Library

A Time to Gag

Anglu Farrugia will cry crocodile tears at the Labour Party General Council. Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando will resort to reporting “evil bloggers” on his Facebook wall. Franco Debono will include a new law regulating evil attacks in his program of legislation (which program, having its hours counted, threatens to be the largest amount of laws proposed in the shortest time). General appeals and not-so-subtle implications will be made that the PM should do something about the bloggers and columnists who are resorting to “personal attacks”. And we all get carried away.

Your average listener or reader will not hesitate to chime in with the scarcely researched tautology of “Yes, there should be some form of decency, we have gone too far”. But have we? Or rather – what kind of legislation and control are these paladins of democracy seeking? While the general public showed the predictable kind of ambivalence when the laws dubbed as the New Censorship laws were published the sweeping statements about controlling other fields of expression than the arts multiplied.

First. A note about the new laws. They have nothing to do with such issues as libel and slander. What we have there is a new system of rating theatre and cinema that includes an element of self-discipline. This approach is highly commendable from a libertarian point of view because it emphasises (and exalts) the individual capacity to take responsible decisions. The theatre producer is invited to “censor” his own piece before any official scissors come into play. Self-control, self-censorship – an ability to assess what is and what is not acceptable in wider society : that is the heritage of an intelligent, emancipated and responsible society. Are we ready for the show?

Well, insofar as the political arena is concerned it looks like it is going to be tough. I am of the opinion that the current laws (if we DO have to look at legislation rather than policy first) are more than enough. It is a combination of publish (responsibly) and be damned. Defence in libel includes the “exceptio veritatis” (exception of truth) – the defence that is based on the idea that whatever was said about someone can be seen to be the truth. This is sometimes the reason why somebody who claims to have been libelled fails to go to court for fear of the “libel” being proven to have been the truth.

The “exceptio veritatis” is also itself controlled. While proving that a statement that is being scrutinised for libel or slander might stand strong if it is proved to be true, the truth is not a useful defence in the case of invasion of privacy. Stating that a Minister hosted a party with drugs freely available is defensible with the truth exception – i.e. if the fact is proven to be true. Saying that a Minister has the backside the side of a lorry it is an invasion of privacy and the mere fact that it is true (though even there – the exaggerated hyperbole is such that even the truth is obviously non-existent) will not suffice as a defence.

The fact of the matter is that libel, slander and defamation laws when applied constitute a solid last resort in the battlefield. On the other hand calling for more regulation is a perverse counter-productive move that demonstrates an ignorance of the law and, sadly, an intent to revert to the times of “Indħil Barrani” when our laws were tailor made to serve the interests of whoever needed to gag uncomfortable elements.

Check out again the Newt Gingrich video (top right) starting from 2’20”. Gingrich is asked a very uncomfortable question during a prime primary debate. It is an issue that is very private and Gingrich’s reaction says it all. “I would not like to answer it but I will”. Gingrich goes on to tackle the method of questioning and shoots some repartees of his own towards the press that has peddled the story. There and then. No courts. No gagging orders. Pure and simple intelligent response. And then the question is left to the voters to judge and value. Will voters give more importance to the story of Newt wanting an open relationship or to the fact that Newt was considered enough of a heavyweight to warrant a relentless barrage of mediatic coverage of the fact?

Which brings me to the question of politicians and privacy. Unfortunately the risk of reneging on most of what is private in their lives is a risk that politicians (and footballers, and actors, and prominent businessmen) take in a calculated manner more and more. When campaigns are built on family values and when consorts and children are used in campaigns to be paraded as some form of assets to the main storyline then we should not be surprised that the vultures in the press will be probing to examine whether this too is a facade. When you commit errors during a campaign and these are highlighted, parodied and caricaturised you’d be stupid to claim that these are personal attacks.

Our democracy does not need gagging orders and stricter regulation. Our democracy needs intelligent citizens and … if it is not asking for too much … intelligent politicians.

The State of Censorship (a preview)

Stop “personal attacks”. That was PM Gonzi’s appeal to the nation. “Appeal” is a keyword there. It says a lot about “oligarchies” and “power”. The newly announced censorship provisions (that incidentally deal with a fraction of what we refer to as censorship and expression in daily parlance) are not even law yet but many jumped the gun drawing conclusions between the PM’s appeal and the new laws.

