Politics

The Four Week Break

It was already clear from the fact that no money votes are being taken in parliament. If we needed any confirmation then this came with the long Easter break that our elected underpaid representatives have taken. The length of this year’s parliamentary Easter recess is four weeks.

In the meantime and run up to this recess we have had the entertaining news coming from the reform committees set up in parliament in order to appease the renegade rebels turned reformers. Anything from constitutional law to bird-hunting becomes fair game (excuse the pun) for these sans-pareil legislators. Our collective political system, working in the twisted ways of which only it is capable, seems to have finally come to terms with the fact that reforms are needed. At least that is the first half of the message.

The second half brings us back to the same starting point much like the proverbial crab. Because while much parleying is being partaken of in parliament, nothing much will come out of the projects unless we will be witnessing a flurry of legislative initiatives at supersonic speed – always hoping that no other renegade majoritarian decides to rock the boat.

The opposition will complain about this but it is busily concerned with misinformation about spending cuts. This in itself is a taxing (excuse the second pun) exercise in contradictions. On the one hand the opposition has turned all its guns on the €40 million worth of expenditure cuts that the government must perforce perform while on the other that same opposition lets its imagination run wild with promises of the spending kind should it ever be relieved of its duties as eternal opposer.

As for the party in government (as distinct from the government) the whole kitchen business seems to be panning out quite unsatisfactorily. One wonders how long Simon Busuttil’s bland expression will entertain the many doubting Thomases who he set out to convert. You can only squeeze out so many half-hearted mea culpas from the nationalist fold and when you combine this fact with the menu of reality bites that Simon must explain to the masses by Pentecost (in as many languages as they can understand – thank God for the Holy Spirit) then the nationalist eggs surely cannot all lie in Busuttil’s basket.

What is really interesting is the relative silence of the usually noisy nationalist pundits and spin-machine. Aside from the various ministerial projects being rolled out in a hurry like an extended red carpet the nationalist machine remains relatively subdued. Even the blogosphere has felt the punch of this (controlled? concerted?) self-gagging exercise. Which leaves the Labour clones clucking in a cacophonous circus of empty noises and barks. Next chapter: poverty and “the precariat” (something to do with poor people or Saint George Preca, or both).

We are left with a couple of figolli to enjoy at the end of this period of fasting and self-denial. It’s also a time of reflection that should lead to the huge celebration with the return of the saviour. Only this time we are really left wondering…

who will it be?

April’s Democratic Fool

Some smart alec at the European Commission decided that the best day to launch the European Citizen’s Initiative would be the first of April. As far as I know the April Fool tradition permeates most EU countries and if there are any which do not ‘celebrate’ it then they must surely have heard of it in being ‘celebrated’ in other countries.

The first of April is not a good idea to launch any kind of initiative and it is particularly inapt for the launching of an initiative that supposedly strengthens the democratic elements of an ailing European Union. So what is the ECI? If you follow the link provided earlier you will find out that the ECI opens up new possibilities for European citizens who could “force” the Commission’s hand into thinking about proposing new legislation.

Basically 7 EU citizens based in 7 different EU countries will be able to set up a committee (a “citizen’s committee”) that will then proceed to formulate a statement of intent and attempt to collect 1 million support signatures. The main obstacle (apart from getting the attention and support of 1 million EU citizens (electronically or on paper) is that the proposal must be in an area in which the Commission is already empowered to legislate.

It’s not easy. Organisations cannot technically form part of the citizen’s committee (so one would assume that pan-European organisations cannot suddenly become unique promoters of causes). On the other hand the initiative shows a lot of trust in electronic collection and promotion of the statements. Democracy does get to cross onto the net. Additionally the potential demos is increased – you do not have to be eligible to vote in your own country to take part in an ECI … you just have to be over 16.

A successful initiative that collects 1,000,000 signatures gets to be properly considered by the Commission and also gets the ear of the European Parliament. Furthermore the Commission, although not obliged to actually propose legislation, must provide a Communication addressing what it plans to do in response to the citizen’s initiative and must give reasons for every action or inaction.

The daunting size of the amount of signatures and the non-enforceability at the end of the tunnel must not discourage EU citizens. There are many positive signs in this new instrument – first among which is the acknowledgement of electronic democracy within the mechanisms of law making. Think ACTA – think how fast public support was whipped over the net. Does one million seem such a huge figure now?

