Much is being said about Margaret Thatcher and her views on Europe but do you know what her views on Europe were? Here is the speech that the Iron Lady had delivered at my second alma mater – the College of Europe in Bruges. It gives more than idea on what Thatcher thought about Europe.
Politics
Maggie of Iron
It would be amiss to call Margaret Thatcher one of the world’s first stateswomen. She wasn’t. Elizabeth the First comes to mind – a monarch true but a stateswoman all the same. The shopkeeper’s daughter from Finchley was one hell of a stateswoman though and would not have been too bothered about the issue of primacy in time. The iconic figure has all the prerequisites to be become a giant in the history of politics – a sans pareil in many respects. Watching “The Road to Finchley” recently made me realise what tough material the iron lady was made of.
With Baroness Thatcher we do not only lose a huge piece of the jigsaw of political giants of the last century – we also witness the passing away of a dying breed. You may have disagreed with her politics, her aggressive militancy against communism, her tough approach with slack unionism (treating Britain with socialism is like treating leukaemia with leeches) and her ever so distant approach to the Common Market. You may not have appreciated her balls, her bull and her gall – tha lady who was not for turning might not have been your type yet she had one defining quality that appeared in a much more pronounced way than in most politicians of her time. With Margaret Thatcher you knew where you stood.
This was a politician who would call a spade a spade and who has been described as undiplomatic and whose rather direct ways were perhaps only pardoned because notwithstanding all outward appearance she was a lady playing the game in the men’s playground. Margaret and her politics had spine and backbone. This was not the kind of politician who could conjure up an ephemeral coalition or movement and hide behind a “politics for all” approach based on effortless compromise and pleasant policies. Rather, Margaret’s medicine did not go down well with most of the country to the point that her three-term election as Prime Minister was as surprising as it was effective.
This was not politician who would promise the moon to feed electors who swallow false promises recklessly. This was a responsible conservative with a clear idea of the Britain that she wanted and its role in the world with her beloved partners in the US. She would even shun the Commonwealth if she had to. For Margaret Thatcher’s world was one that was built on clear policies and positions – not compromises. Disagree if you will but you knew where you stood. There was no deceit. Ask the miners. Ask the workers of Britain who woke up to a brutally necessary dawn in the eighties while their cousins in the US were experiencing the Reagonomy revival.
To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects.
A beautiful heritage from Baroness Thatcher. We should not forget it. It should be burnt into the manuals of political movements and onto the foreheads of the pseudo-politicians of today who are busy playing a game that is beyond their wit, their ken, hell their very conception.
Politics, she would have told them, is not about being popular but about being effective and clear. Politics is about leading not about prancing in public and bluffing about leaving the reins in the hands of the people.
… so popular to the point of being despised. As Frankie Boyle put it, she could very well become the first politician to have the 21 gun salute pointed at her coffin. You know, just to make sure that she’s dead.
Fare thee well Iron Lady.
spread the word:
World day against Cyber Censorship
The 12th of March is the World day against cyber censorship. The tools of the digital age have thrown back the frontiers of darkness and ignorance that have previously been used to keep whole populations in check. Reporters Without Borders and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) are two organisations that are active in the ongoing battle for freedom of information particularly in the battle against the use and abuse of laws to silence or block the digital (cyber) modes of expression. The Arab Spring and the continuous struggle in China both prove that digital activism can be effective especially in countries where the freedom of expression is a luxury. You may be familiar, for example, with the work of Yoani Sanchez – the Cuban dissident blogger who has become a symbol of freedom of expression in a country that was obsessed with control of information.
It is not just the standard totalitarian regimes who have trouble with information. Even the healthiest of democracies might suffer bouts of allergic intolerance to the independent minded expression of ideas. Again, a combination of ignorance that is nurtured by the establishment and abuse of freedoms based on a misunderstanding of their value would contribute to the fouling of an atmosphere of open expression and intellectual engagement.
