The festive season came early here at J’accuse. We forgot to log off and wish our readers all the best. We’ll be back with the New Year. Recharged.
Thanks for reading and hanging on with this blog as it starts its 11th year.
This has been J’accuse… blogging so you don’t have to.
An evil soul producing holy witness is like a villain with a smiling cheek, quoth the bard. In matters legal we are often confronted with devils citing scriptures for their purpose and recently there seems to have been quite an upping of the scripture-quoting ante, if you get my drift. The Ian Borg planning permit saga drags on without so much as a whiff of a preventive suspension of duties. PM Muscat was quite clear, in his usual style used whenever clarity and convenience collide, that it was up to Borg to do what he should do. Borg, having adamantly proclaimed his innocence and shown that he does not give two hoots about whatever investigations may result declared firstly that he would proceed with his development. It was only after a sobering comment by Muscat that Borg retracted – on facebook of course.
Muscat’s comments were the most worrying in fact. He was definitely not satisfied with Ombudsman Report on Case no EP 0032 and did not hesitate to openly allege that it was beset with inaccuracies. In fact, not only does the modern day leader of steel not agree with the Ombudsman’s conclusions but also promised to set straight certain “mistakes” that are apparently contained therein. It really does beg the question of why bother listening to the Ombudsman in the first place if you are not going to give any weight to anything he has to say. Well, probably Muscat has been listening to a few scripture-quoting devils who have opted to dabble in the arcane arts of legal interpretation within their self-declared hobby/profession of all that is to do with planning.
What really sticks out whenever you read any of these apologia pro Ian Borg in the press is a quasi-autistic literal-mindedness that belies any knowledge of constitutional responsibility. You see a literal approach to the law can provide some very interesting and confusing results. The Ian Borg Saga is not about any old pesky MEPA application but about the “incorrect application of policies and procedures in processing and determining” a particular application in Rabat.
Legally (and by this I mean also to include the literal application of the law) there is the issue of sticking to the procedural minutiae of an application and whether what might seem to be ridiculous situations – such as a non-owner making an application- are actually allowed by law. There is also a second legal question and that is whether the permit application as filled led to MEPA wrongly acquiescing to the request.
Outside the box of literal-minded application there is an important constitutional element. A member of parliament – a parliamentary secretary to boot – is involved in this application. I say involved but ultimately we can say committed in the same way that in an English breakfast the chicken is involved but the pig is committed. The property that is the subject of this controversy is owned by Ian Borg. He is not denying it. Nobody is. The problem lies that if it should result that Borg, a government secretary, abused of MEPA procedure in order to obtain a go-ahead for this development in a property owned by him he has constitutional obligations that go beyond the mere examination of whose name appears on the application and whether that is legit.
Reading through the Ombudsman’s Report (that could admittedly have been a bit more clear) we find two important issues that tie to the constitutional responsibility of Ian Borg.
Quite frankly the combination of the two issues listed above put Ian Borg in dangerous waters. Even with all the goodwill he may claim to have had there is still definitely more to this than meets the eye and it does the PL no good to hang on behind its young soldier. We’ll have to wait for the Commission against Corruption whose remit is closer to the constitutional factors that I mentioned than the Ombudsman’s.
The secret of comedy, they say, is timing. There is nothing funny about the making public of a launch of a magisterial inquiry into the amount of fuel consumed by the Leader of Opposition’s car. It is not funny at all. In actual fact it is rather worrying because it has all the makings of a perfectly-timed smear attempt. It would not be the first time in the history of this country that the machinery of one of the arms of the state is put into motion in an incredibly advantageous manner that serves the party in government. Those who are not prone to lapses of amnesia still remember the sudden summons of Alternattiva Demokratika’s Harry Vassallo when some long forgotten tax case suddenly became very very pertinent in the eyes of some police officers in Sliema.
The magisterial inquiry falls within the same lines of harassment by officialdom. It is important to keep a sense of perspective here. The investigation is about a discrepancy in fuel allowances – the kind of discrepancy that would not warrant half the attention it is getting since, assuming that it is an allowance, what one assumes happens is that if you exceed the allowance then you are not refunded the difference. In any case the irony of the matter is that this is the fuel allowance used for an official car in its official capacity. Apparently too much money is being spent on fuel. One would hope that the inquiry concludes what everyone who has not been blinded by Joseph has been telling the government over the past year or so – that fuel prices are bloody expensive when compared to international market prices.
