Categories
Values

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.

 

Facebook Comments Box

Categories
Rubriques

I.M. Jack – The March Hare contd.

2. The Law is an Ass

Or is it? One effect of the multiplication of immediately available information has been the massive impact that this has had on the interaction between the demos and the institutional framework that represents them. By this I mean that what is commonly referred to as “the people” tends to give more and more input on the processes that exist in a democratic environment. I would hazard to state that for a very long time one major imperfection of democracy functioned to its advantage and longevity. This imperfection was the practical impossibility of involving everyone and everything in every single decision that needed to be taken within the framework of separation of powers.

A new advert by the Guardian called “Three Little Pigs” (see below) turns out to be a perfect illustration of what I mean here. The majority of information reaching us comes from the traditional media (or in some cases citizen journalists) and then these “facts” that have been reported are given the demo-treatment. Reactions – indignation, satisfaction, summary judgements etc – might even influence the follow-up to a news item. All the while the usual machinery of the state might be interacting with a particular news item : a crime? a sporting achievement? a public blunder by a public person? an injustice to a citizen?

Where does this take us? I believe that the current shift is crucial to the redefinition of a major democratic paradigm. It’s as if you could check in on your accountant/lawyer’s/doctor’s work on a daily basis and you suddenly tried to influence how he or she goes about the job. The rules and structures behind democratic processes are what binds us all and keeps us a step away from chaos. If, for example, we suddenly all had a say about how a day in the court should run we would steamroll over procedures that have been developed to guarantee and safeguard a multiplicity of rights. The same goes with reporting in newspapers, decisions on governance and governability and more. The danger is further confounded when public judgements are made on the basis of political expediency or allegiance. Reason and social mores are put aside so long as we can shoot from the hip about the “inadequacy of legislation” – forgetting that there is a process behind the formation of such legislation that guarantees stability.

3. Owen Bonnici and Students’ House

This bit of news in the Times got my blog fingers itching and is a perfect example of the cavalier attitude that the modern band of politicians have towards the guarantees of the law and more.

Labour MP Owen Bonnici has asked for an investigation by the Public Accounts Committee or the Auditor-General into whether government rules were broken when parts of Students’ House at the University were handed to the University Students’ Council, which then rented them out for commercial purposes.

Now I admit that having been KSU President I might have a considerable advantage over Owen in this one but the story jars on many a point. Let’s begin with the basic. The most basic. KSU is an autonomous organisation – one of the oldest in Malta having been founded back in 1901. The good operation of the Students’ Council requires that it operates free from outside pressure and that includes the administrative organs of the University of Malta, not to mention the government. I hate to go down this line because it plays into the retro-fetish of nationalist enthusiasts but one of the greatest coups to safaguard KSU’s (at the time SRC’s) autonomy occurred in the 70’s under – you guessed it – Mr Mintoff.

At the time SRC ran the house now known as the NSTS Building in Saint Paul’s and Mintoff wanted to get his hands on this prize property at a time when most Uni assets were up for grabs. What happened next was that a foundation was created (the NSTF) with the SRC as one of its members. Technically speaking NSTF is still a branch of KSU with KSU still participating actively in the management of the foundation. The foundation kept the property an arms breath away from the meddling government at the time. Why do I mention all this? It is important to understand the issue of autonomy of the student body and that Dar l-Istudent on Campus is for all intents and purposes a KSU managed property (I hesitate to say owned).

Which brings me to Owen and his “reporting”. What public accounts? What auditor-general? Would Owen be so kind as to ask the same gentlemen to initiate an investigation on the Labour and Nationalist parties in order to examine whether their management of financial affairs is tip-top? Why doesn’t he? Owen’s insistence is a bit like inviting Alexander Ball over to Malta to protect us from the evil French. We all know what happened for the next 264 years.

So there are suspicions about the current committee’s handling of tenders? Deal with it in the appropriate forum. Sure the latest generation of party lackeys on both sides of the spectrum will make a meal out of it as they have tended to do since the PLPN colleges   planted more and more idiots from their school of bipartisan thought. What needs to be done in this case is to gather a movement of students who will vote the suspect batch out of the representative organ and then presumably replace them with persons who can properly manage students’ house. If the students do not turn out to vote in that manner then there is nobody else to blame.

Bonnici’s act simply threatens the very autonomy of the student council and its rights of administration and management that were acquired over a long time after a series of tough battles by the predecessors of the current executive. It’s a wrong move that can only benefit Bonnici’s exposure but one that the students will ultimately end up regretting: if the PAC or Auditor-General follow through on the absurd request that is.

 

Facebook Comments Box

Categories
Politics Rubriques

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.

 

Facebook Comments Box

Categories
Values

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

Facebook Comments Box

Categories
Internet Rights

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?

Facebook Comments Box

Categories
Internet Rights

The Emperor’s New “Internet Civil Rights”

There seems to be “all-round support for the internet as a civil right” if we are to believe the Times, and we have no reason not to. Lawyer Antonio Ghio described it as “the legal crystallisation of a reality we live in”, which is an interesting statement for many a reason. Ever since PM Gonzi announced “four new civil rights related to online behaviour” there seems to have been much clapping and jumping with enthusiasm. J’accuse has a problem with this enthusiasm – yes we’re going to be the usual wet blanket but we feel duty bound to point at the herd of elephants presently occupying the centre of the debate.

