Library

The Ignorant Masses

James Debono penned a brilliant blog post that you can read here : There’s something about Labour. J’accuse agrees 100% with his assessment (see earlier post today “Sphinxes”) but we are not here for some general agree-fest.

By browsing through the comments appended at the end of the article you get to understand what will hold this country back for ever. Given a clear, well-explained article about how Joseph Muscat is effectively betraying Labour by making it a risible, spine-less alternative unable to get the real political pulse of the moment, your average flag-waving supporter will ignore the message and instead scorn the messenger:

  • Submitted on Tue, 02/01/2011 – 14:20.You know what is the cherry on the cake James, that now you have really showed that you are another puppet of the PN. This will be the last time I bought MALTA_TODAY, because with articles like yours its becoming worst then the TOM, not independent anymore.
    gscerri
  • Submitted on Tue, 02/01/2011 – 14:14.You know James – I think there is something about you and your clear biased against Labour. Not only you are unfair but clearly seem to be pushing some agenda. Moreover, you have a disgusting condescending way to refer to the people living in the South and to Labour supporters, which I find it akin to Nats who always look down to 50% of the population like it is an inferior tribe or race of people. So why don’t you come out and say it: You want the Nats to remain in power! I have had it with you and your patronizing views – I’m stopping buying Maltatoday, which I was gladly doing until a Sunday ago.
    RJ
  • Submitted on Tue, 02/01/2011 – 14:11.Maybe if you took your head out you and remove the blinkers you would understand more. PL is not perfect but I have yet to hear you say one decent word about the party. It seems you want the PL to be exactly as you wish it was which you know can never happen with any party in the world.
    But then again, why should I waste my breathe with you, we all know who you support while trying to portray yourself as a left-leaning liberal. I enjoy reading MaltaToday very much but your own articles leave much to be desired.

    zeit

It’s about “support” or “puppets” to them. James Debono is much more of a labourite than anything Joseph Muscat can aspire to be when it comes to principles yet the “supporters” only see him as a traitor to the cause. Not for one moment will they question the contradictions inherent in the flimsy marketing (for it is not politics) in which Joseph Muscat engages. Muscat knows that this is his audience and he only has to hope that more are enticed into the anti-PN fold in order to be a beaming PM with no clue about principles, politics or diplomacy.

Meanwhile valid minds full of valid ideas are left to “wallow” writing blogs in some newspaper. I wonder what it is that keeps James going.

Sphinxes

Listening to Tony Blair’s ideas about the North African Uprisings could have the effect of making your blood boil. The Born Again Catholic is sounding more and more like George W. every other minute. He is more concerned about the possibilities that democratisation would open up to Islam and Islamic parties than about the fact that for the first time since colonisation two Arab nations are really asserting their right to appointing their own representatives. The Egyptian protests have been fascinating in many ways – they are the testing ground as to whether the fire started in Tunisia can rage through other dictatorships and break the post-colonial moulds in the Maghreb and Mashreq.

Hosni Mubarak is proving to be a tougher nut to crack than Ben Ali. While some may be joking that the Saudis might soon have a village of ex-dictators in their midst, Mubarak seems intent on getting away with a smoother “transition”, probably hoping to put up one of his anointed who could still keep in place the elite of businessmen he seconded into parliament and other important posts around him. Like Joseph Muscat with the shadow cabinet, Mubarak has been performing a bit of shuffling of his own in an attempt to appease the protesting crowds who can take no more of the arrogance and nepotism of his false democracy.

The protestors in the North African Countries are having to switch to such devices as fax machines and ham radios in order to send the news out to whoever is willing to relay it. Meanwhile, as we all know by now, tourism in the two Mediterranean (and Red Sea) paradises is once again down to its knees. Egypt had already suffered a setback thanks to the 1997 Luxor attack on tourists. It will now have to adopt a wait and see position until the political situation is clearer. Tourists are not normally so hesitant to return after coups (see what happened very recently in Thailand) but there will still be problems to revive the Sharm-al-Sheik and Hourghada business.

