Categories
Arts

Adult Entertainment (ars gratia artis)


phallus_akkuza

The MADC has just ended a run of Elaine May’s Adult Entertainment – a play that centres around a group of porn actors and their efforts to write their own scripts. Porn was never an easy subject to broach, particularly in a community where the words “tightly-knit”, “gossip” and “moral indignation” stick out like ugly sores on the face of any possible semblance of liberal independence.

Unfortunately, I was not able to view any of the MADC performances and so I am unable to tell you whether the MADC troupe carried the play better than most other performances worldwide that did not seem to attract very good reviews (though apparently May’s script might have a lot to answer for that). What I am sure of is that once the MADC actors (and may I emphasise the Amateur – as in not professional – in that acronym) shed their characters’ masks and stopped living the porn dream in those moments of suspended reality, they returned to being very normal (or rather, very complex) human beings. In all probability they go about their different jobs and lives with the same clumsy haphazardness as you or I might.

Once their make-make up levels are reduced to “time for a selfie in aid of cancer research”, the actors stop being actors. They stop being porn stars who supposedly won prizes for “Best Anal” and become executives, salesemen, insurance brokers, managers or teachers. Some might even double up giving a hand in drama school imparting some of the experience they might have gained on stage to young(er) hopefuls.

I do say shed. In our tiny world though, where the aforementioned ugly warts of “gossip” and “moral indignation” run a fine thread through our social fabric, the authors might often find that their artistic exploits (or even failures) hang on to them well beyond their exit (stage left). They are shadowed by the stamp of whatever character whose shoes they might have filled for those fleeting instances on stage. This happens especially in the case of whatever goes for controversial these days – think nudity or offensive behaviour. It’s not just censorship that posed a problem to our artistic community (wherever you may think the source of that censorship may be) but also the consequences of living a life surrounded by the liberal arts. Others might not be too impressed.

Heaven forbid that your scene includes nudity or that you had to fill the shoes of a mentally depraved character. Forget the exploration of the human psyche through a literary interpretation – no, their judgement is that this is sick. Worse still, you are incurable. You may take yourself off the stage but your sickness hangs on. “Did you see him nude on stage? Was it full frontal? Did he really speak like that about wanting to kill a baby? She has no shame standing there with her knockers gazing straight at my husband – we had front row seats you know! I’m sure she/he enjoyed every second of being in that role”. It gets worse. “How could her employers keep her on after seeing her in the buff?”

Of course there is an alternative to all this madness. You could bear in mind that each and every one goes through a life that is full of ups and downs, highs and lows. Some event (or recurring event) such as a broken relationship, a death in the family, a history of abuse, domestic dissonance could end up unearthing an ugly side of a person. Life tends to throw things at us and does not discriminate between actors, local councillors or lavatory attendants. Life happens and man, being the free-thinking animal that he is, has a very complex way of dealing with such moments.

Alea iacta est, the dice are cast. Actors, plumbers, soldiers, – whoever – at some point in their life will be faced with ugly moments and difficult decisions. To link such a bad patch to a profession or a performance or more specifically to whatever mask is worn on stage is pure balderdash.

Never can a judgement be so shallow as one that reduces a person to one flat dimension, ignoring all his or her complexities and realities. Even in the legal world where a judgement must perforce be given at some point, formulae and principles have been developed in order not to judge too summarily and especially to avoid pre-judgement – and as we know, even the legal world is not infallible. It is nigh impossible to judge unless all circumstances are known and a fuller picture is to be had.

All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first, the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse’s arms.
And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress’ eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon’s mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slipper’d pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side,
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.

(Jaques in Shakespeare’s As You Like It, Act II, Scene VII)

Categories
Politics

Din l-art ħelwa

Donnhom jagħmluha bi ħsieb. Tasal elezzjoni u jzeffnu  l-art fin-nofs. Tkun se toqrob elezzjoni u min forsi ikun xi ftit marid b’dik il-fissazzjoni dwar valuri, ideat u politika ta’ prinċipji isib ruħu imdawwar bi kronaka kriminali, psewdo-kriminali u allegazzjonijiet ta’ attivitajiet korrotti. Ħa ngħiduha kif inhi – il-politika imkien ma hi abjad fuq iswed. Ma tantx ser issib okkazzjonijiet fejn għażla bejn sew politiki/ideat differenti ssir b’diskussjoni denja ta’ fakulta tal-filosofija.

Bosta drabi f’pajjiżna innutajt illi l-qafas pre-elettorali għandu ħabta jiġi iddominat minn xi kwistjoni li tinvolvi bejgħ jew xiri ta’ artijiet. Niftakar żmien ilu (m’inix żert kienx id-96 jew id-98) lil Fenech Adami iħambaq għal ħin twil waqt mass meeting ġo Triq Psaila. Kien dwar xi kuntratt li mar żmerċ. Xi Charles Mangion jekk minix sejjer żball (imma jaf li iva sejjer zball). Li naf li moħħi kien jintefa wara ftit. Din it-taħlita ta’ psewdo-investigazzjoni u allegazzjoni pubblika kienet ittellifli kull sens ta’ interess. Filli kont nissaħħar wara dak li instema bħala proġett mibni fuq sisien ta’ xogħol, ġustizzja, liberta, solidarjeta, u sussidjarjeta… imbagħad filli qed jitkellmu dwar kuntratti, korruzzjoni, fottimenti, klikek li jagħmlu flus, art li mhux tagħhom eċċ. (titwiba) eċċ.