So. Last night I watched “The Devil’s Double” a movie based on the true story of the real-life double of Uday Saddam Hussein. There was Uday, son of the Iraqi dictator lording it all over  Baghdad. He did what he liked and that included driving up to school gates and picking up 14 year old girls to take home and rape. In Hussein’s Iraq the only rule was “do not mess with the Hussein family” or they will mess you up.  It was not funny. In essence if Uday did not like you he turned into the horrible nightmare of Ahmed the Dead Terrorist – without the laughs. “Silence…I keel you”.

And Gonzi “appeals” to the nation. To everybody. For he cannot do more than that. He should not be able to. I cannot fathom what supposedly intelligent beings like Saviour Balzan could mean when they come up with the legal lie that Lawrence Gonzi has some power to shut people up. And by people I mean the obvious targets like Daphne Caruana Galizia. What rubbish. What delusional stupidity. I’ll have more to say and to explain as to why all this is rubbish later. Meanwhile I will ask you to watch the video that is in the top corner of this post (right). Forward it to 2’20” and watch the exchange between the debate host and Republican Primaries Candidate Newt Gingrich. J’accuse will comment on this later in the day and explain what it has to do with much of what is happening in our wider political-media circles.

For reference here is Saviour Balzan’s latest rant:

When Daphne was right

Following the speculation in the media about possible alternative electoral methods the discussion has returned to focus on the “premio maggioranza” – the compensation of seats for the party winning a majority (even relative) of votes in an election. The “stability” excuse gets politicians thinking of mechanisms to make it less possible for a renegade “Franco” to shake the boat. It is indeed incredible how they cannot see the flaw in the premisses of their argument. First of all stability should not be the be all and end all. The cause of the current instability can be found in our constitutional articles – the famous “enjoys the support of the majority of the members”. The reason the Gonzi’s PN or Sant’s MLP had a one seat majority was because they did not get enough votes to justify more seats (don’t mention gerrymandering – it’s a case of PLPN games anyway- if that’s the problem just abolish districts).

Before I go on, remember that the “suggestion” is still that – a suggestion. None of the parties have been stupid enough to take a position official or semi-official. The Times carried an article with interviews with Joe Brincat and Ranier Fsadni  – that’s all. Still this question of “premio maggioranza” needs to be tackled once and for all. It’s nonsense. If something like an automatic three-seat margin is accepted then we might as well (as someone suggested) give 34 votes to the PM and 31 to the leader of the Opposition and then just vanish till the next election. Dynamic democracy needs a better definition and interpretation of the transfer of power from voter to representatives. It is by nature a transfer that remains dynamic and allows for scrutiny of the different branches of government that should be acting as trustees of the voter’s power.

Which brings me to this article from the past. From January 2008. The theme was the other side of the coin: the Wasted Vote. It is also another victim of a system envisaged to reward two parties excessively and to the exclusion of the rest. In this article I was replying to an article by Daphne Caruana Galizia on the Independent.

***

(Alas) Daphne’s Right

Posted on January 29, 2008

What follows is a letter that was NOT sent to the Malta Independent on Sunday for a number of reasons. It is a reply to Daphne Caruana Galizia’s article entitled “Settle down and read this, please“.

It has become a weird habit of politicians to apologise to editors for the space they use up in the letters pages whenever they write in with their contribution. Now I am neither a politician nor am I the apologetic type but I do feel a tinge of guilt that the subject matter of this letter requires more space than is the norm for a letter to the editor which in most circumstances should be short and to the point.

In her article last Sunday, columnist Daphne Caruana Galizia berated the “tiresome lawyer” Claire Bonello for ‘relentlessly whining’ against all that is Nationalist as well as for not declaring her bias towards Alternattiva Demokratika. There is much to be said about the necessity of declaring a bias that is obvious for all to see but that is not why I put fingers to keyboard to contribute to this discussion. What really interests me is the issue of “basic electoral mathematics” so ably brought up by Daphne – the matter of wasted votes.

