Category: Constitutional Development

Categories
Constitutional Development Politics

Timing Anglu’s comedy secret

timing_akkuza

 

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.

Categories
Constitutional Development Politics

Article 42, ISIS and neutrality

article42_akkuza

There has been quite a flutter in Malta since Francois Hollande decided to invoke article 42(7)  of the Lisbon Treaty. Even without the eccentric shenanigans of former PM Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici, questions were being raised as to how and to what extent Malta would be committed thanks to this invocation. I thought of providing a little Q&A, just like in parliament, but without the nigi hemm u nifqghek bits.

1. First of all, what does Article 42(7) state?

Article 42 (7) TEU states:

If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.

2. So. This means war right?

No it does not. At least not in the sense that the army blessed and formed in the image of Manuel Mallia will be sent to the front to stand shoulder to shoulder with peshmergas. Nor does it mean that we will have AFM troops patrolling the Champs Elysees any time soon. The emphasis in article 42(7) is on aid and assistance and, more specifically, on the fact that the “security and defence policy” of certain Member States should not be prejudiced. This means two things:

a) Firstly, it means that any state invoking article 42(7) can negotiate individually with any other Member State (and crucially without the need to use any of the EU institutions) any temporary form of aid and assistance.  Each Member State is responsible for determining its contribution on the basis of what they deem to be necessary, which does not necessarily mean the deployment of military assets.

b) Secondly, and more importantly in the eyes of many in Malta, the fact that the security and defence policy of certain Member States is clearly invoked is a direct reference to the ‘neutral’ status of states such as Ireland, Austria and Finland – to give an example of some others. What that means is that notwithstanding any interpretation of military intervention that might be given by states dealing under this article, this obligation stops when the security and defence policy of certain States does not allow it. The second paragraph referring to NATO commitments is a further reinforcement of this distinction.

3. Oh so we are not at war then.

That’s a nice one. Modern politicians of the Hollande mould have a tendency to slip quickly into the language of war once a terrorist attack takes place. This “tradition” is new to this century ever since Commander in Chief Bush declared war on Al-Qaeda. Unlike the 70s and 80s when a terrorist bomb attack or shooting never really translated to a casus belli the political psyche of the post 9/11 words seems to require such heavy handed references and we are living in an age where France will now even try to provoke the UN to declare a war on a state whose existence nobody beyond the self-declared caliphate acknowledges.

Still. In the microcosm of Muscat’s land,  we will first engage in a debate of “neutrality” clauses in our constitution. The significance of such clauses dwindles into nothing when one considers that they were intended to deal with a specific battle between superpowers (a battle that no longer exists) and that in any case they would be invoked in case of a war between states – and not neutrality in the face of the war on terrorism. Another thing, Muscat’s government spent most of its legislature whingeing about the fact that immigration problems are a common problem that should be faced and borne equally by all EU states.

Calling oneself out of the fight on terrorism by relying on an outdated and practically inapplicable neutrality clause is hypocritical to say the least. By saying this I am not advocating participation by Malta on military activity but rather that Malta’s attitude towards security and its contribution to ensuring that the borders of the European Unoion are impervious to terrorists leaves much to be desired. From the Algeria VISA scandal, laughed off by our Chief Salesman to the thousands of Libyan Residencies to the continued insistence of this government to transform Malta into one big trojan horse for entry into the EU… these are ample examples as to how Malta’s contribution to the war on terror could be vastly improved.

4. Where does that leave us?

Well it leaves us with an EU that is gearing up to battle the amorphic monster that is “terrorism” with a series of knee-jerk reactions. It leaves us with a government in Malta that ironically needs to wake up and smell the coffee for the reasons outlined above.

Most of the time, it seems, it leaves us reverting to the centuries old adage: si vis pacem, para bellum.

Categories
Constitutional Development Mediawatch Politics

Politics, for example

debono_akkuza

Yes, Giovanna Debono should resign. Her position in parliament as a representative of the people is untenable so long as her husband is under investigation for abuse of office. The sad truth is that the moment a minister employs his or her spouse or close relatives within their own ministry their position should no longer be tenable. Robert Musumeci, still posing as some kind of visionary for the hypothetical “movement” (that is none other than an opportunistic collection of gravy train riders) believes that we should wait for a “fair hearing”. Musumeci sat for a law degree virtually by correspondence (he will tell you presence at a lecture does not a law student make – which could be true) and regularly suffers from literal reproduction of positivist garbage you would expect from the vast majority of what is regurgitated from university today.