But back to Simon’s driver. Busuttil got to know that the investigation was going on and this strangely coincided with the document full of proposals on proper governance (that this blog is still to review). Muscat was quick to confuse matters by claiming that by Busuttil’s yardstick Busuttil should resign. It turns out that the Good Governance proposals have instilled the fear of God in Muscat – this is the first time that he would rather see the back of his opponent rather than continue with the playground jibes of “ma tifhmx fl-ekonomija, ma tafx taqra” &c &c.
Speaking of math and economics it is incredible that in this democracy we have importuned a magistrate to draft a pennies inquiry as to the fuel consumption of a car when our Prime Minister still to this day rents his own private car to his office at the rate of €7,000 a year. Incredible isn’t it? The apologistas of this world will tell you that this is perfectly legal – sure, but what they do not tell you is that this way Muscat gets to double his perk. The money the government is paying for what is supposed to be a bargain deal goes to Muscat’s pockets at a rate far above the net worth of his car. It’s as though a lawyer would charge his clients extra for having used his laptop and printer to draft his legal documents.
The whole farce of the magisterial inquiry only goes to show the urgency with which the PN proposals on Good Governance must be treated. We have long embarked on the slippery slope that ignored the important tenets that underly civic society in a liberal democracy and much time has been lost using the measure of partisan fairness instead of the rightful rule of law. Instances such as Farrugia’s comic foray into the land of inquiries are a clear indication of the tragic situation of our current political state. That so many voters are still prepared to swallow this bull if only to spite the imaginary nationalist monster that was designed in their head by Muscat’s propaganda machine is even more worrying for that means that many are still prepared to defend the indefensible.
Is-sewwa jirbah zgur they used to tell us. These are definitely tough times for the truth and for justice. Only time will tell.
Insofar as national tragedies go we had a couple of headline filling “incidents” over the last month that led to discussions on safety in different environments that are normally linked to entertainment. First there was the Paqpaqli incident where a supercar mowed into a crowd of bystanders causing injuries upward of three score and a mini-emergency crisis in our establishments of health and cure. A little later, and almost in parallel with the return of the ugly face of terrorism in Paris, we had an unhappy incident in an entertainment establishment in Paceville where a sudden stampede was once again the cause of much mayhem, much trauma and much panic. Finally we had a tiger on walkabout (in an estate dotted with planning illegalities) being provoked into attacking a little boy – said provocation consisting in said little boy running in the general direction of the tiger who did not appreciate this sudden rush of adrenalin. Still. Damage there was, pain even, and this was caused by a tiger in what is for all intents and purposes an establishment tainted with various illegalities.
This being the age of social media and the hashtag it is rather a surprise that the hashtags #jesuisPaqpaqli, #jesuisPaceville and #jesuislenfantdeMontekristo were not trending in yet another demonstration of pointless Pharisaical empathy that will be forgotten come the next hashtag – be it #goDestinyforEurovision, #lowunemployment or #CHOGMrocks. What should be trending in fact is a hashtag made out of those words used by the lawyer who lends his signature to Mr. Polidano for affairs legal when he said that most times these are “accidents waiting to happen”.
In fact, given the general institutional and public reaction to the sum of these tragedies we can safely say that the hashtag #weareallanaccidentwaitingtohappen should become part of the Maltese heritage. It fits nicely not just in the case of Paqpaqli, Paceville and Montekristo but also whenever your average fireworks factory explosion occurs, whenever there is the latest cowboy accident on the place of work, whenever political requirements bow to the avarice and greed of the building industry … should I continue?
Paqpaqli was one mess short of a babylon of cock-ups. It proved incontrovertibly that our nation is nowhere near being equipped for that kind of messy patchwork excuse for running powerful engines over short distances. Did we learn anything? Hell no. Prime Minister Muscat has announced that part of his panem et circenses programme in the coming year is the holding of the World Drag Racing Championships in Malta. Why? Our idea of what is and what is not suitable for an island slightly smaller than Manhattan is twisted beyond belief. I would expect us to hold the World Igloo Building Championships in Malta next August. It would be as stupid a decision as holding a World Cup in Qatar in summer. Only an administration as corrupt to the neck as Blatter’s FIFA could come up with that. Wait a minute…
Paceville. Poor old Paceville. Always the den of iniquity that has become synonymous with Malta’s Hell. Over the years it has been obvious that those who ever try to come up with some form of “regulation” for the place are really people who have a plan of transforming a brothel into some kind of centre for social rehabilitation. If we fail to accept that Malta has its own version of Las Vegas strip of entertainment and that it is of itself a possible touristic attraction then we will fail into obtaining some sort of sense of order. The distinction between imposing martial law and understanding that the entertainment must and can go on but for the instilling of a sense of responsibility when it comes to dishing it out.
