Times to highlight the “suggestions” that people like J’accuse have been making for ages regarding voting abroad. No sir. Instead we have to stir the shit and the sentiment against the idea of the government hitting the jackpot for AirMalta and ensuring it gets paid for a number of full flights to Malta and back. Not to mention the lack of criticism directed towards the PLPN autocracy who thrive on the state of affairs as is and would never budge a finger to change the status quo.

Does it even dawn on the brain of these nit-picking imbeciles that in order to take advantage of a “cheap flight” that is there solely for me to exercise my vote I have to: (a) take days off work in order to get to Malta and vote, and (b) spend time and money that is involved in maintaining the uselessly long and unnecessary trip to get to a polling booth that is not located in an embassy in the country where I am currently employed (but that is not my country).

Of course it does not. Here is the full article as appeared in the Times. I am giving it the TGIL annotated treatment as it deserves.

Cheap KM Flights for divorce poll

Cheap flights heavily subsidised by the government [read: your government will be allocating YOUR taxes to AirMalta with the excuse of the divorce referendum] will be made available for Maltese abroad who are eligible to vote in the May 28 divorce referendum, The Sunday Times has learnt.

When contacted, a spokesman for the Prime Minister’s Office confirmed that the scheme will be applied to this month’s vote though it is not yet clear which destinations will benefit [Benefit? A rather heavy word Mr Spokesperson. Nobody benefits. We are just told that if we want to exercise our right to vote we have to trudge all the way to Malta instead of doing the normal thing and voting in embassies or by post or (heaven forbid) on the net – not to mention that for the sizeable crowd in Luxembourg there is rarely a direct flight to be seen – which means more time spent on the redundant tripping].

It is understood Air Malta will be offering return air tickets at €35 inclusive of taxes and other charges. The flights will be valid for eligible voters, including those married to foreigners, studying, working or undergoing medical treatment abroad and their dependants. [A rather exhaustive list for one to start “it is understood” – why not say “it has been leaked to us as the unofficial government mouthpiece?”]

The government will make up for the rest of the charges so that the brunt is not borne by Air Malta. [Santi Subito! AirMalta bears no brunt. It actually gets paid with YOUR taxes to fly full flights to Malta. Why do they make it sound like the Maltese abroad are the culprits? ]

The overall cost will be borne by the government. Bringing over 3,057 people to vote at the 2008 general election had cost the taxpayer over €1 million.

It had cost the country more than €442,000 to fly 1,377 people to Malta to vote in the 2009 European Parliament election – €321 per passenger. [Cor look at that. €442,000. Now how much would a ultrasecure website with personalised codes cost the government to set up? Even if it were to choose one of its favourite website builders it would be a money-saving exercise no?]

A breakdown of the figures given by Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi in Parliament in December 2009 revealed that the sum included €92,600 for the operation of extra flights, €83,227 in passenger tax, €14,689 in servicing costs, and €251,828 in income lost between the normal flight costs and the €35 discounted price. [I get lost in these accounting figures but how do they really calculate the tax into the equation? I mean at the end of the day the government does not pay itself tax right? So if the government commandeers a plane to get some voters over are we saying that it would charge ITSELF tax and that therefore that is an expense?]

The initiative has been described as outdated and costly by many who believe it is high time for the authorities to opt for easier and cheaper means to vote. [Hello? Is anybody out there? Sixyears of repetitive blogging about this charade? Six bloody years.]

Suggestions that those eligi­­ble to vote could cast their preferences at a Maltese embassy, or even vote online, have never been taken on board.

The initiative is often seen [By idiots and people with chips on their shoulder] as an opportunity for a cheap holiday for those living abroad, some of whom earn high wages in the European institutions, at the expense of the local taxpayer. [Now that’s a beauty – we earn high wages in the European instituions at YOUR expense darlings… sure.. latest count per capita is a little over €1 per year contributed by you to finance the pay of EVERY EU WORKER]

When contacted, a spokesman for the ‘No to Divorce’ movement said since everyone had the right and duty to vote, the necessary measures ought to be taken to facilitate voting by Maltese people living or working abroad. Pro-divorce movement chairman Deborah Schembri said her organisation agreed flights should be organised to bring people to Malta to vote. [And of course they would. How about contacting the PL and PN crowds eh? Do your Masters not allow you a comment from the idiots behind this scheme that makes our nation look like the Hamish of Europe (with apologies to the Hamish)? ]

Asked about the cost to the economy, Dr Schembri said that if the country had enough money to organise a referendum, it should spend a bit more to enable everyone, even those working or living abroad, to vote. [Wrong Deborah (and I promise I have nothing personal against you). The country does not have money to be spent on stupid half-ass, half-brained ideas. It should be investing in a proper system of voting in embassies or by post (at least). But hey… so long as there is the European Gravy train to blame…the PLPN crowd can go on condoning stupid measures. After all Stupid is what stupid does.]

