Categories
Jasmine

September 1940

Another from Orwell. This time it’s his diary recording a battle in the skies between the Luftwaffe and the RAF in the middle of the Battle of Britain. The battle was fought in the skies and a few people could witness first hand the dog fights between opposing air forces. Orwell’s record on the 15th September 1940 could very well have been a thought recorded in a Benghazi diary in March 2011 when the fighter jet burst into flames and fell over the city:

It fell slowly out of the clouds, nose foremost, just like a snipe that has been shot high overhead. Terrific jubilation among the people watching, punctuated every now and then by the question, ‘Are you sure it’s a German?

Chilling.

Facebook Comments Box

Categories
Arts Mediawatch

Orwell's Newspeak

Here’s an extract from an essay by George Orwell that appeared in Horizon in the April 1946 edition. The essay entitled “Politics and English Language” may be found in its entirety on this page. Now to the extract:

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called PACIFICATION. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called TRANSFER OF POPULATION or RECTIFICATION OF FRONTIERS. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called ELIMINATION OF UNRELIABLE ELEMENTS. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, “I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so.” Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:

While freely conceding that the Soviet régime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.

The inflated style is itself a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns, as it were instinctively, to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as “keeping out of politics.” All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer. I should expect to find — this is a guess which I have not sufficient knowledge to verify — that the German, Russian and Italian languages have all deteriorated in the last ten or fifteen years as a result of dictatorship.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Facebook Comments Box

Categories
Mediawatch

J'accuse Shortlisted for Journalism Award

You may have read by now that the J’accuse column on the Malta Independent on Sunday has been shortlisted for the “Opinion Article” section of the Malta Journalism Awards organised by the Institute of Maltese Journalists.  J’accuse has often been critical of the awards themselves – especially since we could never fathom a system that requires in which you nominate yourself for the prize.

Nothing has changed since then and we do believe that one reason the nominations are not “altruistic” so to speak is the fish-pondism that curiously (and understandably) is part of journalistic culture in Malta. It’s not like we’re falling over ourselves to say how good “the others” are is it? Anyways – so why are J’accuse’s articles on the nominations list and how did they end up being shortlisted?

We have Alex Vella Gera to thank (he does not know yet). Around the time the nominations were opened AVG was supposed to get a literary prize of sorts. Alex refused to pick up the prize in protest at the obscenity case that was still open at the time – if I get this right, Alex would not receive a prize from a government that still tolerated such laws. I am sure Alex will correct me if I am wrong – he did and here is his full explanation:

I didn’t attend the awards ceremony for this reason alone: because it was held under the auspices of the prime minister, leader of the political party which runs NET TV, and which accused me and Mark Camilleri of paedophaelia (a pretty serious accusation, especially when unfounded, in this day and age). My not attending was not a non-acceptance of the prize (I need the money badly) and neither a protest against being hauled to court. I bear no grudges about that. I hope that’s clear now, although I suspect I’ll be called to correct misconceptions and inaccuracies once again soon enough. – AVG

Some people, commenting on the AVG business, said it was ironic that he was being awarded a prize when his work was being “censored” by the police and when he was actually still an accused in court. Sweet. Only Alex was not awarded the prize for “Li Tkisser Sewwi” so it was a little less ironic.

Back to us. We liked the idea of prizes for misfits. So we nominated three articles from J’accuse. The articles in question all deal with the state of journalism in Malta – something that J’accuse has taken much to heart believe or not. We did not really think we’d get very far to be honest so Kudos for the shortlisting. As an addendum we would like to add that we would have liked to nominate some blog posts for the category of e-journalism but our questions regarding the procedure for an electronic (unsigned) application remained unanswered.
Here are the shortlisted articles:

1. The Day Journalism Died (28th February 2010)

In which it is argued that Malta’s foremost programme (winner of the Best Current Affairs Programme in the Malta TV Awards) that boasts that it sets standards in investigative journalism has abdicated its responsibility. The article questions whether the ethical standards that should be upheld by investigative journalists have not been lost using the Bondi+ programme about blogging as an example.

2. A Nation Divorced from Reality (11th July 2010)

In which both censorship and divorce are examined in the light of current developments and attitudes and in which J’accuse returns to the running theme that no matter what the medium for discussion is or what the current theme is, the Maltese have difficulties reconciling themselves with the image in the mirror.

3. The Power and the Glory (28th November 2010)

In which the relationship between power and exposure/popularity is examined. J’accuse analyses the concept of “fish-pondism” or the refusal to acknowledge other sources/opinion within the journalistic/opinion column community. Is Maltese media prepared to engage with the New Media or will “fish-pondism” prevail?