Baby steps. I just wish they did not opt for the first of April for the launch.

Donor Issues

David Cameron is in trouble. He has admitted to hosting dinners for major Tory donors at his private flat at Downing Street  – against payment. Tory Chief fundraiser Peter Cruddas has had to resign in the wake of a scandal after he was filmed by undercover Sunday Times reporters “claiming that he could secure them an audience with the Prime Minister or Chancellor”. Access on offer depended on the size of the donations and he implied that the wish lists by donors could end up being considered in the “policy committee at No 10”.

This morning’s Tory position is that the party will refuse to name any donors who have already taken advantage of this “scheme”. The excuse being put out is that if there were any such dinners they were hosted within the private area of the PM’s flat in Downing Street and therefore the details pertaining to such events would also be private. Which is a load of bollocks. Put simply, if a donor paid anything up to £250,000 it was not to ogle at David and Samantha’s dinner set or sample their culinary intrepidity but rather because of the more appetizing possibilities of influencing public policy. Also David and Samantha do not live in Downing Street because one day they found a good bargain on the property market. They live in Downing Street because the British Prime Minister lives in a flat next door to his office. A flat funded by taxpayer’s money. Private my backside.

The problem here lies not with the idea of parties going round begging for money to keep their circus alive but obviously with the manner with which such monetary collection is performed. Back home Labour politicians have gone all misty eyed at the generosity apparently demonstrated by the man in the street as the PL managed to get its supporters to cough up a little less than the price of a “private dinner” at Downing Street in the course of a one day fund raising event. Evarist Bartolo went on that most public of records (facebook) to declaim that “one euro from a family is better than a million euros obtained from a contractor found on the Yellow Pages”.

Franco Debono has brought the issue of party fundraising to the forefront of Maltese politics, much to the chagrin of both behemoths in parliament who had opiated the population into a reluctant acceptance of the modus operandi. How though will we ever regulate party donations? Will not some rulebook thrown at the very custodians of our political framework fail spectacularly as the PLPN will proceed with their regular charades of “fund raising” where the anonymous benefactor (and purchaser of influence) mingles with the happy one euro families?

So what solution? Should we look across the Atlantic where dinners are openly thrown on a regular basis in order to support candidates? It’s not tombola parties or seven church visits with your local MP – that not so  subtle excuse to justify electoral expenses. It’s more like gala dinners with €1,000 tickets per guest where the creme de la creme of societies lobbyists mingle with politicians and openly flirt with their affiliation. Yes, capitalist money has votes as much as your emancipated self. It either operates in the back corridors as your latest Cruddas auctions off the nation’s public policy to the highest bidder or operates in the open – where you can see who backs who and eventually might even choose to vote for the polticians who are clear about the allegiances who have curried their favour.

The fine link between the lobbyist’s influence and the politician’s decision will never be broken. What could be done is lift the veil of anonymity thus making the pacts clear and the giving the voter a clearer picture of the wider frame of the political horse-trading going on.

Will it work? Hang on to your money. I’m not taking any bets. Or donations.

 

The Stipends…. more or less

A fellow blogger (Alex Grech) recently pointed me to the interesting study of critical discourse analysis and I serendipitously ended up finding this article by a certain Teun Van Dijk called Discourse and Manipulation {{1}}. Oftentimes whenever our politicians speak to us and communicate their ideas we fail to notice how much manipulation is involved. In some books it is called being economic with the truth, in others it is called being deliberately naive and in others it is simply called “acting stupid”.

Former education minister Evarist Bartolo has been frantically facebooking links to articles on Maltastar and l-orizzont reporting his and his colleague Owen Bonnici’s latest pronouncements regarding the reduction in expenditure that the government envisages within the education sector. Owen Bonnici has developed a clear style of the deliberatively naive that tends to stick out more often nowadays. This Labour bonhomme aspiring to ministerial greatness has used this tactic once too often for my liking. Here is the piece that is worrying me:

Labour spokesman for Higher Education Owen Bonnici said on Thursday afternoon that last November Gonzi’s administration presented its budget for 2012 boasting that while other countries were facing problems and taking austerity measures, it was forging ahead and investing more in education.