On a more local level the recent events on the day of silence might be misconstrued as a formal attempt to gag the new participants in the social discourse. That would be mistaken. The rule of silence (or reflection) might be an archaic rule but is a law of the land just the same. It is not a blanket censorship that exists eternally but a particular moment of silence imposed with what might be a misguided motivation but is a rational motivation just the same. Whether or not the day of silence can still serve its purpose in the digital age of facebook and twitter (or whether it should be extended to such means) is not really a matter of censorship with political ends but really a obvious example of a law that needs updating to take into consideration the modern circumstances. This is all the more necessary in the absence of objective interpretations that could per se have sufficed to fill such a lacuna.
A dangerous situation is created when rules such as the rule of reflection are abused of by parts of the political establishment in order to make whatever political capital they might deem fit. Such a danger is aggravated if members of the executive forces (whose duty it is to protect and serve) and members of the fourth estate (journalists whose duty would be to objectively investigate) become witting or unwitting co-conspirators in such an abuse of the legal provisions.
On this World Day Against Cyber Censorship J’accuse would like to reiterate a fundamental disagreement with the current laws affecting expression during election campaigns in Malta. This includes the rules appertaining to silence on the day before and on the day of elections, the rules covering the “balancing of opinions” on public broadcasting, the rules regulating the funding of political party campaigns and the lack of rules (or lack of application thereof) covering the blatant abuse and violation of digital rights with regards to the collection and reuse of personal digital data.
Happy World Day Against Cyber Censorship.
Blog… and be damned!
(illustration is an adaptation of the Reporters Without Frontiers cover to their report on Cyber Censorship)
spread the word:
This honourable judge
Life on the island past the electoral truce has been anything but boring. There are times when the concept of boredom can begin to seem to be an unattainable desirable bereft of the negative connotations that normalcy and monotony might normally carry. These are the kind of times best described as “interesting” in the Chinese curse sort of way. Just as the political parties seemed to be settling into a faux festive period “truce” from the campaign that had never begun we get a wave of news items that keep tongues wagging, the media reporting and above all the parties a-busying.
Top of the list of interesting news items – beyond the extensions of Dalligate and the mafia style executions – is reserved for the judiciary and in particular for two of the members of our judicial bench who are in the eye of the storm. Judge Farrugia Sacco is in the throes of a renewed battle for his seat having had a new attack from the IOC – determined to take steps against those of its members who exposed their institution to the risk of disrepute. Another Judge, Ray Pace, is now in prison awaiting trial with the serious accusation of bribery pending above his head.
It is an ugly period for the legal branch of our separated powers and the two stories have thrust another dagger into the already weak levels of faith that the judiciary enjoyed with the general population. Trust and faith in the law is fundamental within a democracy and this kind of weakness seriously endangers the workings of our constitutional mechanisms. That is also the basic reason why the constitutional checks and balances that should come into play must work with clockwork perfection in order to ensure that the very foundations of the legal system are still intact. Public trust is the one and only priority.
Farrugia Sacco
Which brings me to the role of our political parties. We first had the Farrugia Sacco debate. In this respect the “Ceasar’s Wife” argument that I had touched upon in the Dalligate saga comes back with full force when considering how to proceed with a member of the bench who has become embroiled in such an issue. The key concept in the “Ceasar’s wife” principle is the idea of “having to be above suspicion”. This is not a question of actually being guilty but of having to appear beyond the mere suspicion. In this light, and without even making any further considerations on what actually went down in that hotel room where the Olympic tickets were held, Judge Farrugia Sacco should have long tendered his resignation in order to deal with the ghosts and suspicions peacefully and individually without carrying this baggage around in his role as a judge.
Is it so straightforward? Yes. Did we need the Ombudsman writing to the President? Not really. Even before the Commission for the Administration of Justice was involved Judge Farrugia Sacco should have done the right thing of his own accord. By refusing to do so he should have forced the hand of our politicians in parliament who are the guardians of an important constitutional mechanism with which they have been entrusted: the process of impeachment. Which is where my first beef with Joseph Muscat arises. His position on the Farrugia Sacco issue is that we must wait for the Commission for the Administration of Justice to do its work before actually impeaching the judge. Like hell we do.
