Library

Anton Refalo & the law

Writing in the Malta Independent Today, Daphne Caruana Galizia takes another (well deserved) dig at Alex Sciberras Trigona and rightly points out the blatant incongruence of AST’s “democratic” arguments. It’s not just that AST has the barefaced cheek of calling the present situation undemocratic but also that he has got the basic constitutional principles wrong – as J’accuse has explained time and again, this government is legitimate so long as it does not lose a confidence vote in parliament. Daphne mentions the efforts of the Labour party to “rewrite history” and a quick look at the J’accuse archives points to how this effort at propagandist revisionism was predictable some time back (see The J’accuse 2011 Tag Cloud under “History Manipulation”).

The trouble (or one of the troubles) with Labour is that in their effort to counter the PN “30-years Back” propaganda they are coming up with the most brazenly offensive bits of propaganda with regard to the present government in an effort to picture its tenure as some dictatorial, non-law abiding clique in the style of an Army Coup in some tin pot democracy. Labour’s propaganda technique is simple: repeat a lie so many times that it begins to sound like the truth. We are not talking of legal nitpicking on some moot point that could go both ways but about a simple constitutional principle that yells in your face. A government is a government so long as it does not lose its support in parliament. The only way to gauge that support is by votes in parliament – not by declarations in MaltaToday or interpretations in MaltaStar or status updates on facebook. Simple.

Or it should be simple. Right beneath Daphne’s article (on the Indy Online) lies an article by Labour’s spokesman for Gozo Anton Refalo. The man’s reputation among legal circles is of an efficient lawyer – efficient does not translate to good and believe you me in this case good is very far from efficient. You see the laws of the land also include procedural elements and ethical components with regard to the functioning of a lawyer in assisting his clients. By abiding by these laws and procedures, lawyers form part of a wider system that does its best to mete out justice for all: blindly, impartially and equally. The rules of representation and chinese walls between lawyer and client in particular are very important for this functioning. I harbour strong doubts whether Anton Refalo, Gozo’s aspiring Minister even has a clue about how these should really work.

He gave us an example of his grasp of constitutional politics in today’s article. The bottom line is simple… the laws are just there for your aesthetic convenience. Follow the “social contract” (which one Anton? Should we have an Alfred Sant-like stunt every election with the Dear Leader signing some “social contract” for the fun of the people complete with Notary in attendance?) and forget the law.

The GonziPN can twist and spin the story beyond reasonable boundaries but the bottom line remains the same: That is, that the PN has lost the working majority in the House. Even if the Constitution still gives the PN the legal rights to remain in power, morally and politically it might not. There is no other way but to put an end to this situation by giving the people the right to express their view.

By refusing to take this step, the Prime Minister is putting himself in a situation where his legitimacy is being eroded. The Prime Minister must realise that ultimately any democratically-elected sovereign derives his legitimacy more from an unwritten social contract than from the written laws.

Well Anton. A democratically elected sovereign will go to the polls once it is clear that he has lost the working majority of the house. He does so when a vote of confidence is called in the house (as has been done over the past year) and when that vote of confidence is lost (as has not happened yet). In the meantime all the talk about legitimacy and undemocratic regimes is just a load of hot air, talk and bravado. It may work elsewhere Anton, but so long as the law is to be abided and so long as we have a modicum of decency in the application of that law then you’ll have to wait for the inevitable vote of confidence that will crop up in the last semester of this year.

The law Anton, we are all servants of the law so that we may be free.

The IVF conundrum

I have been meaning to blog about the controversy that is the new IVF bill and reactions thereto. Setting aside the position taken by the church – a position to which it is entitled but which should obviously not be taken as the universal truth in a secular society – there is also the position of the LGBT lobby that begs consideration.

The premise of the LGBT lobby’s assertion is that IVF should be accessible to same-sex couples and single parents. I have serious problems getting my head around this one for the reason that I see IVF as a scientific aid to couples who are finding trouble having children. IVF in that context assists these couples. What the new bill is proposing to do is to regulate the matter in such a way that such couples no longer find themselves in an illegal situation when having recourse to the benefits of scientific advances.