Bonnici said that now government has reviewed the budget and is cutting its expenditure on the University of Malta (€2 million or -5%), the Malta College for Arts, Science and Technology (MCAST) (€770,000 or -5%), the Junior College (€430,000 or -5%) and the Institute for Tourism Studies (-35%). The budget allocated to stipends for students will be reduced by €100,000.

No wonder Varist is ecstatic. He’d love to no longer be the only minister to have embarked on a drastic reform of the stipend system without any consultation whatsoever. The orizzont title goes one further than Maltastar: €100,000 Inqas fi stipendji. That’s 100k less in stipends. Varist and Bonnici went on a trip criticising the reduction in education spending when all the while they failed to highlight the most important issue: the reduction is in planned expenditure {{2}}. Which makes one hell of a difference. Neither is the government proposing to reduce your stipend dear student. The reduction is in what had been planned to be added to the budget for stipends.

Now there are two points I would like to make here. First of all this post should in no way imply that J’accuse is not in favour of a revised and reviewed stipend system. We believe that time has come for such a review but that the review should still take into consideration the incentive for higher education that stipends still are as well as the challenges faced since EU membership. Ireland, for example, has seen a spike in English students seeking cheaper education. I am still convinced that we could argue a special exception allowing stipends for Maltese residents with regards to a comprehensive policy of encouraging higher education in Malta but that discussion is for another day.

As for Owen and Varist. Well. What can I say. These two men are prattikament fil-gvern. I should hope that they are as aware as anyone else that the €40 million euro in cuts on what had been budgeted in November would be required whether the government was nationalist or labour. It is all well and good to criticise the nationalists for having trumpeted their education investment in November only to have been proved wrong by the Commission who has insisted on their cutbacks. That is legitimate.

What is not legitimate is the impression that Owen and Varist are clearly seeking to give that the 100,000€ cuts in the proposed expenditure on stipend will take the form of individual cuts – as in a reduction in the stipend. The current stipend is what it is and the 100k reduction will not affect it (see below in the technical addendum). Varist would love it to be stipendji sħaħ issue all over again. It is not. What I have not heard from the illustrious gentlemen from the opposition is what cuts they would propose to be made from the expenditure budget in order to fulfil EU requirements.

Every Labour spokesperson has shamed government for reducing spending in his particular department of (in)competence. Lovely. The naked truth of the matter is that there must be a €40 million reduction in expenditure. The planned budget MUST shrink. Are we to assume that once in government Labour will be the approximative budgeteer of the “more or less”?

Thanks. But no thanks Owen and Varist.

P.S. Yep. That’s j’accuse in the photo. Thanks to Mark Camilleri for unearthing this shocking reminder of the ageing process.

The Technical Addendum

The 2012 budget presentation can be found here: Budget 2012. It mentions an investment of €58.2 million in University and Junior college. In the Minister’s Budget Speech  we find that government had allocated €22.3 million for stipends. Compare that figure to the €0.1 million reduction that leads Owen and Varist to conclude that your stipend is under threat. I have looked through the PQs featuring Varist and Owen directed at Dolores Cristina with regards to the budget changes. There are only two as far as I can see: PQs number 32681 and 32678. Here is the full Q&A for PQ 32681:

L-Onorevoli EVARIST BARTOLO
staqsa lill-Onorevoli DOLORES CRISTINA (Ministru tal-Edukazzjoni u x-Xogħol):
B’referenza għall-Budget 2012 approvat minn din il-Kamra, tista’ l-Ministru tgħid kemm tnaqqsu flus min-nefqa fil-qasam edukattiv bħala parti mit-tnaqqis tal-€40 miljun mnaqqsa mill-gvern u liema line items tnaqqsu? Tista’ tagħti r-risposta line item line item?

Tweġiba:
Ngħarraf lill-Onor. Interpellant illi l-Gvern ħa deċiżjoni konxja u responsabbli li jnaqqas €40 miljun min-nefqa tiegħu fid-dawl taċ-ċirkostanzi ekonomiċi internazzjonali li komplew jiddeterjoraw fl-aħħar xhur tal-2011. Il-Gvern ried ipoġġi lilu nnifsu f’pożizzjoni li, jekk il-kriżi ekonomika internazzjonali, jerġa’ jkollha impatt fuq pajjiżna kif ġara fl-2009, il-gvern ikollu r-riżorsi neċessarji biex jerġa’ jintervjeni fl-ekonomija u jħares il-postijiet tax-xogħol.