Joseph Muscat’s attempt to distinguish between politics and the judiciary is an amateur approach to our constitutional politics and a dangerous situation whereby the leader of the opposition is openly reneging on his DUTY towards citizens to act as ultimate guardian of our constitutional rights. A judge in Farrugia Sacco’s situation loses his legitimacy to sit in open judgement of others in no matter what area of law. If he cannot see that of his own accord then it is up to the politicians to act as guardians of our prerogatives as citizens. Once again Muscat is doing what he does best – acting as Pilate and washing his hands of a decision that he is duty bound constitutionally to guarantee. Weak.
Pace
The Ray Pace matter seems to have brought Muscat to his senses. Suddenly the judiciary is no longer a matter for the Commission for the Administration of Justice. Admittedly the case seems to be more open and shut given the context though there is no reason to distinguish between the two when it comes to the Ceasar’s Wife test. In this case the issue of whether Ray Pace is above suspicion is more glaringly obvious – the arraignment and arrest make a decision in this respect all the more straightforward.
What did impress me was the attempts – as of early morning – by Evarist Bartolo to turn the issue into a political battlefield. He posted a link to a report of the arrest on facebook with the words “Ara f’hiex gabuh pajjiz” (Look what they have brought the country to). Incredible. To begin with it is obvious to any free thinking individual that when appointing a judge you can never foresee his turning to the dark side (to use Star Wars terms). How Ray Pace’s alleged actions are imputable to the current government and its policies beggars belief. Sure enough Evarist deleted any comments I made on the particular status – no worries I have snapshots on my iPad (once bitten, twice shy – right Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando?).
Thankfully the Labour party could not do otherwise than agree to an eventual impeachment of Ray Pace. Muscat did add that a new Labour government would review the methods of appointment of judges. No harm there right? Definitely not. Given that a rebel MP recently made it part of his personal agenda to point out inconsistencies in the field of the judiciary it should not come as too much of a surprise to any of us that sooner or later Labour would jump on that particular part of the wagon. A knee-jerk reaction it remains though and I very much suspect that we are in for a bit of patchwork and tweaks that would still accomodate the PLPN manner of appointments.
And here is another crux. I posted a status on facebook pointing out that given their record Labour would best reform the system by staying out of the appointments system. Of course the world is full of literal minded partisans who would be eager to point out that the same system that gave us Farrugia Sacco (Labour) and Pace (Labour) also gave us Arrigo (Nationalist). Which makes it allright then does it not? My point was meant to be sarcastic – Muscat’s party does not have much of a record to go on when it comes to appointments and the fact that the nationalist party too has had its fair share of nutty appointments is neither here nor there.
Judiciary
Do you remember how recently a government proposal to increase salaries for the judiciary was shot down by a labour party? The Labourites had had a sudden attack of “consistency” by arguing that if the MPs (political) could not get a raise (will we ever forget the 500€ raise?) then neither could the judges and magistrates (judiciary). Because obviously the Muscat idea that politics and judiciary should not be mixed did not apply at the time.
There seems to be a general consensus, even within the practitioners in the field, that our judicial system is due a major overhaul. The criteria for judges and magistrates appointment remain the number of years in practice. When a non-court practitioner was once proposed for the bench, court practitioners were up in arms claiming that his years of practice did not count – an odd reason if there was one. From what I can gather the conventional way to become a magistrate/judge until now has been to manifest your intention in the right circles and hopefully… if you were insistent enough and of the right hue… you would get your turn eventually.
The system has produced many a good magistrate or judge but it has flaws. It is haphazard and based on the wrong criteria. I am also told that in some cases what was needed to get onto the bench was a track record of an attempt at running of parliament. Once you got your brownie points in that field then you would have proven loyalty and a position on the bench would follow. Again. It is not the rule and is not across the board. The problem lies in the lack of clarity and in the lack of modern, clear criteria as to why a person should make it to the bench.