Which is where the glaring insensitivity (and insensibility) of Joseph Muscat’s hopeless attempt at seeming the sly player of international intrigue sticks out in all its glaring ploukism. The irony of it all is that Joseph Muscat’s wonderful idea of calling on the government to lure tourism away from the unstable Mediterranean nations is actually a call to draw the livelihood away from the mouths of millions of protesters suffering poverty, rising prices and corrupt government. Joseph Muscat might know that but he does not care does he? Neither do the potential voters for a new PL government. Who cares if their neighbour is dying for freedom and a for what he hopes is a better economy? What they worry about is their farcical marches into Valletta where Joseph can stand on some stage and sing to the ocean of unhappy people who cannot afford the petrol to fill their car or the money to pay for the electricity bills.

Following this last call by Inhobbkom Joseph we have reached an important conclusion here at J’accuse. Joseph Muscat has proven to be way out of his depth in matters international and has blown the last few chances he had of being considered a viable alternative to a tired and arrogant government by the intelligent voters among us. He should step down now and we should pray to God that Labour manages to fish out something remotely sellable as a leader.

From the Labour Press Release (thanks Fausto):

Filwaqt li wiehed irid jibqa jsegwi b’interess dak li qed jigri f’pajjizi bhat-Tunezija u l-Egittu, minhabba l-pozizzjoni taghhom fir-regjun Mediterranju, l-Partit Laburista jrid jara l-akbar kampanja ta’ pubblicita’ li qatt saret biex nigbdu lejn pajjizna dawk it-turisti li kienu qed iharsu lejn dawn il-pajjizi fl-inkwiet bhala destinazzjoni ghal vaganza taghhom. B’hekk igawdi l-pajjiz u s-settru turistiku malti li fuqu jiddependu l-ekonomija tal-pajjiz u eluf ta’ familji.

And this from Maltatoday:

NATIONAL Monday, January 31, 2011
Updated | ‘We had a good laugh’ – PL on satirical mock campaign

By Nestor Laiviera

The Labour Party’s reaction to the satirical ‘Visit Malta’ mock poster campaign was that “the issue merits not just the original touch of humour by a commentator, but serious consideration and a well thought campaign.” The Labour Party was reacting to a satirical ‘Visit Malta’ campaign circulated through facebook sparked off by remarks by PL Leader Joseph Muscat that Malta should capitalise on unrest in Egypt and Tunisia. A party spokesperson said “we had a good laugh and won’t accuse the authors of lacking ‘savoir faire’.” He added that however “the issue merits not just the original touch of humour by a commentator, but serious consideration and a well thought campaign which would attract tourists to Malta instead of other destinations which are in turmoil.”

J'accuse Tube (cryptic)

One and cross (clue) : Cut cord and vie for marriage terminal (7). J’accuse presents the breeding ground for a public discussion in graduated stages. You’ve been mentally challenged. About f***in’ time…

Think of it as a J’accuse version of RAI3’s “Blob” – the unmissable programme on Italian TV. (P.S. It’s not “me” in Gensna)

ffwd the issues

from tammy…

from billy…

from david (lynch)

rev. jennings

farrakhan (virtuous women)

Opinions… they’re divided

or unclear…

someone is collecting facts…

Angels Abroad

You probably read it by now. Angelik Caruana has taken his mystic mystifications abroad and has managed to attract the international audience. He managed to get the attention of all and sundry via some yelling tantrum in the middle of a public audience of Papa Ratzi in Paul VI hall at the Vatican. The alleged visionary was quickly surrounded by security who feared the worst when this envelope wielding grey-haired man started yelling at the top of his voice. I can just about imagine his communicative abilities when he is far from the fawning audience on some hill in Malta.

We’ve feted the man for long now. We’ve been amused by his antics and he has enjoyed the platforms of our most notorious talk shows. Now it is no longer funny because our fervent Catholicity has taken a comic twist on the international stage. “Di nazionalità maltese” is what stands out in the La Stampa report – in the same way as “jihadist” would sound in some report on an attack.

Secondo quanto si è appreso, i due fedeli identificati sono di nazionalità maltese e la Gendarmeria Pontificia ha fatto sapere che la busta conteneva messaggi devozionali.