Il-Ministeru tal-Edukazzjoni u x-Xogħol ukoll qed jagħmel l-isforz tiegħu biex inaqqas l-ispejjeż tal-istess Ministeru, kif ukoll id-dipartimenti u l-entitajiet li jaqgħu taħtu. Dan qed nagħmluh billi nirrestrinġu r-reklutaġġ ta’ ħaddiema ġodda fejn dan possibli, nillimitaw fejn possibbli l-overtime u nsaħħu aktar l-effiċjenza fl-operat. Dan mhux qed isir bi tnaqqis f’investiment kapitali, ta’ servizzi essenzjali bħal professuri, lecturers, għalliema, learning support assistants, kindergarten assistants u professjonijiet oħra li jħarrġu u jagħtu sapport lill-istudenti jew ta’ għajnuniet differenti. Ir-restrizzjonijiet fir-reklutaġġ b’ebda mod m’hu se jimpattaw professjonijiet kruċjali fosthom ta’ professuri, lecturers, għalliema, learning support assistants, kindergarten assistants u professjonijiet oħra li jħarrġu u jagħtu sapport lill-istudenti.

Incidentally after consulting Fausto the expert researcher I also got a confirmation that  if one were to look at the Ministerial budget (item 5364) the estimate for stipends had already been reduced once  between 2010 and 2011 – also by €100,000.

Between the 2011 and 2012 estimates there was an increase of €0.5 million (500k). Now that the estimates have been revised (as per EU requirement and as Owen and Varist are complaining) for a reduction of 100k that still leaves a NET INCREASE in projected expenditure of €400k (€400,000) for 2012.  Where that increase will go, if it goes anywhere, is anybody’s guess and if anything suspicions should focus on creative budgeting but insofar as the original allegation regarding some vanishing stipends is concerned. Take it for what it is: hogwash. Or as we could politely call it… manipulative discourse.

Also. In case you were wondering. The Ministry of Finance also published a press release denying any decrease in stipends.

[[1]] Discursively, manipulation generally involves the usual forms and formats of ideological discourse, such as emphasizing Our good things, and emphasizing Their bad things. At all these levels of analysis it is shown how manipulation is different from legitimate mind control, for instance in persuasion and providing information, for instance by stipulating that manipulation is in the best interest of the dominated group and against the best interests of dominated groups.[[1]]

[[2]]Here’s how it works Owen and Varist. You had one apple. The government promised you two more apples last budget. The EU thought that the government was promising too much and should pipe down on its generosity. So now the government is giving you one more apple instead of two. You had one apple. You could have ended up with three apples. Instead you end up with two. That’s a 100% increase for you in apples but a 50% decrease in government generosity. Of course you choose to highlight the decrease. See? Easy peasy.[[2]]

Il-palazz demokratiku

Ilbieraħ

Meta isseħibt fl-għaqda ta’ l-iStudenti Demokristjani Maltin kont fit-tieni sena tiegħi fil-kors tal-liġi. L-esperjenza tiegħi politika sa dakinhar kienet fl-MŻPN Għawdex (kumitat distrettwali) fejn fost l-oħrajn ħdimt għal żmien twil ma Chris Said u Nathaniel Attard. Il-politika li konna ħaddimna ġewwa Għawdex kienet kostruttiva u lokali -qabel ma waslu l-Kunsilli Lokali. Għal bidu kont isseħibt mal-Għ.S.L (tal-liġi) iżda il-ġibda lejn il-ħajja politika kienet kbira wisq u wara insistenza ta’ ċertu Fabio Pirotta (illum Brussel) dħalt f’din l-għaqda u għall-ewwel darba kont affaxxinat mill-ideat u twemmin politiku. Kellna ktieb ta’ Rafael Caldera maqlub għall-Malti li kien jitratta il-ħsieb demokristjan. Qaxxartu minn qoxra sa’ qoxra. U laqatni. L-iktar li  laqatni kien il-ħsieb bażiku u lajk li ma kontx qed nistenna li insib.