In other nations, like Germany, you actually study to get to the bench – not to become a lawyer first. Interpreting and applying the law requires a different set of skills than pleading before the court. Academic knowledge, logical and linguistic skills as well as good analytical methodology and organisation form part of what could be a key set of indicators in the future. A place on the bench should not be a prize for time served – let alone loyalty.
The kind of reform that is required is the real area where politics and the judiciary should definitely not merge. The legal world in Malta is not in a nice state. The kind of reform that is required is a big learning curve across the board from the courts, to the faculty of law and its product, to the support services to the long arm of the law that are the police. Education is a key factor – education to start with and education in the continuing sense.
Unfortunately I have to end this long post with the usual pinpointing of the heart of the problem. Our legal system has also been affected by the rot that is the PLPN method. Appointments and laws through the years are made with the parties and their survival in mind. It is incredible that in this day and age we can think in terms of “their” or “our” judge. It is mind boggling that judicial appointments have to be thought of in this manner and the legal community has much to feel at fault about in this respect. I am not unaware of the irony that our parliament has a heavy representation of lawyers within it and that this being the case it will be even more difficult to find people prepared to think out of the box.
When Muscat wakes up to the reality of the matter and stops thinking in populist terms, when Gonzi’s PN quit the faffing around and decide to grasp the bull by the horns I should hope that a huge debate will ensue and that within an appropriate forum, with the appropriate experts, the much needed reform of our Judicial & Legal systems is embarked upon with earnest.
Remember. We are all servants of the law, that we may be free.
spread the word:
Oħroġ il-għaġeb
Illejla, f’dawn in-naħat tal-Ewropa it-tfal ġa bdew jaqilgħu ir-rigali. Fil-Lussemburgu, il-Lorena u l-Alsazja għada jasal San Niklaw, akkumpanjat minn Pietru l-iswed. San Niklaw jew Sinterklaas (għalhekk Santa Claus – u QATT KrissmissFader) iqassam ir-rigali u Pietru l-iswed iqassam il-ħelu. Din it-tradizzjoni qatt ma waslet Malta u aħna bqajna bir-regola tal-milied fil-ħamsa u għoxrin u r-rigali lejliet. Għadek tisma lil min jgħid li r-rigali iġibhom “il-bambin” imma anki t-tradizzjoni ta’ Santa Claus qabdet avolja f’pajjiżna jiġi għoxrin jum wara li jiġi hawnhekk u fil-pajjiżi il-baxxi.
Sadattant bħalissa qed jintramaw il-presepji. Tradizzjoni mill-isbaħ li tinvolvi ukoll sengħa. Il-pasturi li bihom jiżżejnu il-presepji huma bosta iżda hemm dawk il-bażiċi li jiffurmaw il-qofol tal-presepju. Ma jistax jonqos li jkollok il-familja ta’ Ġużeppi u Marija imdawrin bil-ħmar u baqra (għas-sħana qalulhom – ifhem id-dawl kien ġa jiswa dak iż-żmien) u ikollok l-imrieħel tan-ngħaġ bir-rgħajja, l-islaten Magi u oħrajn. Malta ikollna ukoll pastur speċjali – l-għaġeb. Is-soltu konna inqiegħduh fuq il-maxtura iħares imbellaħ lejn is-sema. Jistagħġeb bl-egħġubijiet ta’ dak il-lejl u jirrapreżenta ukoll il-faxxinu tal-mistiku u l-mhux magħruf.
Din is-sena f’lejliet San Niklaw ftakart fil-ħruġ ta’ l-għaġeb. Hekk kif il-partiti għadhom kif qablu f’moratorium għal waqt iż-żmien tal-festi se jħalluna b’xi egħġubijiet minn tagħhom qabel ma jinżel is-siparju fuq is-sena u ngawdu il-festi tal-Milied. Il-vici Kap il-ġdid tal-PN kellu xi intervisti. Ma kienx biżżejjed li l-kollegi tiegħu il-Prim Ministru u dak tal-Finanzi għamluha ta’ San Niklaw u Pietru l-iswed xi jiem qabel u qassmu xi rigali qabel il-milied. Kellu jiġi hu ħa jisraq ftit mix-xena u jxandar mal-erbat irjieħ dwar l-egħġubijiet u l-bidla li kienet ser iġġib il-wasla tiegħu.