The starting point of proposals about Paceville must be how to improve the value of entertainment there, not how to kill it completely. I have always advocated as a starting point that the transformation of the old enemalta building into a centre for civil coordination would be a brilliant way to kick off the games. Think a permanent V18 for Paceville – P2K as in Paceville for the third millennium. Policing and health needs would be centred around the entertainment zone that would be detached from the St Julian’s and Swieqi dependency it has suffered until now. Public-private charters and standards could be established – from common safety regulations, to common security training and common evacuation strategies in collaboration with civic defence. Campaigns on drink driving could be co-ordinated with the different modes of transport that get to the city. Those obnoxious white taxi drivers could be relegated into oblivion. Cleaning times, projects and promotions could be coordinated by all the stakeholders. Above all this should be done in a liberal manner and not with the approach of complete and utter sanitisation. There is no point in transforming Paceville into what it is not. Will the politicians move on this? Highly unlikely. Not when the powerful stakeholders in the area have them by their short and curlies.
Montekristo. Which brings me to Montekristo. The place should be shut. The animals should be exported to the closest zoos. Malta is no place for tigers and lions. No cage should be but their time in captivity might require gradual reintegration. Animal rights apart (Where was Marlene Bonnici by the way? Or are animal rights only useful to justify the Euro Parliament presence?) the whole Montekristo story is a clear example of how the authorities will continue to pay lip service to cowboys such as Polidano. Not only will they bark a few words about the animals (Muscat tried the Ali G trick with vegetarians – “you either eat a chicken or I will kill another one” became “we would have to kill the animals if we closed the place”) but they will continue to patronise the place for their political activities. We are all an accident waiting to happen but who gives a flying feck?
There you go. That is what your politicians would do on average when it comes to accidents. They will tell you they are sorry to have seen it happen, they will tweet their condolences and support, but in the long run, we were, we are and we will remain an accident that is waiting to happen.
The language of war has returned ever since the Paris Attacks. The French PM has not held back the ballistic rhetoric and insists on qualifying this as a war between France and Da’esh (they hate that name). In doing so, Hollande steps into the shoes of George W. Bush who similarly had declared war on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda shortly after the sad events of 9/11. Ever since 13/11 (European calendar) Hollande has upped the tempo and has even resorted to invoking international clauses before the UN in order to intensify the attacks on Da’esh.
One thing that has really been getting at me ever since this war discourse has begun is the frequent reference to the facts of the Paris Attacks as though they are the first time ever that a European nation is facing terror and terrorist attacks. The modern generation of politicians seem to have a faint, or non-existent, grasp of the recent history of their continent. It would appear that it is the first time that a group of men opened fire on innocent civilians, the first time that bombs went off in a major European city, the first time that a sporting event was directly in the line of fire and – to add the events of the Russian events on the Sinai – the first time that a plane was bombed or hijacked by terrorists.
As if this historical distortion is not enough we have to also add the fact that the context of all this terror-talk is a Europe that is already submerged in fear-mongering in relation to the “threat” of immigration. The Paris Attacks occurred within the context of a major continental upheaval with regards to immigrants and refugees and we had no time to factor in the issue of continental values that was still very much unresolved at the time.
What do I mean by historical distortion? This is a generation of politicians that are used to selling their wares through very efficient marketing and rhetoric. They are used to manipulating facts and figures in order to infuse feel good factors. Just take a look at “Our economy is booming” Renzi and Muscat for a clear example of what is meant. These politicians are now faced with a concrete problem and have to seem as efficient as when they are trumping up figures to make their economy sound beautiful. So they tell us that this is a danger such as we have never seen before. In one fell swoop the deeds of the IRA, ETA, Baader-Meinhoff, Brigade Rosse and the PLO (and PLF) are vanished away. According to the new rhetoric the bombings at Liverpool Street Station, Bologna or the shootings at Munich are just fiction.