F’dak li kien jikkkonċerna id-dilemma ta’ politika konfessjonali li inkwetatni mhux ftit dak iż-żmien, solvejt il-problema. L-interpretazzjoni tiegħi ta’ Caldera kienet waħda li tasal biex tara l-politika demokristjana bħala waħda msejsa fuq l-element soċjali tat-twemmin nisrani. Element soċjali li joħroġ mill-prinċipju essenzjali tal-filosofija nisranija – fejn il-viżjoni soċjali hija intrinsikament marbuta madwar is-saħħa tal-individwu u l-kapaċita tiegħu li jirrispetta lil għajru.

Ma domtx ma integrajt ruħi fil-grupp u ma domniex ma bdejna rivoluzzjoni ċkejkna fi ħdan l-SDM. Konna grupp magħqud illi ħsibna illi din l-għaqda għandha skop edukattiv u propożittiv li jmur lil hinn mill-menu politiku offert fil-pajjiż. Fuq kollox kellna viżjoni. Bdejna billi għamilna ftit “spring cleaning”. Għamilniha ċara li ma konna se niddependu fuq ħadd u ma konna ser inkunu l-vużċi ta’ ħadd ħlief tal-prinċipji li inħaddnu. Kien ovvjament l-idealiżmu taż-żgħażagħ. Parti importanti tal-bidliet li għamilna kien li għażilna logo ġdid u motto ġdid meħud minn Caldera. “Il-palazz demokratiku ideali ikun magħmul mill-poplu sħiħ“.

Min jaf kemm issarajna bejnietna biex naslu għal dawn il-bidliet. Il-bidliet pero kienu bażi ta’ programm usa’. Bħala għaqda politika il-missjoni tagħna kienet ċara li inwasslu messaġġ. Kien madwar dak iż-żmien li seħħew ir-riformi fl-istatut tal-KSU. Biex inkunu ċari dawk ir-riformi kienu qed isiru xorta. Li għamilna (jew forsi nista ngħid li bdejt nagħmel (mhux biex nitfantas imma biex nerfa’ r-responsabbilta) hu li offrejna li nikkontribwixxu fl-emendar tal-istatut. Il-programm tagħna kien wieħed ċar u trasparenti imsejjes fuq prinċipju doppju kruċjali: ir-rapprezentanza u l-parteċipazzjoni.

Forsi taraw issa minn fejn konna ġejjin. Ma kienx kliem fieragħ ta’ Caldera. Il-palazz demokratiku ideali kien wieħed li xtaqna inwettqu fiċ-cokon tas-sistema rappreżentattiva tal-istudenti. Il-mudell li spiċċajna adottajna kien wieħed maħsub fil-konfini ta’ dawn l-ideali. Inutli nerġa intenni dak li spjegajt elf darba. Eżekuttiv elett biex ikun kompetenti fil-management tal-istrutturi rappreżentattivi. Żewġ kummissjonijiet maħsuba biex jirrapreżentaw kemm jista’ jkun kull interess studentesk – hux politiku soċjali jew edukattiv u kummissjoni oħra li bħala studenti universitarji ma ninsewx id-detto “All work and no play….”

Biex tħaddem struttura bħal dik trid tifimha u trid dejjem titlaq mill-kunċett li kull ma jsir isir għall ikbar interess tal-istudenti. Il-palazz demokratiku ideali huwa palazz għax iħaddan lil kullħadd u jaħdem f’isem u għal kullħadd. Il-palazz demokratiku ideali m’għandux bouncers mal-bieb.

Illum

Dak il-proġett tagħna issa wasalt biex ngħid li ma ħadimx. L-ideali li kellna ma tħaddnux minn min ġie warajna. Din m’hix kundanna. Hija stat ta’ fatt. Ironikament is-sistema ilha ħafna tiġi ikkritika minħabba il-“first past the post” għax fl-eżekuttiv jitla’ blokk wieħed ġeneralment – u allura jgħidu li hemm kriżi taż rappreżentanza. Ironikament ukoll bosta huma għaqdiet li għandhom leħen u post awtomatiku fil-Kummissjoni Politika Soċjali li (suppost) tfassal il-politika tal-Kunsill illi jgorru dwar ir-rappreżentanza.

