Politics

Anosognosia

Hoi Polloi (1935 film)
Image via Wikipedia

It means “you don’t know what you don’t know” and it is a perfect starting point to elaborate on the discussion provoked by my last article on the Indy (Nolens Volens). It turns out that I dared criticise the uncriticiseable and that barring a few more moderate reactions the gist of most comments would be “non sparare sulla croce rossa”. Let us see what sparked off the anger at my criticism and why – as Matt put it – both sides could be saying the same things in different ways.

1. J’accuse never condoned censorship

Let’s get this out of the way. It should by now be very clear that the line taken by this blogger on the current state of affairs regarding freedom of expression and, more particularly, the laws on censorship is one that stands firmly on the side of those who believe that our country is going through one hell of an anachronistic phase. The Stitching judgement and the inability of politicians to legislate clearly in areas where the law seems to leave a lacuna have been criticised extensively in the our writings. I canot understand why I even have to explain that part of the equation. In case it is not clear my personal position on censorship is that if it has to exist it should be in the form of classification and never in the form of outright banning.

Incidentally I also have gone on record confirming the right of extremists to express their sick (sic) ideas in public. The content of the rhetoric must be countered, if needs be, with more rhetoric and not with gagging. Criminal law would do the rest of the job: e.g. you can express your hatred of other races as much as you like (stupid, ignorant and neanderthal as you may sound) but once you incite people to violence then don’t hide behind the “freedom of expression” the moment the prison door shuts behind you. Ugly racist bigots exist. We need to be shocked with the truth not to be protected from it.

2. The hoi polloi, the spoudaios and the average man in the street

DF repeated in so many words what I have touched upon already. Xarabank is successful, village feasts and their petards still top popularity lists and Lou Bondi is considered to be an excellent investigative journalist. It should come as no surprise then that when a law court such as the First Hall Civil Court examines how the man in the street could be affected by watching a performance of Stitching it “gets it all wrong”. Let me stick my neck out again and risk being called an intellectual snob – is the law unjustified in protecting the current standard of education (for want of a better word)? If the judge sitting on a bench is to examine how the average man in the street would interpret Stitching is he to be blamed if he sees the average man as taking a dramatic metaphor literally? Is the board of censors?

Chris  hit the nail on the head from a more practical perspective:

If I may (as usual) see it from the book publishing perspective: what do you expect of a country where arguably the best piece of Maltese literature written in recent years sells a maximum of 1,000 copies, in so doing practically reaching market saturation? I mean, surely the easiest, most hassle-free, Pontius Pilate way of ’supporting creativity’ in Malta would be to spend Eur10- and buy a copy of an amazing book. If less than 1,000 ppl bothered to do even that (and that’s including the assorted freebies, competition prizes, and purchases ‘tal-obbligu’ by extended families and ex-girlfriends), do you expect a 1,000 ppl to bother to turn up for a march? Or, in your desideratum, participate in some massive display of subversiveness?

Are we intellectual snobs, or as I like to call ourselves “wankellectuals” (constantly amused by mental masturbation – incidentally I have a PC term for the ladies among you – “cliterati”), when we decide that +/- 1,000 people is the maximum threshold of intelligentsia? Where does all this take us?

3. Artists of the Country Disaggregate!

The assaults on the freedom of expression have exposed, once again, a serious lacuna in this country. We are in the process of discovering Maltese “anosognosia”. We are learning about how much we do not know and how far we are from knowing. Raphael may rant all he likes about his pet pickle with students “who only protest when their pocket is hurt” (was not that a big indicator of pleasures yet to come 15 years ago?) and about how unfair of me it is to shoot on the Red Cross (not in so many words) because a bunch of University students got their chance to traipse up Republic Street with a megaphone and a coffin. Sure there is nothing wrong in this graffiti-ist reaction. I thought the same way when I convinced fellow SDM members to join Graffitti on a protest against the visit of Li Peng in Malta (I wish I could find a photo of the 20+ students who turned up to be kicked away by the police). Would I be too patronising if I said “now, now of course it makes an impact – if anything it gives MaltaToday an excuse of something to record on video” ?

That was not my point though was it? I could easily be drawn into a list of comparisons as to what makes an impact and what does not. Apparently very little does make an impact outside the formations of the PLPN power circle and unfortunately making a splash within those circles requires the big “V” word : Votes. So was I too harsh when I said that the protesters are molly-cuddled (sic) into a way of protesting/complaining that is in full conformity with the state of how things are run? Of course I was. Purposely so.

On the other hand, I’m sorry if I missed the graffito about the pope (darn) but if that is our answer to Banksy then something must be missing somewhere. We need a counterculture that gives the upcoming youth (who are still more worried about their stipend than whether they use it to buy tickets to Shakespeare at the Argotti) an alternative way of expressing their preference. Before we take the coffin to Valletta and blame the judge for showing us (mistakenly, in our way of thinking) that our society still believes that it needs to be “protected” from new ideas (sad really to describe them as new) why don’t we explore what is keeping the droves firmly stuck to Xarabank and believing in the Gospel of Bondiplus and away from the ideas behind Realtà and Stitching.