It is a uniquely magical effect of this country’s electoral laws that give us a situation where – and Claire will surely pardon me for adapting her poster – you “Vote Harry, Get Freddie”. Daphne is right. So right on the issue of these peddling Alternattiva vote-catchers who prey on the arithmetically challenged chatterers of the Sliema Bourgeoisie. Surely they are aware that the votes they crave for their leader will be flushed down the electoral toilet. A vote for Alternattiva is the electoral equivalent of Professor Refalo’s negative marking in the Constitutional law exams for first year law students. You don’t just waste your vote, it’s also less votes for PN and hey presto one more feather in Freddie’s cap.

How funny that I should mention Constitutional law. That very constitution against which the laws of the land should be tested – the kelsenian grundnorm that guarantees that we live in a democratic country and not in a Banana Republic. Daphne is right. The current electoral formula does not allow you to focus on the party you want in power. It does not allow you to say “Hey. I don’t like the nationalists. I not even vote for the MLP when I’m dead lest my vote be counted with that of the living. Then why not vote for AD?”

Why not indeed. It seems that when you think that way you choose to ignore the ominous presence of a potentially disastrous party ready to pounce on Castille. Daphne believes that asking people to vote AD means ignoring the existence of MLP. Something like the child wishing the monster away and hoping the adults will deal with it. Which could be true. Only there is a bit of twisted logic in that too. It may be a step up from basic arithmetic but I am sure Daphne could bear with me as I explain.

You see the problem is that, as the European Parliament elections proved, given the chance 20,000 or so individuals would vote for a different kind of politician. Let me be clear about this. It does not necessarily have to be Alternattiva. My interest is the breaking of the stranglehold of bipartisan politics – and Alternattiva is currently the only plausible alternative I can think of. I see it as a Trojan Horse into the fortified battlements of MLPN. Getting rid of the dichotomy means getting rid of the parochial way of thinking and governing.

So, given the chance people will change voting habits. The bigwigs at MLPN noticed that and last year they dealt the final blow to this possibility. They took away the chance for thousands of voters (even Daphne’s chance) to vote for another party when irked with the two of them. They created the mathematical formula that underlies Daphne’s argument. She is right. Of course she is right.Under the present magical formula concocted by the PN and passed unanimously in parliament, 20,000 votes spread among the 13 districts of the country can be lost. A party garnering 20,000 votes will not get one single seat in parliament. The magic words “proportional representation” have been neutered to an insulting situation where: if, and only if, two parties get elected to parliament under the present system then the seats shall be allocated proportionally to their national vote.

Daphne is right. What she is telling us is this. If you were ever thinking of changing the political spectrum in this country you have been royally screwed. The disincentive first trumpeted to the masses by then PM Fenech Adami – vote AD get Labour – is now here to stay. In one fell sweep, PN got rid of the only party that could seriously challenge its programs with an alternative vision of doing politics. It was one fell sweep that guaranteed the status quo in our political scene. What we have is an alternating chair. So long as Labour remain the band of inept politicians that the PN machinery depict, then PN’s place in government is virtually guaranteed.

Sorry Claire. You cannot go on campaigning without showing the second half of your poster. No “Vote Harry” without “Get Freddy”. I have other plans on my mind. You see Daphne, I too am one of the chatterers. I would love to not have been brutally disenfranchised by the electoral reforms. Like you I am often baffled at the way politicians in this country are ineffective because they live secure to see another day – since electoral scrutiny has turned into a PN vs. MLP farce. Our paths split the day you decided to accept the way MLPN voted to hold your vote to ransom.

I am fully aware of the repercussions of voting AD. I am fully aware of the “wasted vote syndrome” in our elections. Unlike you however I think that the responsibility is not mine to bear but that of MLPN and their electoral reform. Come election day I will exercise my right to vote. I will continue to use my vote to provoke change in Maltese politics. And the day my vote for Harry translates to a vote for Freddie I do not believe I should be the one to do the worrying… I’ll leave that to whoever came up with this wonderful idea that my vote is worthless and worth wasting.

The ball is in their court.

Meta tkun Paceville

I left a comment on an excellent post by Ramona Depares that dealt with the proposed Paceville revamp (Paceville revamp my foot). When I decided to move out of my parents’ house in Paceville, before I came to Luxembourg, some weird homing device in my brain led me to choose an apartment in Paceville. Crazy right? It had nothing to do with being close to the mater and pater – they’d be shifting base to Gozo anyway upon retirement. It’s just that Paceville has always felt like an alien part of Malta – a metropolitan suburb if you will that manages to be a cut off from the reality of the rest of the island thanks to its peculiarities.