Thank God for devotional messages. If the website is anything to go by we can expect gibberish of the highest order that would be difficult even for a deity busy apparating in Malta on a hot summer day to decipher. Angelik is one of our circus of freaks and though he has his followers does not get elected to any post (unless you give weight to the big Marian vote). This episode does ring a warning tone about electing persons of dubious sound mind or with absolutely insufficient nous of international diplomacy and aplomb to public posts.

After all there is little to go between a quickly penned letter to the Pope and an angry rant to Jerzy Buzek.

Enhanced by Zemanta

I.M. Jack – the one about satire

Today’s Times editorial invites readers “to get serious about laughter” and is an appeal to learn how to laugh about ourselves once more. I read a good article by David Quantick in the UK Independent yesterday in which he welcomed the return of political satire on prime time TV. ‘Twas the post-Thatcher 90’s that killed it you know – and the inability of satirists to let go of the facile spoofing of personalities and return to the dark minefield of satirising issues.

Seriously Funny

We’ve seen it all. The long arm of the law applied to carnival (priests, Jesus and his disciples), to what classifies as “comedy” on TV (Bla Kondixin‘ VIP Xow’s (thanks PG) shoe throwing stunt) and more. If the Maltese are relentless in their beliefs then there is little room for humour quoth the Times editor. M.A. Falzon, writing in the Times two years ago today had attempted to translate the local version of satire to “nejk” – a realm of “banter, jokes and jestful blasphemy” that “rarely makes it into the public sphere”.

Falzon suggested that the reason we find it hard to write (or understand) “nejk” in English is that English generally means serious business with little room for humour. Maltese – with all its “nejk” – is limited to the vernacular – always according to Falzon (and he does worry that “Linguistic nationalists will eat me alive for this”).

I’m not too sure about Falzon’s theory though there is some truth in the fact that the Maltese concept of “comedy” (and not necessarily satire) might differ radically from that of the Anglo-Saxons or French to mention but two others. Incidentally the other field that has been at the receiving end of the grossly overblown and outdated baton of the law is the field of literature. The point of overlap in the venn diagram seems to be a shady area of “taste” that somehow is qualified in terms of either “obscenity/vulgarity” or “immoral/unholy”.

In both cases what is now being waved around as a case of “Censorship in Malta” is really an outdated reaction to provoking events that could (and have been) be seen as being immoral – obscene – vulgar – unholy/blasphemous if taken from a conservative point of view. Whether that means that we are witnessing a real censorship of the “political” kind with the Maltese equivalent(s) of Solzenhitsyn rushing to exile is questionable. True there is an archaic law and perception that needs to be challenged – one that exalts a fictitious mentality of close-mindedness, religiosity and prudeness and does not take in the alternate reality of “nejk” within which we really live.

Does this seem funny to you?

Are we capable of being satirical? Is there space to caricaturise our politicians and their decisions. Can we even caricaturise ourselves in our everyday life to the point of subtle satire? We think that it is more than possible and that it is already being done in spurts. We mostly do not know how to react to it. The impression of a communist style politburo censoring every vague thought is a false one. As I said elsewhere J’accuse has never been censored no matter how critical it has been of the PLPN establishment.

Ignored? Yes. Attempts at character assassination? Of course it’s how business is done. But censored? Nope. Nyet. Sorry. And neither has any of the other variety of columnists/non-columnists been told not to speak their mind. I’m quite sure of that. We do not have censorship in Malta. We have the retarded (sic) application of archaic provisions that is distracting us from a possible development of our literature (maybe).

It’s literature that might not even intend to be funny. Take Vella Gera’s “Li Tkisser Sewwi”. I’m sure Alex never intended to be in the limelight (he says so himself) and never expected this kind of reaction (he said so too). He just woke up one day to find that his particular mode of expression is -according to the police, still to be seen by the court – considered as either obscene or vulgar in the eyes of the law that regulates our society.

Is it censorship? No. I don’t think so. I think it is the result of a society that is uncomfortable with itself when it looks in the mirror. What does that say about the future of satire in Malta.