Fair hearing is for the criminally accused. Sure. It has absolutely nothing to do with the recognition of administrative and political responsibility. The basic manual of political representation (let alone constitutional law principles) would tell you that in order to be above reproach a person in political power should not employ close relatives. The assumption being that the mere employment of such relatives is the beginning of the path to abuse of office. It would be hard for someone in Musumeci’s movement to grasp such a concept. Impossible even. The Gozo Minister employs his spouse within his ministry. Our energy minister’s wife was “employed” by this government without so much as a justification and with a contract of employment the terms of which are shrouded in secrecy. Even the Emperor’s (sorry, PM) wife is prone to carving out for herself a role that is nowhere mentioned in the constitution. It would be ok if such a role were not costing money to the electorate. Yet it does.

Back to DebonoGate. There is no doubt in my mind that Debono will join the blacklist of ex-PN ministers tainted with a whiff of corruption – even if Anthony Debono manages to survive the trials and tribulations of a court of justice. Ninu Zammit, Michael Falzon, Giovanna Debono. The “old way” of doing politics that was allegedly swept aside two years to this day is still waiting to be judged. Simon Busuttil’s party will still be answering for this kind of sins for quite some time yet. Incidentally, the PM should take note that he risks becoming an accomplice to covering up any crimes of corruption if he chooses to sit on reports and whistleblower information until when it pays him to cause a fracas and deviate attention from the troubles within his house. Today’s Debono news paid perfectly to help people forget that we should be inaugurating the promised Power Station.

The PLPN way is still very much alive. This blog, born in 2004, has long warned that the system is one that promotes a race to mediocrity and that will constantly produce stories of corruption, nepotism, cronyism and abuse of power. The former PN government’s sins are now being brought to light – and however erred must pay. Muscat’s government has proven only that it is a case of “same, same but different”. In many cases it is even worse because this government that was supposed to herald change is only good at justifying blatant abuses by claiming it is only repeating what was done before – u hallik mill-ottimista. Simon Busuttil is discovering that change is not only about words but also about deeds and that in order to make a difference actions must follow.

It sucks being bang in the middle between two behemoths that struggle to catch up with the twenty-first century. It sucks being so right about what is so wrong with this country. What sucks most is that we seem to never learn.

Today is a three-fold anniversary. Franco Debono turns 41, the labour government turns 2 and Internazionale FC turn 106. It never rains….

In un paese pieno di coglioni ci mancano le palle.

Categories
Constitutional Development Mediawatch

The Blame Game & Simon

blame_akkuzaOpposition leader Busuttil was lambasted from some quarters for having dared suggest that the whole Enemalta procurement scandal was actually abused of as electoral fodder by Muscat and his men. What Busuttil suggested was really not too hard to understand – if the information was available long before the election loomed ominously, why was it withheld until a time when it would pay Labour in opposition as an extra baton to imply government corruption?

Busuttil was not implying that the information should have been kept quiet until after the election (who would think such a thing anyway?) but rather that it should have surfaced when it was discovered and not much later. While the PAC continues on its fishing expedition trying to pin the whole scandal onto Lawrence Gonzi Busuttil’s kind of assertion will fall on deaf ears or attract the playground type of response that the Labour machine has been honed to give.

The HSBC Swissleaks now adds to the intrigue of the Farrugia Brothers discoveries in that it provides an easier target with the cliches straight out of conspiracy theory books – which is not to say that there is nothing underhand going on in the world of procurement, government permits and the like. The problem lies elsewhere. In Malta there is no such thing as investigation beyond politically motivated with-hunts. The politically motivated is also limited in its extent since oftentimes the investigators have a huge interest in making sure that they do not in turn become investigated.

We just have to look at what happened in Italy in the early nineties to understand what I am getting at. Our political parties have developed a system of self-preservation that became ever more evident during the last election. Rules and laws of the overall system have gradually been adapted to ensure the survival of the two political parties – not just politically but also financially. Hidden behind these rules is a system of favoritisms and expectations that link the political aspect to the economy in general on the one hand (from employment to contracts to tenders to permits) and to the social on the other (medical rights, entertainment “elites” and circles).

It would not just be limited to the parties. Institutional flaws would also surface – authorities controlling pieces of the market suddenly hold strong cards for bargaining: which is where I suspect the whole Enemalta picture fits in. From the most expensive multi-million euro tender to the smallest warden with fine giving powers there is an alternate currency of favoritism and favour. Of course if you are the party in government you and your men have a stronger bargaining power. Everybody gets their unjust desserts.

