Politics

Hate crimes, Nationalist Candidates and PLPN Emos

The latest smart cookie from the constellation of Local Council Candidates has hit the news. This time it is Julian Galea – nationalist candidate for the Sliema Council – who has been lucky enough to have been caught on “secret tape” declaiming among other things his “phobia of Labourites” and boasting how his Labour-leaning employees earn less than Nationalist employees. This exposé could not come at a better time in order to expose the ridiculous idea behind “hate crimes”. You had Maltastar.com headlining this bit of news with a large sign saying “Stop Hating”.

It’s the DNA business all over again. One candidate or politician is caught expressing the thoughts that go through the heads of most fanatics of one of the two tribes any given day and suddenly we are all Padre Pios and discover our inner emos that are silently indignated by this offensive behaviour. How bloody typical.

Which is not in any way justifying what Julian Galea said. Julian Galea is your typical “anything goes” candidate like the Alexis Callouses (sic) of this world. He is a symptom of the abject inability of a party to shed its temptation to field as many candidates as possible without a proper screening. His “phobia” bullshit does not merit to be classified as a crime although we have a draft law that potentially will make it so. Incidentally with regards to the possibility of different pay for different political creeds we ALREADY have a law against that so no need for another one (and EU law enthusiasts will remember Defrenne vs Sabena). I vaguely suspect that he meant that Labourites are not high achievers and therefore end up on the lower end of the pay scale not that he pays on the basis of political allegiance – still, this does not make his talk any better or more palatable.

I too have a phobia. I have a phobia for stupid. It is a low threshold of tolerance and people like Julian Galea make my blood boil. So do the media manipulators who are now desperately trying to link his employment policy to GonziPN. Because it’s obvious isn’t it… if Julian Galea (I hadn’t heard of this geezer till today) thinks so then the PN must be endorsing this policy. But that is our politics. It has been for the past fifteen years now. Candidates not worth the poster their face is printed on, media frenzies of shit-stirring emptiness and a misguided appeal to values of convenience.

We are all emos now. It’s in our DNA.

 

Carmen’s Regressive Thoughts and the Labourite’s Obsession with Government Control

Back in January 2012 Dr Carmen Sammut a specialist in media studies succeeded Aaron Farrugia as Chairperson of Labour’s Think Tank “Fondazzjoni Ideat”. Farrugia had presumably been kicked upstairs (downstairs) and filled the new enigmatic role of secretary to a manifesto. Meanwhile we had high hopes for Dr Sammut who judging by the quality of her input in her “blog” on MaltaToday (more like a regular column Carmen – for someone specialised in media you should know) was brimming with promise for some reasoned discourse.

That was then. Now, only a month later we have an article entitled “PN and civil society: a relationship of convenience“. All in all it’s not a bad article and the observations regarding the PN’s on and off flirtatious attitude with civil society are not quite off the mark. The problems begin when Dr Sammut falls into the commonplace trap of attempting to blame GonziPN for everything she does not like and disagrees with. Even worse, her prescription for what she claims to be a shackled training ground is “government intervention”. Yesterday we had Owen Bonnici inviting the Public Accounts Committee and the Auditor General to ride roughshod over any pretentions of autonomy the student body might have, today Carmen Sammut, Chairperson of Labour’s think tank, believes that a Prime Minister should intervene and change the statue and workings of the autonomous student body. Here’s Ms Chairperson:

We can also observe that some valid groups are being shackled so that they do not have enough oxygen to flourish. Take student politics at University as one very clear example. The University should be a training ground for political and civil society leaders. Yet, government has never lifted a finger to ensure that many student organizations do not continue to be blocked-voted out of the Students’ Council. It never intervened to help replace an outdated first-past-the-post election that secures a majority of votes for government sympathisers in the executive committee.

There’s something seriously twisted in Labour’s way of thinking. It definitely cannot get to grips with the basic elements of student representation. Forget for a second this particular prescription by Carmen Sammut. What is really worrying is how Labour seems to perceive the role of government in civil society. It is a gilt-edged invitation for Big Brother to step into places where he is definitely not wanted. Is this how a Labour government will work? In the absence of concrete proposals we can only go by what the Chairperson of their think tank seems to think is the best mode of action.