It’s not really about “winning” the prize – we’d actually be surprised if we got much further than this (incidentally congrats and good luck to fellow shortlisted entries Claire Bonello and Kristina Chetcuti). It’s more about making the point in the community that should be listening.

Incidentally the Maltese blogging community is getting a shake up (and is very much alive and kicking) over on facebook thanks to Davinia Hamilton’s new page. Here’s to hoping that a new phase of cross-referencing discussion will open: still trying to find a way to create a common blogroll for Maltese blogs.

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta
Facebook Comments Box

Categories
Jasmine Politics

Conflicts, Interests & Elections

Would you believe that the international position of a number of countries is determined solely by the need to win points in national elections? No? Ok. So here goes a bit of speculation:

  • Denmark – enthusiastic participation in coalition wins incumbent many points for imminent election “With general elections set to take place before November, the move is allowing Denmark’s government to score points with the electorate – strongly in favor of the mission – and Washington, said Bjoern Moeller, a specialist of African conflicts at the Danish Institute for International Affairs.”
  • France – Sarkozy, frontman of “immediate action” supposedly refused to handover operations to NATO because NATO is coordinated from Brussels and it would deny him of the valuable chance of grandstanding before his home electors (who have suddenly found some new confidence in Mr. Bobblehead). Some speculate that Sarkozy’s re-election campaign started in Tripoli.
  • Russia – we thought they’d just abstain right? Nope. The Medvedev vs Putin battle has opened up. Putin’s ridiculing of the interventionist approach found a critic closer to home as Medvedev – Putin’s future opponent for the next presidential election opened fire on Russia’s president.
  • Germany – another abstention. The answer lies in Baden-Wurtemburg – an important regional election for Merkel’s christian-democrats: “The main motivation, it was felt, was rather the state election next Sunday (March 27) in the extremely important state of Baden-Wuertemberg, where the Christian Democrats have ruled the roost since 1953 and fear its very possible loss this time. Although it is relatively prosperous (with the main Daimler-Benz works), Merkel’s party lost face after the Stuttgart railway station violence and is also aware that most people, regardless of their views on Gaddafi, do not want any more German soldiers fighting and dying in other continents. Merkel probably hoped that a cool response on Libya might win anti-war voters, even though the USA command is firmly welcomed on German soil.” BW is not the last regional election this year – there’s five others after that.
  • Spain – the commitment of the Iberian nation can also be explained in terms of electoral losses. By getting a quasi-unanimous vote in parliament in favour of participation in the UN resolution implementation, Zapatero ensured that no political party would get political mileage out of the decision: “Of the 340 lawmakers present, 336 voted in favour of Spain’s participation, three voted against – two from the far-left Izquierda Unida party and one from the tiny left-wing nationalist BNG party – and one lawmaker abstained.”

It is impossible to escape the reality that intervention on an international level is never purely altruistic. Whether it is electoral calculations or business interests, you cannot avoid factoring in these “egoistic” considerations.

Facebook Comments Box

Categories
Jasmine Politics

Conflicts & Interests

Over the past few days the word on the Maltese net/blogosphere/press has been split between the eagles and the doves. It all boiled down to the position Malta seems to be taking with regards to the events in Libya – and in particular the emphasis being made on “Malta not being used as a military base“. Our foreign minister came up with specious phrase: “Militarily Neutral” while others (PM included) have been at pain to stress that Malta will not participate in the “military action“.

At the end of this post I am appending the full text of the controversial “neutrality” article in our Constitution. I would also refer readers to a brilliant article by Prof Richard E. Rubenstein (Maltese neutrality is still a brilliant idea) that appeared on the Times on the 11th March 2011.

Rubenstein argues that the notion of neutrality as entrenched in the Maltese constitution is “neither outmoded, contrary to Maltese national interests, nor immoral”. Rubenstein’s reading of this neutrality is one that “does not imply either passivity or immorality”. J’accuse is very much in agreement with this interpretation. We have argued for a principled approach by the Maltese government. One that does not send signals of yellow submissiveness and wait-and-see approaches.

Our line here does not mean we are plugging for a coalition base in Malta but that we expect a principled – moral even – approach in the development of our position in the international field. Taking Rubenstein’s theoretical approach of a neutral country that is not passive and that is geared towards participating directly by offering a credible platform for conflict resolution (a Guido De Marco revisited) it is not hard to see how the Gonzi/Borg reactive, passive and submissive approach fails even on this count.