This is a country where people would presumably be shocked by a moral play bringing into question issues such as the holocaust but where 87% of respondents on an online poll would send immigrants back to Human Right Haven Libya on a boat.

4. Apologia

To conclude, I see your points – Raphael, Chris, DF, Danny, Matt and the silent ones (sono veggente) – but I stand by the points I made. Questions are being asked of our society and I believe that all parts – including the artists and wankellectuals – need to be preparing a strong case for their future role in society. Carrying coffins into Valletta may be alright for the PR (and for the footage) but it does nothing to challenge the equation.

P.S. Spare me the bullshit of “komdu int il-Lussemburgu”. I don’t know why I bother answering it but in any case before you even think it, just think – for one second – that if that statement were really true why the hell would I be bothering AT ALL?

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta

The PN Conclave

Marthese Portelli, Lawyer, Politician, Malta

Image via Wikipedia

“Ideas, Vision, Discussion” is the heading of the new Pre-Budget Document presented by the PN government. There must have been plenty of exchange of ideas, possibly a little vision and quite a vivid discussion happening at the meeting of the PN Executive Committee presided over by (PN President) Marthese Portelli (read the link and do tell me how many ideas and how much vision you can discern from the over 1,000 word interview – apart from the “jobs for Gozitans rant” and the claim to fame of multiplication of votes in favour). The executive met in the open manner of dialogue and transparency that the PN has gotten its potential voters used to. Where other parties elsewhere might hold open conferences to discuss such points of principles before the media and anybody interested, the PN must needs first get its hydra-like head together and hammer out a “common position”. We will not know exactly what the ideas, vision and discussion are all about – instead we will be presented with a single strategy.

Undoubtedly this single strategy will be built with one basic premiss in mind: VOTES. The discussion that could be prompted by such a strategy -once it is forged – is simply one based on limiting the number of votes that could be potentially alienated with a wrong step. For suggestions in this direction read Ranier Fsadni’s “Legitimising a divorce law” that already includes some calculations based on “voter alienation”. There will of course have been a number of principled positions such as those of Tonio Borg and Carm Mifsud Bonnnici who will have thundered on about the anathema of divorce to a confessional party. We will not be able to confront them with questions about the constitutional relevance of their statement and with questions about how they plan to reconcile their concept of catholic imposition with the lay state. We cannot ask members of the PN conclave whether they believe the PN should be a champion of universal rights or a champion of the catholic model of society.

The PN conclave met behind closed doors and the strategy that their archaic system of voting will forge supposedly will represent the automatic 40% of the population who already know where there vote will go come next election. The internal debate will be a “long process” in the words of an undoubtedly charming Portelli (mother, lawyer AND politican) but it will remain that for a long enough time to refine the positions. We can only count on the renegades trumping the conclave members once again. And on more anonymous voices feeding their master’s voice for the occasional doctored update. (Unless of course MaltaToday or the Indy get a longer version of these “leaks”).

At the moment all we can doat this stage of extended “discussion” is watch the smoke that comes out of the chimney… and don’t we all know that when it comes to smoke generation the PN spin gurus can turn into a mean machine.

Enhanced by Zemanta

We Come Unstuck

Van Isacker Pourquoi Pas 1931
Image via Wikipedia

Apologies for the relative paucity of blogging but we have been affected by a rather irritating bout of the gastric. It was not nice and it has kept us away from the nicer side of blogging for over three days now. Just so you know, we are following the Great Divorce Debate at PN HQ with a rabid interest and are particularly intrigued (and vaguely suspicious) of Ranier’s speculation as to how PN will proceed with the gambit. Will the Gonzi clan really take the neither here nor there approach as advanced by Ranier as the final solution? Will they do their turn of “turiamoci il naso” and find a way to include the civil right while shoving a load of constitutional caveats in a slipshod manner? Short of doing a Re Baldovino (of the Belgian variety) it might be Gonzi’s way out to keeping his premiership period relatively Vatican approved.

Then there’s Minister Fenech’s spanking new document called pre-budget something in which we are told that the economy is shrinking and that one of the reasons (surprise, surprise) is that notwithstanding 20 odd years of nationalist direction we still have a relatively stupid population. By relatively stupid we mean that we still have an extremely high level of early school leavers. Which is not the best statistic to stand aside the glaringly obvious fact that our need to diversify the economy can only be satiated by improving on the quality of our workforce (and not the manual labour kind). Being competitive means also offering a relatively competitive wage system though at the same time the Blues at the Helm would love to tell us how our salaries have gradually approached EU27 averages over the past ten years (there’s a sweet straight line graph of steady growth somewhere in that document).