“Block-voted out of Students’ Council”? What bullshit. Has Ms Chairperson bothered to read the statute? Does the fact that 50+1% of voters opt for a particular grouping (no matter how twistedly incompetent) suddenly make it a no-no? Funny, I thought that is how we get a government – that is just what Joseph Muscat is aspiring to achieve come next election: a block vote into government. Outdated first past the post eh? Pinch me, I must be dreaming. Again, Dr Sammut, as one of the persons directly responsible for drafting the statute in question I dare you to state that you looked beyond the complaints of a few Pulse members. In any case your assertion that government should “lift a finger” in this issue is frightening. Terrifying even – in that it exposes the huge chasm between your thinking and reality. Progressive party?

With thinkers like this the only way is back….

Prostitution in Malta (a brief idiot’s guide)

No I am not about to list the best way to go about obtaining sexual favours at a price in Malta. I honestly would have no clue how to go about it although I am familiar with the popular locations from Maltese lore where Malta’s equivalent of the Trastevere species would prowl in search for clients. Nope this is not it. Think of this as a sort of factoid collection centred around the oldest profession in the world and how it is regulated in Malta (or isn’t). And the basic, mind blowing premise is this: PROSTITUTION IS NOT ILLEGAL IN MALTA.

Yes. Contrary to public perception, there is nothing in the Criminal Code or elsewhere for that matter that prohibits me, you or anyone from earning a bit of money by performing sexual favours in return of a proportionate (or cut-price for that matter) remuneration. Really? Really. So where do the problems with the law start. Let me tell you where…

1. The Criminal Code

Take the criminal code – a simple CTRL + F of the term prostitution will lead you to two interesting discoveries. First that “prostitution” is never defined. Secondly whenever the term prostitution is used it is within the context of preventing someone (whether a minor or an adult) from being forced violently or through deceit into prostitution. Basically you CAN be a prostitute but ONLY if you choose to be one out of your own free will. The biblical profession is legal. And that my friends is a fact.

2. So what is illegal?

Most crimes linked to prostitution relate mostly to exploitation. Thus any form of what is called “White Slave Traffic” is a crime. It is linked to what I said earlier. You can never oblige someone to become a prostitute or deceive someone into becoming one. It is definitely a crime to live off the profits of other people’s prostitution (the vernacular “pimp” – the Roman Law crime of “lenocinium”). Interestingly one of the civil law conditions that is an automatic ground for the termination of rent is the use of the rental property for the purposes of prostitution (article 1618 of the Civil Code). Another civil law consequence of prostitution is the possibility to disinherit a descendant if he or she is a prostitute “without the connivance of the testator” (article 623).

A person who is soliciting for prostitution – or prowling the public side walks for clients is susceptible to being charged with a contravention of disturbing the public peace. The reason behind such a contravention would probably be – to put it bluntly – that you are free to dispose of your body as you choose and satisfy as many people as you like in return of payment as much as you want BUT don’t do it in our face. Don’t forget that other contraventions under our criminal code include such things as the prohibition to lead an idle and vagrant life, the prohibition of pretending to be a diviner of dreams,  and the prohibition of driving animals (whether beasts of burden or riding animals) over a drawbridge otherwise than at an amble (you’ve gotta love those speed cameras).

There’s the general low down on all things prostitute. All the usual disclaimers of this blog apply including any exclusion of liability should anyone wrongly choose to rely on this content as though it were the bible truth.

 

I.M. Jack – the March Hare (I)

1. The State of the Parties

(PN) It’s over for GonziPN – or so seems to be the general opinion in the punditry pages. Following Gonzi’s landslide victory in the one-man race poll (96.6%) we are seeing a definite shift away from the one-man monolith that was victorious last election and a contemporaneous effort to re-establish roots among the electorate. Which leaves us with a number of conclusions and concerns.

First of all insofar as the business of governance is concerned, the PN General Council vote has not changed much. Even with a repentant Debono returning into the fold (his idea of repentance being that he believes he was proved right) the lasting impression is of a party that will go to any lengths to survive a full term in power. The dissidents within the fold excluded themselves from the 96%, mostly by abstaining. Meanwhile the “papabili” such as De Marco or Busuttil rallied behind the leader.