Sure, Paceville had the traffic jams and the noise but its also the place where you can pop out to have a snack at 3am and observe the drunk ramblings of the latest visitor it has received with arms wide open. Paceville has a life of its own that no other place in Malta can emulate. It is a life that grew in a test tube in spite of and not thanks to any controlled civic plans. For a long time in the nineties “Paceville” was a synonym of the doorstep to hell … mentioned in the same breath as Satanic Masses, Drunken Hedonism and other pleasures of the flesh while enjoying star status on the earliest episodes of Xarabank. The more it grew the less it could be controlled and no attempt at competition (like that sore excuse of a rival called Bugibba) could even dream of stealing its show.

The suburb that never sleeps is now subject of a proposed revamp. Revamps under the nationalist government have come to mean an investment in street furniture, a couple of coats of paint and every now and then a pedestrian zone replete with kitschy statues. Tenders galore in fact. Which is the last thing that Paceville needs. Here is the comment I left on Ramona’s blog for it says the rest of what I have to say. (Featured video: Mike Spiteri – Paceville – Malta Song for Europe 1992).

We've got Beach Bums too in P'ville

Great post Ramona, and this coming from a Pacevillian through and through. I am not for an authoritarian, ultra-regulated approach because entertainment is by its very nature anti-regulation. You cannot create entertainment through regulation.

Having said that I see two early solutions to the problems of Paceville. First the basic interventions that you highlighted and that are absent. Upper St George’s Road (Spinola is not Paceville – yes those 500m make a difference) has long begged for a multi-purpose intervention centre – police, first aid and information office. Yes. Information office. A center of fun bang in the middle of Paceville – tickets to nightclubs, information about special offers and bands/djs performing in the area , where to watch your football etc. You know keep an eye on what’s happening by being part of it.

Then get the taxis/transport people to pull their act together and finally the most difficult part – incentivise Paceville business to get out of its stupid and crass mentality of the mediocre race to the bottom. Entertainment as I said earlier does not come out of regulation. It does not obey rules. It plants itself in fertile and welcoming soil. Strictly speaking Paceville has never been anything superlative (although we have all had our great nights out there) but it has to fight hard against the possibility of becoming once again a synonym for the doorstep to hell as it was in the early nineties.

The last boathouse standing

Is it ironic, dramatic or downright farcical that in all this hullabaloo and with the two main parties completely at sea and in full panic mode, the AD can only* come up with a challenge regarding the boathouses at Armier? Throughout last Friday’s Xarabank Arnold Cassola seemed to provide the only reconciliatory potential for all the other members of the panel. They were at each other’s throats most of the time and Edwin and Michael had their tongues so far up Debono’s behind that they had trouble speaking but the moment Cassola attempted to use the precious space on public TV to highlight the deficiencies of bipartisan thinking and logic he was drowned by a concerted chorus of denigration.

I only watched Xarabank today and you may be surprised to find that even I thought that Franco was coherent in his arguments. I said coherent not justified. I particularly like his idea of a holistic approach to institutional reform intended to sanitise the business of government and democracy from the impending rot caused by the PLPN. I cannot not like this kind of thinking. It’s what J’accuse has been on about for a long long time. The retorts from Edwin and Michael were obvious – from the denial that PLPN act in their own interests to the dismissal of the importance of a role for other parties and forces in the country.

Then again it will be back to business once the election is called. As Arnold pointed out mid-program no reforms will take place before the next election. Forget a law on party financing, on data protection of individuals and other similar safeguards. Protect you from the parties? Ma tarax. I am told that NET TV reported today that the PL has started taking action in court to deprive expats from their votes. I am still waiting for the denial from Muscat. Who knows we might constitute an additional danger to the “instability” of the country. So yes. No changes before the election. Which means no new thresholds. No nationwide district. No tweaks in favour of proportional representation. AD are still up shit creek with no paddle and with no visible candidates to attract the protest voters who cannot get it into themselves to vote PL.

Which brings me to the boathouse challenge. It’s a legitimate challenge. AD wants PL and PN to commit to remove boathouses in Armier. Here’s Cacopardo:

With a general election seemingly on the radar, the Nationalist Party and Labour Party should take up Alternattiva Demo­kratika’s challenge and openly declare their stand on these boathouses if they want to gain credibility with the local environmental lobby, which has advanced into something more than a simple lobby.