The collective action of Malta’s political representatives gave out an impression – and a strong one at that – of a country that was hedging its bets. It was a Malta that still worried about its ephemeral commercial interests with Gaddafi and his government. One that seemed reluctant to condemn the dictator even when his final hour seemed so close. The signs we sent out were not confusing: they were actually quite clear. We gave an unconditional, unqualified message that we would step back and wait: and thank God for all the confusion of neutrality clauses behind which to hide.

Yes, an actively neutral Malta can be a desireable goal for future politicians. Not being on the active “military” side of the UN resolution enforcers is no biggie. Doing everything we can to send out the message to the world that we are actually hiding under a rock until it is all over – when we will crawl out again ready to do business with the next people in power – is a huge huge issue. It is that issue that leads us to conclude that our nation still lacks the balls and a set of clear beliefs.

 

 

***

Article 1 of the Constitution of Malta
(1) Malta is a democratic republic founded on work and on respect for the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual.

(2) The territories of Malta consist of those territories comprised in Malta immediately before the appointed day, including the territorial waters thereof, or of such territories and waters as Parliament may from time to time by law determine.

(3) Malta is a neutral state actively pursuing peace, security and social progress among all nations by adhering to a policy of non-alignment and refusing to participate in any military alliance.

Such a status will, in particular, imply that:

(a) no foreign military base will be permitted on Maltese territory;

(b) no military facilities in Malta will be allowed to be used by any foreign forces except at the request of the

Government of Malta, and only in the following cases:

(i) in the exercise of the inherent right of selfdefence in the event of any armed violation of the area over which the Republic of Malta has sovereignty, or in pursuance of measures or actions decided by the Security Council of the United Nations; or

(ii) whenever there exists a threat to the sovereignty, independence, neutrality, unity or territorial integrity of the Republic of Malta;

(c) except as aforesaid, no other facilities in Malta will be allowed to be used in such manner or extent as will amount to the presence in Malta of a concentration of foreign forces;

(d) except as aforesaid, no foreign military personnel will be allowed on Maltese territory, other than military personnel performing, or assisting in the performance of, civil works or activities, and other than a reasonable number of military technical personnel assisting in the defence of the Republic of Malta;

(e) the shipyards of the Republic of Malta will be used for civil commercial purposes, but may also be used, within reasonable limits of time and quantity, for the repair of military vessels which have been put in a state of non-combat or for the construction of vessels; and in accordance with the principles of non-alignment the said shipyards will be denied to the military vessels of the two superpowers.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Facebook Comments Box

Categories
Jasmine Politics

There are no men in Tripoli

I came across this real story in the middle of a BBC news item about Tripoli eyewitnesses. It speaks volumes and does not need any additional comment.

An old woman, in her late 70s at least, I’m told, entered the bank to collect her 500 Libyan dollars ($410; £253) in state aid announced a couple of weeks ago.

There were two long queues – one for men and one for women. She stood in the men’s queue.

The men urged her to move to the women’s section. “Why?” she challenged.

A man told her: “Ya haja [a term of respect for an elderly woman] this line is for men, women is the other one”.

She loudly replied: “No. All the men are in Benghazi.”

The room is said to have been stunned into silence and she remained in her place until her turn came and she walked out with her money.

It is perhaps a bittersweet private reminder of how frustrated many here are at the lack of efforts in Tripoli in recent weeks to defy the regime and take to the streets.

The joke doing the rounds among the silent opposition in Tripoli is that upon liberation the Benghazi people will bring container loads of women’s underwear for the men in Tripoli.

***

On a separate note here is a brilliant article by the UK Independent’s  Robert Fisk exploring the feelings of families who lost loved ones as  “collateral damage” in previous attempts to hit at Gaddafi. Sgarbi and Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici might have an opinion about civilians faultlessly involved in this preventive intervention but their opinion pales in comparison to that of a mother who lost her daughter in 1986 following an US bombing in retaliation to the Berlin discotheque bombing by Gaddafi. I for one did not expect this kind of answer from her.

But it was with some trepidation that I called them yesterday. Mrs Ghosain answered the phone. “I hope they get him this time,” she said. And I asked, timidly, if she meant the man with the moustache. Colonel Gaddafi has a moustache. Mr Obama does not. “Yes,” she said. “I mean Ghazzefi.” “Ghazzefi” is the Lebanese Arabic pronunciation of the man’s name.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Facebook Comments Box