The PN remains a fragmented party in search of a definition. The signs coming from the minor tussles in Local Council campaigns are not positive. The fragility of the very fabric that should be keeping the party together is evident with its dealings with past and prospective candidates. There is however a silent larger picture with the usual suspects seeming to prefer a “silenzio stampa” to the noise we had become accustomed to.

Might there be a new strategy in the making? Is the transition back from GonziPN to PN a superficial diversion from deeper moves that might bring about a timely resetting of the PN modus operandi? Above all, are we dealing here with the proverbial “too little, too late”?

J’accuse vote: Brownian Motion.

(PL) Not much to be added here. The PL’s only consistency is its constant assault on the weak points of governance. The strategy of blaming every ill -imagined or real – on “GonziPN” is combined with procedural and psychological pressures to push a teetering government off the seat of power.

The prolonged lifeline of the current government might soon turn out to be the PL’s weakness. While Joseph gleefully repeats the “iggranfat mas-siggu tal-poter” mantra he fails to appreciate that the longer he is prancing about as the “prattikament Prim Ministru” the more he will actually set people wondering whether he has what it takes to carry out the job. How long they will be happy with his evasive answers as to actual plans might be anybodies guess but it might soon be time to stop taking bets.

J’accuse vote: Hooke’s Law.

(AD) Like the football team intent on surviving the drop AD can only plan its strategy step by step. Don’t blame the outfit for concentrating on the Local Council elections for now, General Elections can wait. AD may be short of manpower but they could have been greedy and fielded more candidates irrespective of their quality in areas such as Sliema where they could expect a huge backlash at the outgoing council’s farce. Instead AD are content to field their single version of a “heavyweight” with party chairman Briguglio.

Don’t expect many people to look at AD’s manifesto, which is a pity. The most the small party can hope is to get some mileage and exposure that could serve as a platform for an assault on the impossible come the next General Election.

J’accuse vote: Small Hadron Collider.

(Blogs) They’re not a political party but they’re evolving too. We are in a positive boom phase with more blogs than you could care to count (or read in a day). That is definitely positive. Expect to find more of the short-lived instruments – the lunga manu of party propaganda. Expect to be surprised that notwithstanding what is now a long internet presence (at least five years of growing internet readership) we will find that users (mostly readers) have trouble coming to terms with the immediacy and interactivity of the net. Most importantly the ability of your average voter to use his meninges to sieve through the information shot in his direction is about to be severely tested.
J’accuse vote : Blog and be damned.

 

Police in their head

I barely had time to take a break when the news on the papers confirmed another of my nauseating rants that I tend to visit every now and then. Minister De Marco announced on Monday that there is nothing in Maltese law that outlaws giving politicians the satirical treatment – especially on the days of carnival. Only last week I was on the phone with a MaltaToday journalist asking them what source they had to back the statement that Maltese laws prohibited political satire. None apparently – other than some remote colonial ordinance.

It was rather weird. What with all the flourishing of satirical videos (see our home made shtf for a prime example), memes and posters it would be rather silly to have a prohibition that was restricted particularly to that time of the year when humour should reign. There we were though, for decades, claiming “fascist censorship” and criticising inexistent laws. Why? Because the big brother rule suits us. It’s a throwback to the Li Tkisser Sewwi saga – the laws are not to blame… it’s a worse, worse censor – and that’s the one in your head.

The men in uniform are not entirely free of blame. When they actually decide to proceed on a charge of slander because some activist called a politician “pulcinell” they are stretching the letter of the law to an inapplicable limit. Lest you wonder whether the police are obliged to report … they aren’t. They can opt not to follow what they might perceive to be a frivolous report and there IS a safeguard protecting anyone who feels that he is being ignored. He can in turn challenge the police in court to proceed with the prosecution.

Instead of following a perfectly rational law we have evolved a system whereby there is an assumption that the police are dutybound to prosecute every time some belligerent fool decides to wave the long arm of the law in what he presumes to be his favour. I repeat. They aren’t.