I find that the qualms expressed by Andrew Borg Cardona in today’s column are very much the ones that I have – in particular with regard to the fish and bicycle argument. It is hard to envisage a fundamental right for LGBT couples to IVF though, like Andrew I would not be one to set up barricades should such a law eventually come to pass. The incongruence is between the idea of what is accepted in current society (and what has been transformed into law) and the possibility of a fundamental change in that very level of mores.

Without entering into the issue of whether same-sex couples having offspring (obviously with donors involved) is moral or immoral – I do feel confident in asserting that this kind of development would warrant a wider platform than a back-door entry via an enabling clause in a bill in parliament.

Here is the relevant part from Borg Cardona’s article (by the way Andrew … convoluted moi?)

The question is: Is it really the case that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to raise a family, a right that shouldn’t be denied by the law itself?

Speaking for myself, and a philosopher or ethicist I ain’t, I have this nagging doubt worrying my logical bone like a slightly lethargic puppy. It’s not something that exercises me to the max, far from it, and if the law were to be changed to accommodate same-sex couples, I’m not about to take to the barricades. In the case of two males, obviously, legislation concerning IVF is pretty much a fish and bicycle proposition, while, equally obviously, for two females, it is very relevant that the law is limiting the facility to male-female couple. Thankfully, no one has tried to square the circle that would be a lesbian and gay couple, who would appear to have no bar to getting married or resorting to IVF, somewhat paradoxically.

The real question to be getting back to is, then, can you extend the definition of a fundamental right to embrace people who don’t have the wherewithal to achieve what they’re trying to achieve? I really don’t know but my perhaps less liberal side tends towards the “not really” side of the argument.

From Sarkozy to Saatchi & Saatchi

It’s out. The Nationalist party has “launched” a new billboard – complete with press release and comments by the party President. The PN is really trying its darned best to water down the importance of a press release and a press conference. First we had PBO calling not one but two press conferences and now Marthese Portelli, Tonio Fenech and Chris Said were wheeled out in order to explain… a billboard. You know that your billboard campaign has started on the wrong foot when you need to explain or, worse still, justify the content.

While the 2008 campaign was wrought with messages of “taste” and “guilt by association”, the PN in 2012 is resolute in reminding us how much of Labour’s current lineup has its roots way back when the Commodore 64 was launched (note the nerdy reference here). One thing has not changed – the absence of original thought in the creative department. In 2008 we had the plagiarised Sarkozy slogan “ensemble tout est possible” and for 2012 the PN has kicked off with a plagiarised poster from the UK Conservative party campaign back in 1979.

Do note how Marthese Portelli takes care not to mention the Conservative party in her “explanation”. The emphasis in some quarters is on “Saatchi & Saatchi” – you know, the Versace of political campaigns. Like that should make the whole plagiarising business disappear instantly. I wonder whether Saatchi & Saatchi could claim any royalties for this “cut and paste” job – which might go some way into explaining PBO’s estimates for billboard costs.

The original poster did say “Labour isn’t working” (changed to “Labour won’t work” for obvious reasoning) but it also had a little addendum: “Britain’s better off with the conservatives”. Now that’s vanished of course – and I am quite sure the PR department is smart enough not to deviate the attention of the voter with the assertion “Malta’s better off with the nationalists”. Because that is essentially the part of the formula the PN cannot afford to gamble on. The campaign HAS to focus on Labour’s perceived inadequacy to govern (and Labour goes quite a long way in reinforcing that perception) but it also HAS to shift the focus away from the current state of the nationalist party.

So. Are we better off with the conservatives? What is the PN doing to allay fears that their conservative elements will not dominate a future legislature? Well. Right now we have the rush to change laws on expression, the IVF bill with all its controversies and a number of other minor laws crying for attention (still slapping nudists with criminal fines are we?).