Falliet l-iktar is-sistema għax rebħet mentalita li diffiċli tikkumbattiha. Il-mentalita partiġġjana illi toffri iz-zunnarija ta’ karriera fil-partiti bħala kunsilliera jew membri parlamentari żgħażagħ via il-fast track ta’ xi post fuq it-think tank ta’ partit meta l-inka fuq iċ-ċertifikat tal-gradwazzjoni għoddu mank kellu ċans jinxef.  Iż-żmien fl-universita meta ż-żgħażugħ (jaqq kemm nobogħda dil-kelma) suppost qed jifforma l-ideat tiegħu u jaħseb b’rasu issa bdew jgħadduha bħala estensjonijiet robotiċi tal-falliment politiku. Jimitawhom kuljum. Il-jiħadisti tal-poplu partiġġjan isinnu l-azzarini tal-gwerer ta’ ħaddieħor fil-palazz tal-istudenti. Dażgur li falliet is-sistema.

Erħilhom allura meta jasal żmien l-Laqgħa Ġenerali Annwali jibdew bit-tfiegħ ta’ tajn u ħama. Hekk jagħmlu l-kbar u hekk tgħallmu ż-żgħar. Ilbieraħ segwejt ftit li ġara fl-AGM bejn nostalġja u oħra. Hemm qiegħdin. Sistema lesta biex timplodi imma li ma timplodix għax ikun hemm xi ħames mitt bażużlu jitilgħu għar-rent-a-vote. Parteċipazzjoni? Falluta.

Imbagħad issegwi il-mini “dibattibekki”. Għandu punt min qed jitlob iktar trasparenza fl-accounting. Wara kollox jiġu eletti managers biex imexxu bil-għaqal. M’hi skuża xejn li għaqda li tħaddem eluf ta’ ewri ma żviluppatx sistema miftuħa ta’ tendering – u anki immur lil hinn u ngħid li imisshom għandhom kumitat indipendenti aġġudikativ elett minn fost il-KPS. L-istupidaġni tal-kjass li inqala fuq xi kummenti dwar il-GUG kien xempju tal-partiġjaniżmu sfrenat. Mejtin biex joħolqu il-Julian Galea fatto in casa qabdu ma kumment frivolu ta’ Kummissarju Edukattiv fuq Facebook. Issa ħalli li l-kummissarju wera nuqqas ta’ maturita u inġenju f’dan il-każ imma il-punt kruċjali hu li li kieku l-Pulse jafu x’isarraf l-istatut kienu ikun jafu li l-liasion kollu li għandhom bżonn l-Għawdxin jitwettaq fi ħdan il-Kummissjoni Politika Soċjali. Imma le. Irridu nitfgħu il-bżar fl-għajnejn u kullħadd jaf kemm jiswa l-block vote Għawdxi hux sur Mercieca?

Oltre il-block vote hemm il-possibilta ta’ riforma. Reġgħu ċiku briku. M’għandi xejn kontra riforma. Kif diġa għidt… nasal biex naqbel li s-sistema falliet. Il-ħasra hi li nara wisq djufija fis-sejħiet tar-riforma. Jekk ir-riforma hija ibbażata fuq xi kunċett imwiegħer ta’ fair meta fair ifisser li jkun hemm xi rappreżentanza proporzjonali kemm biex kullħadd ikollu biċċ mill-kejk allura lura sejrin mhux il-quddiem. Mingħajr prinċipji sodi immirati lejn garanziji taż rappreżentanza u parteċipazzjoni it-triq tista twassal biss gżall-mera kompleta tal-politika falluta nazzjonali li tilfet kull tip ta’ kredtu mal-poplu. Dik il-politika li twassal biex ikun hemm rekord ta’ nies li jagħżlu ma jivvotawx għax il-paroli medjatiku kollu ta’ Wenzu u Ġużi ma jservux biex jikkonvinċu lll-votant b’garanzija ta- rappreżentanza xierqa.

Riforma iva. Kombrikola biex ikun hemm ċejċa għal kullħadd le. hemm bżonn li l-istudenti jgħarfu x’ifisser tkun student b’ideat innovativi. Hemm bżonn jiftakru x’inhu l- iskop tal-eqdem Kunsill f’Malta u jaħdmu biex l-istrutturi tagħha jerġgħu isiru denji li jħaddnu fosthom il-mexxejja u l-idealisti tal-futur. Fuq kollox dawk il-fehmiet bażiċi li slitna minn Caldera hemm bżonn jaslu fuq fomm kullħadd.