Elephants, might I add, that seem to have escaped everybody’s attention. So here are the questions in short: What exactly are these rights and if we do not know what they are how can we be so bloody enthusiastic about them?

The pseudo-psychological analysis of the situation is simple. “The people” were pissed off about ACTA – all that yada yada about lack of consultation and infringement of rights without actually looking into the darn agreement still gathered momentum. Enter Castille Office’s new technique of tackling complaints yesterday and we get the impromptu promise of “new civil rights”. Which brings us to the first problem… does anybody know what these rights are… and more importantly do we need them?

Mysterious rights you (probably) already have

So what actual facts do we have about these new rights? Well we have a DOI press release (PR0293 – thank you Fausto for the split second research). The rights are mentioned in the introductory paragraph:

Il-Prim Ministru Lawrence Gonzi jemmen li l-aċċess mingħajr xkiel ta’ persuna għall-Internet; id-dritt għall-informazzjoni u l-libertà tal-espressjoni permezz tal-internet; u d-dritt li jiddeċiedi x’informazzjoni jikkomunika huma drittijiet ċivili ġodda li għandhom jidħlu fil-liġijiet ta’ pajjiżna. Għalhekk il-Prim Ministru se jressaq liġi fil-Parlament li tiggarantixxi dawn id-drittijiet ċivili ġodda f’pajjiżna.

There you have it we find a generally worded reference to the four “rights”:

1) a right of unobstructed access to the internet;

2) a right to receive information via the internet;

3) a right to freely express oneself on the internet;

4) a right to decide what information to communicate.

Let us assume that rights two to four overlap insofar as they can be generally summed up as the right to exchange information (send/receive, upload/download) using this technology. That leaves us with the right to access the internet and the right to use it to exchange information. Can someone in their right mind who has been unaffected by this civil right frenzy stand up and tell me which of these rights does not already exist today?

As somebody put it (rightly) – why not introduce the basic civil right to read books, to watch TV and to listen to radio? Do you know why? Because it is already there – in the fundamental rights and freedoms that even our supposedly faulty and archaic laws include. So what is Castille selling?

Well, the people at Castille are not that stupid. If I can get you to believe that I am giving you the right to the air that you breathe and that for that you will be extremely grateful then why not? So who is being a silly ninny then?

Ignorance of the law is no excuse

We’ve said it before and we say it again. All too often nowadays we are being besieged by an army of supposed experts wanting to tinker with our legislation. The Franco Debono Reform is fast becoming an example of that. What could start off as a well meaning change ends up becoming a sweeping bungling exercise by the uninformed. And that is dangerous.

The anti-ACTAvists had us all in a twist about strip-searches at the border and Big Brother and Corporate intrusion into our private lives. What almost every indignant ACTAvist missed was the simple point that even if the strip-search myth turned out to be true it would be conducted in order to discover and prosecute an illegality. Downloading bootleg copies is a crime with or without ACTA. Illegal use of the instrument called internet is just as illegal as the illegal use of a book, radio or TV.

The Gonzi Civil Rights are stating the obvious. What they do not do is tell you that you have the right to use the internet illegally. Downloading your favourite Lana Del Ray album from Pirate Bay remains a technical illegality. Caveat pirata. Expression? You have always had the right to express yourself on the internet.. you did not need Gonzi’s 4 rights to do so. Is it clear? For example if you have decided to publish something like “Li Tkisser Sewwi” (or any other literary essay) on your blog you are just as likely to be sued under Maltese laws as you would be if you printed it in pamphlet form.

We should not be confusing the medium with the content. Sure we all want the right to the internet and soon we’ll be claiming for the right to wifi and fast-speed access. But the basic rules of society that have evolved since Socrates and Plato need not change. You have a right to express yourself – from graffitti on a wall to pamphlets to a blog – whether your use of that right impinges on the rights of others is a choice you make and that right has consequences you that you must also consider. I shall never stop repeating it: we are servants of the law so that we may be free (Cicero).

Those who should know

So if Fr Joe Borg is the communications expert he claims he is I expect him to be more clear about this ploy and not call it a “noble and laudable” measure. As for Antonio Ghio, with all due respect, the whole point of the “legal crystallisation of a reality” is that the very crystallisation is futile. You don’t need to be given a right that you already have – unless you mistakenly believe that these new rights will give you something extra.

Which brings me to the masked men and women at MAAG. Here’s Ingram Bondin from MAAG speaking about the rights that aren’t new:

Ingram Bondin, from the Malta Anti-Acta Group, which staged the protest on Saturday, welcomed the initiative, saying the rights were a “step forward for Maltese society”. However, he cautioned that the proposals would not stop opposition to Acta, which was driven by a host of other issues.

A host eh? I’m still waiting for an answer about the Convention on Cybercrime. It’s the kind of convention that shows you the limits of internet rights – particularly because crimes are crimes no matter what the medium. The Convention is a perfect example of the limits to the freedoms (that you already have) on the internet. More particularly take a look at the Protocol on Racism and Xenophobia. Yes, you can express yourself on the internet but that does not mean you can do so illegally.

Same goes with downloading, uploading etc. J’accuse’s conclusion remains the same: if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

Gonzi’s new “Four Civil Rights for the Internet” are nothing more than a marketing ploy of appeasement. We can afford to say it here because we don’t need to pander to the people for a vote or two. Our spineless opposition is so lost in the knee-jerk pandering to the “civil rights on internet” that it has forfeit any possibility of exposing the Emperor’s latest set of clothes.

 

Facebook Comments Box