In the end this is not a game changer but it is a clear indication that the nationalist party will definitely find it tough going if it were to act as though all were fine and dandy. And it will take much more than an article by a human rights lawyer to convince the intelligent voter that the PN vote is the vote for change.

 

The joke’s on you

I’m just back from a late night showing of a fantastic The Dark Knight Rises. It’s definitely my favourite from the Christopher Nolan series if only for the plot that jumps straight at you as a masterpiece of political intrigue. What happens to society if you give it the freedom to choose? What happens when you unleash the angry, when you release the envious and the underachieving and give them a free run to destroy those who they perceive as the elite?

It didn’t help me much that my current read is Francis Fukuyama’s “The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution.” It’s a highly recommendable exploration into how society comes up with its institutions and orders itself in order to survive. In particular it is a look at (1) the state, (2) the rule of law and (3) accountable government. But more of that later in future posts.

Before going out I thought of rehashing a photo that’s been doing the rounds about another smart and funny billboard that the PL thought up in answer to the as yet empty billboards that apparently cost the PN €200,000 to erect (tee-hee). You know the one… it points at an empty PN billboard and has the amazing two-liner “gonziPN – Gvern Bahh”. There’s something irritating about Labour’s complacent attitude with regards to the facile catchphrases that ultimately all point to the same baseline: “Gonzi Iggranfat mal-poter”, “Gvern bla ideat” and now “Gvern Bahh”.

Friends of this blog seem to identify a pro-nationalist streak in me whenever I take a dig at the immense vacuum that is Labour. It would keep Stephen Hawking busy for quite a while – the vacuum that is. Unfortunately when I weigh my reaction about such campaigns as the “Gvern Bahh” campaign I find that the anger element far outweighs the funny (oh Labour can be smart) element. Why? Because, as I have said a hundred million times before Labour is in a constant mode of denial whereby it assumes that simply pointing out the deficit of the incumbent will give it a free ticket to govern.

Labour assumes that the intelligent voter can be wooed simply by saying – hey you’re in shit so might as well have us be the new provider of daily fecal matter. The voter is in a bit of a situation like having to choose between two restaurants. The first is your traditional run of the mill Pizza & Pasta Italian that is having a bit of a down time with the chef having lost control of the kitchen.

The other restaurant just has the one guy standing outside pointing out how bad the plates in the Italian restaurant are of late. The only hunch is that we have no idea what the second restaurant sells, whether they actually have any kind of food on the plate and whether it is the type of cuisine that is to our liking (they claim they can cook anything but refuse the smallest of tasters). Yet we laugh at the jokes about the not too al dente spaghetti and the colour of the crockery in the Italian joint.

Yep. We only have two restaurants to choose from and sadly the only kind of joke there is to laugh at is a joke at our expense. You’ve got it right mate… the joke’s on you.

and a nice tune to finish this off… all the way from the free airwaves of 1991 (I recall a DJ Schembri if I am not mistaken)…


 

 

 

 

New Livery, New Purpose

The new makeover at Air Malta has hit the headlines. Inevitably the discussion has centred on the cost (€2m) and not on the content. The press chose to highlight the fury of the pilot’s union when it complained that such an expense was not justified given the sacrifices that workers are being made to bear . You do have to wonder how these people expect the airline to become more competitive by retaining a tired livery and marketing plan. Attempting to transform the airline’s competitiveness will inevitably cost money – it’s either that or compete with an outdated marketing plan.

The rebranding exercise looks great. I especially love the idea of combining the marketing of the airline with the marketing of the destination. Selling Air Malta and Malta at the same time is an excellent idea – and the colourful livery that is a call to the exotic, sunny nature of the island is a brilliant move all round. Coming as it does in the middle of this August rush that has been reported up north – with British and other clients rushing for last minute escapades to the sun that never came – the marketing exercise might just be the start for a strong selling point: come to the land of Sun, Culture and friendly people.