Surely the funniest pages in the doc must be the new buzzowrd of “creative works” or the monetarisation of creativity in order that it contribute towards the growth and happiness of this tiny nation. Find it and read how the government intends to become the champion of creativity (and don’t forget competitiveness). Correct me if I am wrong but if there is one place that is definitely an infertile ground for competitive development in the creative world (and pardon the heretical combination) then that is this tiny country of friends’ networks where the few IT and creative enterprises only exist because of a continued and sustained patronage from government contracts. Q.E.D.? I guess it’s more a case of tough shit.

Finally the image accompanying this post is my latest foray into the world of self-deprecation. It’s a tee I made with one of my favourite holiday images when I did my best impression of how I thought Adonis would pose (while floating on a boat near Comino). The captions read “MY BODY, MY TEMPLE” and “Our bodies are our gardens and our wills our gardeners – William Shakespeare. (My gardener sucks).” Who said Threadless tees are the only nice tees around? (this one’s from Vistaprint) I know, I know, it’s gym time for me… but at least I get some jest out of it.

P.S. Watch this video of the Sliema Council Meeting (take 2 – they found the keys and got the time right). You’ve got to love the eye contact that’s happening in the meeting. Video from Maltatoday.

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta

Breaking News: God has no vote

And now they’ve turned on the heat. It seems that just as JPO turned up somewhere in Zebbug (is it mass? is it the band club? the article does not help) he was greeted with a massive placard stating “God is against divorce”. Let’s just set aside the failure of the placard to specify whose God it is talking about exactly (not all have gone on record as being against divorce – and even YHWH has been know to give second swings at marriage in certain circumstances) and concentrate on the most basic and obvious corollary to that damn poster:

GOD HAS NO VOTE

… and we don’t seem to be seeing too many posters pointing that out either. Clear enough?

***

And since we will inevitably have to face the scripture quoting ministers of the Imposition J’accuse provides you with a handy guide to a clear interpretation of Deuteronomy 24 that incidentally deals with the question of divorce (both in the times of Moses and Jesus). In sum God is not against divorce, God never commands you to divorce but God permits you to divorce.

Deuteronomy on Divorce

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta

I can't believe it's a majority

A Maltatoday survey published this Sunday provides us with the eye-opening statistic that a total of 59.4% of respondents can be said to be in favour of the introduction of divorce. Yes, it’s a survey, and yes, there is the annoying matter of the “ayes” including the enigmatic “in certain cases” that stinks of busybodiness as much as a blinding no but we have a new figure to play with.

Let’s get that “in certain cases” out of the way. 18.7% of the respondents did not reply with a straightforward “Yes” when asked the question “Do you agree with the introduction of divorce for persons who have lived apart from their partner for the past four years?” but they chose an option (presumably provided by the surveyors in question) that read “in certain cases”. Is this the scientific equivalent of agreeing with divorce “as such”? If it is not a wholehearted “Yes – and get a life” then why is it being counted/totalled with the ayes rather than with the nays? My problem here is that the “in certain cases” bit smells of busybody assessments such as “only in the case of irremediable breakdown” or some bullshit of the sort.

You either have the dissolution of a civil contract or you don’t. You don’t have “in certain cases”. I believe that the part of the question that stated “for persons who have lived apart from their partners for the past four years” was enough of an all-encompassing “certain case” to be able to forego any further caveats and qualifications. The “Don’t Knows” on the other hand have been slapped onto the end of the “nays” in a reminiscence of the Great Santian Assumption. They would be a quasi-insignificant portion (3.3%) were it not for the fact that once you remove the as-suchers (18.7%) out of the equation they are basically the difference between the Ayes (40.7%) and the Nays (37.3%) . With the “Don’t knows” thrown in with the “Nays” you have an infinitesimal 0.1% difference between the Ayes and Nays. Weird innit?

Which brings us back to the “as-suchers”. They could turn out to be the deal clincher if (and I stress the if) this were something to be determined on the basis of majority vs minority – which it obviously isn’t. What this survey (and others which that will surely follow) does is turn the tables on that ridiculous assumption of “catholic Malta” that is one hell of a fallacious premise in today’s world. Bishops, PMs and other Mullahs of the Catholic Imposition are warned. Hopefully the shift to a more laique (secular) discussion will be speeded up.

I’m melting here. Is this what global warming is all about? More blogging this afternoon.

Helen Fisher on Love, Lust (and Divorce)

Just like the Water business earlier I came across this next video through serendipity. While on the TED website I could not resist the urge to search the site for “divorce” and I came across this interesting analysis by anthropologist Helen Fisher. It’s a study of romantic love, sex and attachment. Helen Fisher is interested in what goes on in the brain when we talk about love and attachment. Watch the video. Trust me.