In un paese pieno di coglioni ci mancano le palle. – J’accuse 2011

Body of Evidence

Missing

Image by Thomas Hawk via Flickr

A calm and composed Barack Obama announced to an already rejoicing United States that Osama Bin Laden was shot dead during an operation outside Islamabad. The most important part of the announcement was the confirmation by the US President that “we have the body in custody”. There’s no chance that Osama will perform modern day a Granny Weatherwax routine and turn up with some video proclaiming “I ate’nt dead”. – we’ve got the body of evidence.

On the other hand, while killing a person is (relatively) easy, killing an idea isn’t half as simple. While the whole civilised world deserves its moment of heady jubilation at the thought of another crackhead espouser of evil thoughts and deeds hitting the dust, I cannot quite fathom how this could mean anything close to the end of terrorist activity. At most there is one less person to blame for the deeds, otherwise it is probably business as usual.

 

BBC Report

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Lawyers in Church

Deborah Schembri, spokesperson for the Yes to Divorce movement has had her license to practice in the Ecclesiastical Tribunals suspended “because she is spreading incorrect information on the indissolubility of Catholic marriage.” A whole fuss has now been kicked up accusing the Church of “bullying” and of weighing in on the debate in a “crusade-like” fashion. Lovely.

It has long been my position that it is useless and anti-democratic of anyone to criticise the Church for doing its job among the faithful. The flock is the flock and it must be nurtured, and sorry if I add “by hook or by crook”. The Church is not only a spiritual guide but also a social participant and has every right to keep its foothold on the social scene. Preventing or countering it should not equate to silencing it.

As for the license to practice in Ecclesiastical Tribunals that is another matter altogether. I heard the Super One report on the issue and it hinted to the fact that a substantial part of Deborah Schembri’s livelihood was being affected by this decision. Now I am prepared to grant that this is a bit of dramatic hyperbole in order to exaggerate the financial effect on my colleague’s career but I’d love to concentrate on this whole lawyers in Church tribunals business.

Were the ecclesiastical tribunal system a completely independent system from state law then I would have absolutely no trouble in the Church picking who is and who is not deserving of being a legal doctor in its own courts of law. Trouble is that independent it surely ain’t. You see in cases of separation that are initiated in a (state) court of law by one spouse, should the other spouse decide to open a parallel case in the Church tribunal for annulment then THAT case takes precedence. The whole shebang is decided with Church Law trumping state law and the spouse who would have preferred a state court to decide cannot but follow into the ecclesiastical tribunal – until the Church decides.

I have always had my doubts about the legality of this agreement on the basis of the fact that the latter spouse has his right to choose his own lawyer limited since this has to be a “church approved” lawyer. To put it simply – if he or she is dragged before the church courts by his spouse then he or she is not allowed to choose certain lawyers deemed unproper by the church. That is the reason I never sat for the exam to be a doctor of law in the eyes of the church. If ever a potential client of mine requested my presence to assist him in a church court I would be prepared to take the case all the way to Strasbourg because – given the link between church law and state law there is in effect a national law that denies people their right to a lawyer in certain cases.

Deborah Schembri has not explained how her “livelihood” came from conniving with this state of affairs in which Church law sits uncomfortably with State law. Her quasi-apologetic press conference shows me rather that she would be glad to return to the status quo ante – defending clients as  a Church approved lawyer. It makes me wonder whether Deborah and her colleagues at the press conference (Varist and Michael Falzon) have not got the wrong end of the stick…

It’s not just about yes to divorce. It is also about being consistent about what we all want.

On Referendum Day, J’accuse would vote Yes to Divorce even though the result would be as useful in this lay world of ours as a license to practice as a lawyer in the Ecclesiastical Tribunals.

 

Fresh Basil

Wandering around the streets of the island on the various errands that have become onerous due to the forthcoming festive occasion I couldn’t help but notice a few fresh frescoes painted on public walls. These graffitti consisted mainly of slogans such as “Censorship offends me” or “I have seen the great minds of my generation killed by madness”. The former was on a wall outside University and the second on the floor of the slope near Balluta church. Both slogans were signed “Basil” and this must be Malta’s very own Banksy. J’accuse has long called for this kind of affirmative street art that can shake people into thinking as they go about their daily affairs…. Basil is a good start. There is much more the “artistic” community can get up to beyond the whinging about censorship and pandering to journalists hoping to fill a few columns with straightforward reporting.

Hats off then to Basil and may we see more of his/her works decorating giving us street food for thought.