It’s an important matter. Of the kind that has often the potential of exposing PLPN’s duplicity in these matters. Remember Gonzi’s letter to boathouse owners? Remember the pandering of PLPN to hunters? Last minute promises to specific sectors such as the LGBT movement are rumoured to have swung the last election. So AD is asking for something simple. A commitment. On paper. Will the big parties take up the challenge? Will voters give the challenge any importance?

My guess? AD will be ignored as they have always been. Because they are a non-entity. Like the last standing boathouse they are too small to be noticed. And anyway we are busy voting for the next party that is to become our permanent grudge. Busy shooting ourselves in the foot.

Because we have been taught to believe the stupid lie: if we want everything to change, then everything must remain the same.

Fuck you Tommasi di Lampedusa.

 

*not really only but it’s what is in the news right now.

Prep Talk for an Election

The Debono Damocles’ Sword still hangs on the nationalist government notwithstanding all the peace entreaties of the last hours. Lawrence Gonzi must be plucking away at his own version of “loves me – loves me not” petals while rumour has it that the strategy team at Pietà are already hard at work preparing for a tough campaign. So what we have really is speculation about the “when” of an election and the closer we get to the official expiry date of the nationalist mandate the more the “if” becomes superfluous. It’s all well and good for the punters and underground betters who would slip a euro or two on the outcome of Thursday’s confidence vote but if we were to look at the happenings from a wider point of view the importance of this moment is minor. Trivial even.

For the day will come when the election is called – with or without a Franco tantrum – and the nation will shift to election gear without as much as a by-your-leave. That day will mark the first day in the life of Franco the non-entity, relegated to the footnotes of history and the school reports of a Jesuit college. It will also be the end of speculation as to whether an election should take place and this will be replaced by speculation on who will get the most votes. We’ve seen the polls that talk of swings of point advantages and of the presumed underdogs. We are still in the realm of electioneering though – it’s all about tactic. When to call the election, what marketing and spin to push in the run up to gather people’s attention, and then we move into the appearances – the debates, the flaws and the track records.

All well and good. We are after all experts in the field. If Italy is a nation of football coaches, Malta is a nation of election supremos. Everybody knows what it takes to win an election. Or to lose it. What we do seem to be forgetting more and more – as we are all taken up with suppositions, political chess moves and admiration/scorn at the latest politician who makes his move in the arena – what we seem to be forgetting is that politics is about content. You know: the program, the manifesto, the ideas, the management plan, the principles espoused by the candidates. Yep those. Because whether Franco caves in on Thursday or whether we will have an election close to the next budget makes no difference. Theoretically we need to be voting on content.

And my friends, lend me your ears – I’ll repay you with interest – of content there does not seem to be much. Gatt, Cachia Caruana and lord knows who else might be locked in some room planning strategy but if they are going by the same measure as last time round then strategy involves packaging muck and shit and selling it as gold in the hope that enough consumers fall for it. There will also be large helpings of “the others are a crock of unelectable shite” to go around – which is short of a synoptic way of saying “hey, who cares what we have to offer – so long as you don’t get the other bunch”.

Now if I was a part of the Nationalist party with its history I would be speaking in the language of sacrifices and principles. This is the time of sackcloth and rolling up of sleeves. This is the time for the party to look inwards and ask itself who it wants to be and what principles it wants to espouse. From the social (education, pensions, solidarity) to the economic (how to run a nation responsibly, thriftily while stimulating creativity and open competition). First get your DNA in place. Then comes the all important part. Only get people on board who are willing to fight for this plan. They must believe in these principles more than they must yearn for power. For power is borrowed in trust but principles should be for life.

The sacrifice that a reformed nationalist party must be prepared to make is that it should be clear that it prefers principles over power. A minority in parliament with strong beliefs is a stronger foundation for the future than a ramshackle combination of mercenaries prepared to win the temporary vote but without a clue about the road ahead.

This is the real prep talk that should be on the lips of the nationalist party team right now. It should be obvious that power for power’s sake is a dangerous weapon indeed. And I have the feeling that the first person to notice this will be Joseph Muscat should he wake up in a Castille office the first working day after the election.