Suppost kellha tkun priedka ħelwa, b’dak il-wiċċ ta’ l-abbatin jiddeklama minn fuq il-pulptu misluf f-nofsillejl “Aħbar ta’ ferħ jien ser nagħtikom… illum twieled partit ġdid.” Minflok qaluli li l-ewwel impressjoni hija ta’ arroganza imġedda. Arroganza tat-tip li “tagħna kollox tajjeb u tagħhom xejn sew”. Forsi smajt wisq minn dawk li ma jridux jafu bil-bxara it-tajba imma jidher li l-ewwel ħarġa tal-għaġeb ma marritx kif suppost.
Imbagħad għall-par condicio nazzjonali illejla se jintrama pulptu ieħor sabiex egħġubijiet oħra jitwasslulna mill-ogħli tal-għerf ġewwa kamret il-poplu. Hemmhekk il-Kap Laburista se jispjegalna kif ir-rigali li ġabu San Niklaw u Pietru l-iswed tant għoġbuh li se jżommhom u jagħmilhom tiegħu. Se jgħidilna ukoll fl-istess nifs kif minkejja dan se jagħżel li ma jibgħatx Thank You Note u anzi jitfa vot kontra… Oħroġ il-għaġeb imma hawn min jaħseb li din ukoll hija koerenza.
Mhux ta b’xejn li pajjiżna għandu din il-politika li tixraqlu. Inħobbu nistagħġbu bix-xejn qisna erba mitt elf pastur mitluq fuq il-maxtura b’ħalqna miftuħ imbellħin b’dak li l-għajnejn jaraw iżda li s-sensi le jifhmu.
Illejla lejliet San Niklaw se jinħareġ il-għaġeb. Gloria in Excelsis… u għada jisbaħ ukoll.
Nota> Ir-ritratt huwa meħud minn presepju li ittella’ din is-sena bix-xogħol siewi ta’ membri tad-Diviżjoni Maltija tat-Traduzzjoni fi ħdan il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja Ewropea bil-għan li tiġi irrappreżentata parti mill-kultura Maltija u li jsir ġbir għall-karita.. Kull xebh għal għoġġieba vera huwa purament każwali.
spread the word:
Forgotten Sons
Nikki Dimech has been condemned to one year in jail. The plight of the damned Nationalist Sliema Councillors seems aeons away now. The Sliema council ills were the first clear external signs that all was not well within the PN structure. We look back to the meetings between Paul Borg Olivier and the ill-fated councillors with a new perspective now. Dimech would be painted as the rotten apple immediately hung dry by the very party that had judged him suitable for the job. Of course with such a wide net of local council elections parties are bound to choose a bad apple or two every now and then but it is the manner in which hands are washed that is impressive.
The party structures are geared to win elections but are much less well equipped when it comes to supporting and monitoring the party representatives on the councils. The PN reaction once the court judgement was announced is puerile to say the least. “We were right”, they thundered in their press release, änd Labour was wrong for criticising how we dealt with Dimech”. That’s all it is really with them. A matter of black and white. Readers will get so easily distracted with this pot and kettle business. They will forget that people like Dimech were backed by the party structures, they were placed on an electoral list to win the votes for the party and to have councillors in place to maintain the party network that is fed on votes – come what may.
Dimech’s prison sentence may be a personal condemnation on a young man who is still in time to recognise his wrongs. It is also an indictment on a party candidate system that is lax and based on the wrong priorities. Dimech and Debono – two by-products of this system have badly backfired in the face of the PN. Are there many more lurking in the background waiting for the dividends of the next election?
The PN would do well to take note.