Muhammad Zaidan (Abu Abbas for enemies) never existed. The governments of Thatcher and Craxi never had to deal with terrorist cells. No. Only now are we at WAR. The enemy is everywhere. That is what they want you to believe.
Does this mean that a terrorist threat from Da’esh should be ignored or is not so bad as they make it sound? Nonsense. What I mean is that this sudden linking of terrorist attack to acts of war has consequences that go far beyond dealing with them as the type of security threat that they really are. With the death of Abdelhamid Abaaoud, the mastermind behind the Paris attacks, we were told that he was very probably the mastermind behind most of the other attacks that occurred recently – or that were foiled. from the shootout in Verviers to the foiled Thalys aggression – it was Abaaoud. When you read the facts that are available in terms of 70s and 80s terrorism it begins to look very likely that we are dealing with a cell of extreme terrorists.
This kind of cell is a bunch of individuals disgruntled with society in very much the same vein as a Breivik or your average US High School Shooter in the US. It is now also clear that they are raised and bred in Europe only to abscond to war zones like Syria to get “training” in much the same way as the Che Guevara’s of other decades rushed to zones of popular revolution. The “ideology” is an excuse or pressure valve justification to unleash pent up anger at a society that they claim misunderstands them. When they do manage to succeed with one of their plans to explode or kill that is when Da’esh steps in to claim ownership. Which is fortunate for Da’esh because, as they themselves claim in their newsletters, any action that is successful and perpetrated by anyone can be claimed as originating from them no matter how spurious the link is. This makes Da’esh look much larger and organised on the European mainland than it really is.
The flaws in European security relate to the inability to flag disillusioned individuals, the facility with which they can obtain weapons in a society that does not treat guns and bombs as liberally as the US and finally, the biggest flaw is looking for a massive organisation where there most probably is none. Da’esh’s hand in all this is ‘limited’ so to speak in obtaining a monopoly on fear. The ultimate aim for Da’esh is to provoke the “Us and Them” mentality – and they hope to recruit more than just a handful of misplaced youths with suicidal tendencies. That is why the war language serves Da’esh more than it serves your average European state.
It may sound crazy at this moment in time but I strongly believe that Europe – particularly the Union – has much bigger problems than the terrorism threat. The main issue here is the search for a Europe of Values with common intent. It is that Europe that failed to take shape when Giscard d’Estaing’s constitutional convention failed to deliver a clear definition of the Europe that we all want. It is only by defining what it is and what its values are that Europe can finally stand up and be clear about its position vis-a-vis the immigrants that are looking to it as a place of refuge or economic improvement. When we can tell refugees and immigrants who we are and what standards they must conform to then we can really wage the real war that counts. The war on ignorance and intolerance.
Before you face your enemy it is important to know thyself. Nosce te ipsum.
Hollywood at times can give new insights. From Lie to Me – a series featuring Tim Roth – an exercise in the study of microexpressions.
Interestingly, at the point where Luciano Busuttil is giving his version of events in the Nifqghek Incident we can see both Deborah Schembri and Leo Brincat with expressions of sadness, the hardest microexpression to fake:
-Inner corners of the eyebrows are drawn in and then up
-Skin below eyebrow triangulated, with inner corner up
-Corner of the lips are drawn down
-Jaw comes up
-Lower lip pouts out
Debono Grech on the other hand is clearly still agitated and his microexpression is clearly and unequivocally concentrated around an expression of anger.
-The brows are lowered and drawn together
-Vertical lines appear between the brows
-Lower lid is tensed
-Eyes hard stare or bulging
-Lips can be pressed firmly together with corners down or square shape as if shouting
-Nostrils may be dilated
-The lower jaw juts out
As for whether MP Busuttil was telling the truth as to whether or not he heard Debono Grech’s words, well that is where Hollywood ends. The truth is that there is no clear way to tell if someone is deceiving by using microexpression detection: “For as Ekman, Frank, DePaulo, Burgoon, and Vrij have repeatedly told us, there is no single behavior indicative of deception. There are indicators of stress, psychological discomfort, anxiety, dislike, issues, or tension, but not deception.”
Still. Sadness and Anger. Clearly perceptible in this screenshot.