It says it is possible. But that we have a long, long way to go. It goes beyond politicians or expected saviours (Oliver? Why Oliver?). It goes straight to the heart of what literature can be all about. Provocative, illuminating, and often a satirical exposé of the state of a nation. Warts, cunts, penises and all.

Funny that. He said “exposé”.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Honoraria : What lies beneath?

Fausto Majistral is back with another Zolabyte. He gives us a no-nonsense analysis of the main issues that surround the whole ruckus about honoraria. It’s less about the politics and more about the constitutional issues.

Service as an MP in the Maltese House of Representatives is a part-time affair. “Part-time” is a misnomer, of course, because parliamentary work is not only attending sittings in plenary and involves all other sorts of things including constituents who could be quite demanding (to say the least) both in what they demand and the time at which they demand.

But we should not linger on this point: after all, nobody calls teachers “part timers” because the time they spend in the classroom is less than the usual annual average of 40 hours.

There were moves in the past, very discreet, to make parliament a “full time” affair. That would have meant, amongst other things, that apart from ministerial duties parliamentary service would have been to the exclusion of all other work (a condition which would have no justification for as long as being an MP was part-time). A significant advantage gained would have been that the risk of situations of conflict of interest would have been hugely reduced.

Needless to say, this was resisted by some MPs, particularly those who are also members of a profession. Their full time work is as big as the size of their clientele which is largely a matter of their choosing. In many cases, the service they offer their clientele can be delegated to professional partners or assistants. MPs whose full time job is as an employee, where the working hours are not of their choosing and where the duties cannot be delegated, do not have such luxury.

So parliamentary service remained part-time. Paid. Which you can combine with any other full time job. Equally paid. Except for one full time job: being minister.

Before anyone makes the point that being a minister you waive your moral right to be paid anything for basic MP work because your full time job is paid from the public purse, please note that you can combine a full time salary for a job in the public sector and the honorarium for being a part-time MP. Being a minister is one of the very few jobs, in the public as well as a private sector, which disqualifies you from the parliamentary honorarium.

I will not go here into the concurrent issue of whether MPs’ honoraria should have gone from 50% to 70% of the civil service’s salary scale 1. For the very simple reason that, I have no way to tell if 50% or 70% is what is deserved for the duties in question. Note however that one of Jean-Pierre Farrugia’s main gripes (which I think is representative of what the critics have so far said) was that it was bad timing in the prevailing financial situation.

Certainly. But please note that a pay increase that’s unrelated either to productivity or cost of living is hardly and alien concept in Maltese labour law. It’s the stuff annual increments based on a sector’s collective agreement are made of.

Neither do I need to go into the other main gripe, that these increases should not have been introduced by stealth. For the simple reason, that the critics are right on this one. Salaries and honoraria for ministers and parliamentarians should be the subject of law, as is already the case with the salaries of the President of Malta, the Attorney-General and the Auditor-General, or at least a parliamentary resolution.

But this should not detract us from the fact that the way payment is made for ministerial or parliamentary service disadvantages members of one category of employment over an other. The compromise struck between Farrugia and his Leader hardly addresses that question.

This is not a trivial discussion or one which is irrelevant to the health of a democracy. The early proponents of paid service argued their case on the grounds that no one should be barred from being an MP if elected simply because he has no other private means.

That was the argument in the UK in the beginning of the 20th century; it would have lost little force in Malta of the 21st. Apart from the Leader of the Opposition and MPs who have private means, note the the MPs who first and enthusiastically stated they’ll donate the increase to charity or some pet campaign were mostly members of the professions.

Given much credence to that quote by George Bernard Shaw that the professions are really conspiracies against the laity.

*****
Zolabytes is a rubrique on J’accuse – the name is a nod to the original J’accuser (Emile Zola) and a building block of the digital age (byte). Zolabytes is intended to be a collection of guest contributions in the spirit of discussion that has been promoted by J’accuse on the online Maltese political scene for 5 years.
Opinions expressed in zolabyte contributions are those of the author in question. Opinions appearing on zolabytes do not necessarily reflect the editorial line of J’accuse the blog.
***