Il-palazz demokratiku ideali ikun magħmul mill-poplu sħiħ.

 

addendum: VoxPop magħmul minn Insiteronline

 

Sunshine

The tragic circumstances of the death of Osama Al Shzliaoy will undoubtedly rock the boat on a number of issues that are periodically touched upon in our public debates and politics. Sunshine was knocked down “outside a nightclub” (pace Times report) and succumbed to serious head injuries a few days later. Coming as it did hot on the heels of the court case that practically exonerated a bouncer from any wrongdoing in a death caused in similar circumstances the comparisons and conclusions will be inevitable.

Whether it is Fabrice Muamba or Osama Al Shzliaoy who is battling for life in a hospital, the effect is always such as to inspire great manifestations of solidarity. English football, fresh from weeks of scandals involving racism that peaked with the Suarez-Evra debacle needed the events of the Tottenham v Bolton encounter in order to be shocked into sensibility about respect for your brother. Or did it? Whether the global displays of affection are simply a passing fad related strictly to the facility with which an sms, a text message or a tweet is sent out remains to be seen. After all football has been there before – many times – only to revert to the booing, the banana throwing farces that are a shame for the sport.

But what about Osama? Sunshine seems to have been guilty of wanting to have a good time in Paceville. I had an Estonian guest over the weekend and I asked what she thought about Malta. This blonde from the North had great memories of the island (could be the fact that her beau hails from there) but I was particularly struck by here awe at the size of Paceville. That’s all really – awe… that so much entertainment can be found in so little a space. It does strike you as sick that depending on the colour of your skin and the tint of your hair you could come away with such a different experience from Paceville.  It’s not the Estonian’s fault of course.

We saw it in the evidence given in the last court case where the defendant championed by an aspirant parliamentarian (minister perhaps) had a panoply of witnesses from the entertainment industry prepared to swear on oath that the black man in question (sic) was a regular troublemaker. The court listened and the jury acquitted. The jury mind you. Men from the street – your average man called upon to believe a sworn oath for what it is and then to fulfil their duty. The jury system might have become an anachronism in this day and age – particularly with the selection practice that has developed over time.  Could the jury system be a problem causing an imperfect application of the law?

But back to Osama. Was his death foretold the day the Abubaker jury went out? Was there suddenly a license to kill “immigrants”? Does it tell us anything about racism? Knee-jerk reactions will put their proverbial two and two together and conclude that the fault lies at the feet of lady justice. It’s the law that is to blame isn’t it? And a life nowadays costs approximately 500€.

But that is too easy. Too simple to be true. I see intolerance before I see racism. I see discrimination between a caste of people who can be above the law and others who will suffer the consequences. The bouncer and the bouncer’s world is not the simple world of racism where “black” is discriminated against. It is the “I do what I want” because I am backed by powerful people. It is the world where rights are eschewed for brute force and naked muscle.  Even more worrying is that the brutes will find their rent-a-politician who will mentally muscle his way past the pestering laws with one hand only to blame the legislation and call for reform from the benches of the opposition with another.

The problem behind the deaths of Abubaker and Osama is not racism. It is intolerance and lawlessness. Paceville is just another petri dish where this is brought to light. I believe Deguara when he says that “he is not a racist”. Not a racist in Lowellian or Nazi terms. Deguara just has his list of priorities as a bouncer. His priorities were twisted and they would lead him to use disproportionate force in what he believed to be execution of his duties. The comfort zone of protection for people in his “profession” would even lead to exaggerations – there are no checks and balances because there are people out there who will stick up for you. On oath. In court.

Then Osama gets beaten up and is left for dead. It’s the bouncers again? Are the suspects bouncers? We have read that the suspects are Romanian. Sure. Foreigners. They’re only trouble. Right now the problem is putting the issue in perspective. What is the criminal we are looking for? What is the crime?

There is violent aggression in a very public place. Racism would classify it as a hate crime. Was Osama killed because he was black? Was he killed because his aggressors felt they are above the law? Or was this another crime in what has become the cowboy, unregulated world of entertainment in Paceville?

Our reaction to this crime is just as important as the laws that we will apply. All too often we create ghosts that are not there that distract us from the real problem. Will the sad case of the death of “Sunshine” Osama be relegated to another case of noisy distraction?

 

markbiwwa has also blogged on the subject here.