So what is really happening? We have a combination of police in our heads that have been put there by decades of hearsay and myths and legends and we have a police force that is wittingly or unwittingly abetting the wrong application of the law.

J’accuse insists that the best solution is education. Educate the citizens about their rights and educate the prosecuting section of the police to filter the suits in a more efficient and reasonable manner. In one fell swoop we could shift from Banana Republic to a decent system managed by that great rule of law.

We are servants of the law so that we may be free. Simples.

 

for Satire don’t forget to check out http://shtfan.tumblr.com

Internet Civil Rights – Dr Antonio Ghio replies

Regular readers of J’accuse will know that we are always glad when a post of ours provokes more discussion. We mentioned Dr Ghio’s short quip in the Times interview in our earlier post (The Emperor’s New “Internet Civil Rights”) and Dr Ghio chose to reply with his own thoughts that will surely help to generate more discussion. I gladly reproduce his full comment here in the hope that more of you feel might join in with your two cents’ worth. So here is Antonio’s full reply :

Dear all. I read these posts with interest. Unfortunately TOM published only a few lines from the 800 plus word comment I sent them so I’d take the opportunity to share some of those thoughts with you (respectfully of course :) ) with the hope that this can generate some discussion:

Last year’s events in North Africa highlighted the importance that social media and ICT plays in today’s world. Many falling regimes decided that by cutting off their citizen’s access to information tools they could control the uprisings. They were very wrong.

Only recently the discussion of looking at the internet and all that it stands for as a civil right has emerged. Within this evolving discussion, one needs to distinguish between fundamental human rights and civil rights even though they go hand in hand. This distinction was clearly made by Vint Cerf, one of the founding fathers of the internet as we know it, in his open letter to the New York Times only a few weeks ago.

A civil right is a tool to attain your fundamental human rights enshrined in our constitution and international treaties. In this sense, the internet can be seen as just a tool but a very important one. The recognition of a right to a networked society and to informational self-determination is a reflection that the principles on which societies are built are not static and the ways in which we can enjoy our fundamental human rights is in constant flux and depends on the appreciation that our society has of the very same tools which enable us to enjoy such fundamental rights as freedom of expression and our right to private life.

Whilst a handful of countries recognized the right to internet access or a broadband right, the proposed bill goes much beyond that. It is not just the recognition of universal service or the setting of some minimum level of service. It is the legal crystallization of a reality we live in and without which we cannot reach our potential as individuals but also as a society. Published figures relating to internet penetration rates in Maltese households and the utilization of social networks all point towards the importance that Maltese society gives to these technologies. The proposed rights should go beyond a mere right of access to the internet but should serve as guiding principles relating to internet censorship, free flow of information and privacy.

There is already a myriad of laws relating to issues such as privacy on the internet, the use of the internet as an important tool for commerce. These new rights will not re-invent this but should elevate the importance that we now give to these legal provisions, making them available and easily accessible to everyone without the need of being a lawyer or academic to establish where these legal provisions are contained. The new rights should endeavour to highlight the importance that laws relating to technology that have emerged during the past years have in today’s connected world, a clear statement that our fundamental human rights also apply to our online existence.

Last year Malta experienced the introduction of the civil right to divorce but very few of our community will end up using this right. We are here faced with something much larger. We are now talking about a civil right which will not affect a minority but all of us, from my nanna in Gozo using skype to chat with my cousin in Poland to my 8 month old son who is already chewing my iPad.

The proposed digital civil rights should set the bar of how we value the role of technology and our right to privacy and information today. These new principles should serve as a litmus test against
which we measure any new law which would be perceived as invading our private lives, our right to be part of a digital community, our right to express ourselves freely on the net.

I think this is more the realization of how dear the internet has become to all of us and to the fact that we do not want anyone to mess with our internet and with our online experience. This does not mean that these rights are not already there.
But what wrong in enshriningg those rights in a constitution? After all, we have tons of laws relating to employment. Does that mean that any reference to the right to work and protection from forced labour in our constitution is futile? So I guess rather than a legal crystallisation this should be a constitutional crystallisation.

Is that wrong?