Mani pulite in Italy uncovered a clear system where bungs were paid to the pentapartito (five main parties from DC to PC) whenever anybody anywhere wanted to merely conduct business. No bung (tangente), no party (tender). Does this happen in Malta? The evidence seems to be pointing to it having happened on a regular basis – not necessarily with the blessing of politicians – and that it can still be occurring to this day.

Labour seems hell-bent on institutionalizing the system further. There is no longer a need to hide the “debts” owed to supporting lobbies. It is translated immediately to enabling laws or worse still – as the forthcoming threat of an amnesty for all MEPA violations shows – an actual conspiracy to render the illegal legal. Illegal constructions will enjoy a bonifico of huge proportions and consequences – all so as to appease the debts that got Labour into power. The network between social and business interests intertwining with government is becoming more and more dangerous. We do not have a pool of inquiring magistrates as the Italians did and in some way we can consider that a blessing of sorts given how some people here tend to interpret the laws.

Simon Busuttil was right though in turning up the heat on Muscat. The whole Enemalta investigation is misguided if it turns into a fishing expedition on Lawrence Gonzi. If, rather than speculating in the style of our tabloids, proper questions were asked as to how our whole system is beginning to stink of favoritism, cronyism and party-instigated corruption then, maybe, we could be getting somewhere.

 

Categories
Citizenship Constitutional Development Mediawatch

Expression is free

expression_akkuzaOn his way to the Philippines Pope Francis conceded yet another few comments with regards to the Charlie Hebdo massacre in France. It’s the Pope speaking – don’t forget he was considered for a long time to be infallible. Bergoglio is a great communicator and has won back many sheep to the fold of Catholicism thanks to his attitude and humility. I don’t know if it is the euphoria of the moment or the relaxed atmosphere of a casual interview during a flight but Bergoglio’s qualification of the freedom of expression made me cringe.

“Imagine my assistant insulted my mother”, he said, “then he would be risking a punch.” Really Francis? Since when is that the standard Catholic answer? Whatever happened to turn the other cheek to begin with? But I am not here to tell Francis what his religion teaches as to how to react to violence or insult. What worries me is that there is little different between Bergoglio justifying a punch for an offence and an Imam in London claiming that the Charlie Hebdo journalists asked for it. It’s no different from the reaction in some quarters that called for a limit to the freedom of expression to be set at the prohibition of causing offence.

Right now it is tough for citizens of the nations that are run by the western democratic paradigm to reconcile their ideas of liberty with that of Charlie Hebdo’s freedom to insult and offend a cult. Can an opinion be damaging? Can it be allowed to be damaging? If I believe that stories like the immaculate conception and resurrection are absolute hogwash am I allowed to lampoon them in cartoon fashion? What does the freedom of expression say about that?

Well, in France the courts have already had to deal with this kind of question. There is a difference between the use of the freedom of expression to parody, mock and, yes, even offend on the one hand (which is allowed) and the use of the freedom of expression to incite hatred or call to violence. The reasoning is that nothing is sacred when it comes to the boundaries of freedom of expression. There are of course mechanisms to protect persons who feel damaged by another’s expression. You can see the right to protect against libel and calumny of course. But when it comes to mocking religious figures – there is no limit. Mock and be damned.

Why then are people arrested if they tweet or post on the internet in support of the attackers of Hebdo’s offices? Are they not expressing their opinion too? Well yes they are but they are also justifying the crimes by their acts. In France it is called “apology of terrorism”. It is seen as a step towards incitement to violence and hatred and that is why it is not allowed.

The difference is sophisticated. It requires a level of intellectual engagement that is not available to all. Living in a liberal democratic society requires that kind of sophistication. It takes a level of intellectual engagement to control the savage instinct of resorting to violence when one feels offended and instead to dismiss the efforts at lampooning as puerile schoolyard humour. Life in a western liberal democracy is not for everyone. Many would prefer to be shielded from offence by governments that censor and prevent caricature. Theirs is not the promised land of the west. They would prefer to be able to punch, flog, whip, punish a lampooner than simply look away and not take notice of anything that so deeply offends their sentiments.

They would resort to laws and bullying to silence where possible. If the law does not help them in that sense, if it is too liberal then they will exploit the weakness of the politically correct age and claim that this is about islamophobia, antisemitism, irreverent anticatholicism. “Je ne suis pas Charlie” they will tell you but they miss the point.