The airline might need to target more regions that are currently orphaned of its reach and full of potential sun-seeking tourists – and I obviously have in mind the Grand Region of Lorraine, Luxembourg and Rheinland-Pfalz. The Luxembourg airport might be too prohibitive thanks to the  Luxair monopoly but Nancy-Lorraine and Frankfurt Hahn airports are cherries that are ripe for the picking. The same probably applies to other unconventional destinations that have developed a regular customer thanks to the new hubs promoted by low-cost airlines.

In the meantime a good two thumbs up to air malta for a job well done.

 

Summer siestas

It’s sizzling hot (apparently). August’s heat approaches with the certainty of a sunrise and the last events of the political season are being played out. Let’s not fool ourselves. There is going to be a break – a pause – as the politicians scramble to the safety of the seaside… or like mercenaries they will find some earthly form of hell where to regroup. In the meantime though the last notes of this particular act are being played out.

As I blogged earlier today, the Nationalist party is keen to have the last word on all things leak and Mistra. It’s not about Mistra they will tell you but about Joseph Muscat being a blabberer – a peċluq – as we would have it in the vernacular. The Labour party rightly retorts by focusing on a totally different point and reminding “GonziPN” that Dr Sant was right about the geezer who favours Earl Grey. That geezer marched off for his summer holidays in a huff having notified the PN that he is no longer one of their own (like they needed it in writing) and having informed the Speaker of the House that he is henceforth to be considered as an Independent. His cohabitation having been clarified he will now apparently be off and wed so, unless he takes the matter of wedlock lightly, that should keep him out of the news for a while.

The grumbling has started. It’s become a catchphrase of sorts now. “Oh how they have bored us.”, “Enough already”, “Why don’t they just resign and call an election”… and more of the same. You cannot really blame the electorate for having sussed out that most of these theatricals are to nobody’s benefit and that they can be more boring than spending an evening watching Musumeci Robert put up aphorism after aphorism on Facebook. Then again I have the niggling feeling that this is the usual thinking “sal-ponta ta’ l-imnieħer” as the vernacular would also put it.

Why? Because while it has become stylish to feign a lack of interest and to sing-a-long to the “bored with politics” and the “politicos” (a new word that, that has entered the collective vocab) few seem to understand what actually lies behind the corner. While everybody claims to no longer be intrigued by the squeakings of officials and spinmasters the truth is that their urge to “call an election” and get it over and done with turns out to be more of an emotional impulse than a thought out reflection.

And the reason is simple. When the curtain finally falls and the electoral campaign is in full swing we should be finally seeing two parties displaying their wares and what they have to offer in terms of governance for the new season. Mr Voter would be choosing from among these wares and therefore should be expecting to see a bit more than slogans and mud. Are the parties ready for that?

I have a strong feeling that the timing of PN strategy until now points clearly to a summer of preparation for an election. As I type slogans are being hatched (or copied from French campaigns), manifestos are being hurriedly beefed up and a strategy based on what the party can offer (and what new guarantees it can promise) is probably being brewed. The PN elected in 2008 is split and a good target for derisory facebook statuses or smartass expressions of surprise. The PN2012 team will be making damn sure that the new team has none of that.

And Labour? Well, once Muscat has recovered from the spumante he will return to the island to find that his provision of ammo is running dry. He has spent the last nine months honeymooning with the man who he now calls the second Prime Minister and has concentrated exclusively on the “iggranfat mal-poter” theorem. Once the relevance of that whole issue is officially declared passé, Muscat will find that he has very little time to reinvent a machine that he has groomed to produce more of the same old comatose opposition by default. It may be too late.

Four to five  weeks. That’s approximately how much time the parties have to get it together and regroup. I’m betting that the PN will attempt to use the summer pause for a Janus effect. One face looking back and another decisively forward. Will Labour manage to do anything other than the obvious and the predictable?

More importantly will the electorate prove to be a sucker for cosmetics one more time?