Because being Charlie does not mean having a predilection for infantile, sexually oriented humour and for easy (too easy) quips about prophets popes and saints. Being Charlie means having a sophisticated understanding of living in a society where others are free to express themselves in accordance to our charters and where the right kind of reaction is one of intellectual engagement not judicial or physical bullying and savagery.

Being Charlie means hearing yet another Yo Mama joke and not having the instinct to punch the joker in the face. Because being Charlie means understanding that the joke is always on you. And that’s as subjective as it can get.

Categories
Constitutional Development Mediawatch

Blasphemy the redundant

blasphemy_akkuzaThe first edition of Charlie Hebdo since the unfortunate events of last week is out tomorrow. The world has been given a preview of the front page which depicts a tearful prophet holding up a placard with the “Je suis Charlie” slogan. The background is in green – the colour of Islam – and the title is “All is forgiven”. The plan is to distribute the special 16 page edition (3 million copies are being printed) in at least 25 countries. It has been translated into four languages, including Arabic.

There is still a major problem though. To many muslims the mere depiction of the prophet is blasphemous. Charlie Hebdo’s irreverent treatment may be shielded from blasphemy laws in most of France (see next paragraph why most and not all) but when it tries to go worldwide in places such as India the issue of blasphemy might be raised all over again.

In the Alsace-Lorraine region they have a minor problem. On paper, blasphemy is still illegal under an article inherited from the German Criminal Code of 1871 when the region was transferred from Germany to France in 1918. I say on paper because when the League for the Justice defence of Muslims tried to have the law applied before a French court the court declared that the blasphemy law had become redundant due to “desuetude” which in layman terms means non-use for a very long time.

The truth is that outside the worlds where sharia or religious laws infiltrate or are one with secular laws, there is no place for a law on blasphemy. It is redundant. This applies all the more strongly in most liberal democracies where the basic charter of fundamental rights or variants thereof are applicable. Just before the attacks on Charlie Hebdo a group of representatives of the major religions (curiously the word “cultes” is used in French) had petitioned Paris to abrogate what the Archbishop of Strasbourg described as “an obsolete law”.

Blasphemy is inherently inapplicable in a secular state. The difficulties abound especially when it comes to the forces of law and order who are supposed to perform on the spot assessments of what could or could not be blasphemous in order to eventually effect an arrest. Blasphemy is in fact not restricted to one religious belief by definition (even the Maltese law on blasphemy that subsists to this day extends protection to all approved religons). So how on earth can your average policeman, called upon to intervene on a supposed commission of an act of blasphemy , assess the situation without being extremely well versed in the tenets of each and every religion which could be offended?

In truth the issue of offense  – which is the other side of the coin of the freedom of expression and which could constitute the barrier or eventual limit to such expression – is sufficiently treated and dealt with in other, wider provisions that deal with that very freedom of expression. Blasphemy is redundant, useless and archaic.

The other problem faced by  Western Liberal Democracies (my capitals) is that they must be able to explain the register of rights and duties that are expected of citizens wanting to partake of their civilisation and society. These rights and duties are codified in rules that form the backbone of society and that everyone is expected to abide by. The rules are enacted by representatives of the people with the sovereign will  entrusted unto them in open elections. They are applied by the executive branch and interpreted by the judiciary. This civic process ensures that we live in a system of rule of law with clearly defined rights and protection. Cives Europaeus Summus ut Liberi Esse Possimus – we are citizens of Europe (read Western Liberal Democracy) and thus we are free.

In a Western Liberal Democracy you do not take up arms and kill somebody who has insulted you or your beliefs. You react using the tools, rights and laws that are as accessible to you as they are to others. That is what is meant by integration too. You can be a fanatical muslim, an orthodox christian or one of those insufferable atheists pouncing on anything religious at any opportunity. You are expected to behave like a model citizen in order to integrate in the society that welcomes all and gives them a myriad of freedoms so long as they do not hurt others.

It’s simple really. A basic set of tenets that both Yeshua of Nazareth and Mohamet might have subscribed to. It is a society that allows you to be strong in your beliefs while respecting those of others – no matter how irreverent they may seem in your eyes.

Ours is a society where to resort to violence, bullying or savagery in order to impose one’s views is abhorred. In fact it is considered blasphemous.

#jesuisciveseuropaeus