Għal bidu ma stajtx nifhem xi bżonn kien hemm li jingħataw tant importanza lil dawn l-affarijiet. Iva mela le, investigahom, u hekk, imma mhux madonna taħlili siegħa diskors fuq kuntratti u ftit (ftit wisq) fuq il-ħsieb tiegħek għall-ġejjieni u fuq liema prinċipji se jsawru l-pjan prattiku tal-gvern futur. Imbagħad kelli nidra. Għax bejn Sant u d-diskors kontinwu dwar barunijiet (li kienu ukoll imprendituri, spekulaturi fl-art) u bejn kuntratti li minn sena għal oħra kienu ikunu qishom il-pern li fuqhom tinbena politika ta kritika kelli nidra li f’din l-art ħelwa, l-art kollox.

Hemm għalfejn immorru l-bogħod? Tinsewx li l-elezzjoni tal-2008 (l-aħħar waħda biex niftehemu) intrebħet u intilfet fuq biċċa art il-Mistra. Pullicino Orlando u d-dmugħ falz tiegħu ssussidjat mill-klikka tal-ispin nazzjonalista kellu sehem importantissimu fir-riżultat finali. Daqstant ieħor kellu sehem it-timing hażin ta’ Alfred Sant li forsi ma għarafx iġestixxi sewwa l-mument li jikxef l-għawar fuq l-aħħar kuntratt mbażwar li kien ser iniġġeż lil din l-art ħelwa. Jekk hux art kbira li se tinbiegħ lil intraprenditur jew xi abbuż mill-kriterji tal-ippjanar (ah xi kriterji) tagħna bħal Manwel Arriva Delia li jiftaħlek offiċċju fir-raħal imma għadu biss bil-permess li jbiegħ il-ħaxix (ifhem).

Iddur fejn iddur tispiċċ titkellem fuq art. Mhux ta’ b’xejn li waħda mill-ikoni tal-politika Maltija inbniet wara Perit. Fejn issib biċċa business fl-art kull ma trid tagħmel hu li tfittex ftit. Hemm issib il-ħaxi. Jekk mhux verita għallinqas hija sewwa magħrufa (fis-sens ta’ “mhux kullħadd jaf, mhux ovvja”). Għax hekk għallmuna naħsbu. Issa ħarġu waħda ġdida. Perfetta. Għall warm up għall elezzjoni li jmiss għandna l-kuntratt bejn it-Tfal tal-Perit u ċ-Ċaqnu. Bellezza.  Tal-alternattiva ilhom imsieken jaqbżu għal din l-art ħelwa u isejħu għal politika miftuħa, nadifa u trasparenti fil-qasam tal-art. Anki f’dan il-każ indunaw illi dal-kuntratt jinten miż-żewġ naħat. Kif jista ma jintinx… għandu storja li tinbet fl-aħħar xhur tal-politika soċjalista u tkompli tul il-perijodu ta’ gvernijiet nazzjonalisti.

Din l-art ħelwa. Stennew botta u kontro botta dwar il-kuntratt, il-ħaxi, il-fottimenti, in-nuqqasijiet li bihom qed indardruha. Fuq kollox stennew li kull naħa toħroġ ta’ kavalliera protettriċi ta’ dan il-wirt tagħna u tas-suppost prinċipji li inħaddnu biex nindukrawha. Stennew storbju, stennew frakass u allegazzjonijiet. Stennew, bħal ma kien qal Rupert, l-għaġeb bħal ma sar fil-każ tal-bajd tal-fkieren. Imbagħad tgħaddi l-elezzjoni u kollox qisu ma hu xejn. il-bajd jintesew u l-ħaxxejja jibqgħu jaħxu – huma min huma.  L-art fejn tal-Barrani tinbena plottijiet u jgaqwdu minnha ulied Mintoff u ulied Fenech Adami. Mhux it-tfal ta’ … uliedhom – fis-sens ta’ ulied Mose… dawk li ħaddnu l-istess modus operandi tul iż-żmien. Li waqt li jkantaw dwar din l-art ħelwa u kemm jgħożżuha ma refgħux id biex iħarsuha minn kull deni.

Id-dehen lil min jaħkimha? Forsi ilu li għadda ż-żmien meta jmissna indunajna li l-ħakkiema kollha ta’ l-istess pezza.

Il-Ħadd it-tajjeb.

 

Categories
Internet Rights Politics Values

Fighting the law and winning – Censorship

University Rector Juanito Camilleri has  indicated that he would not have reported an undergraduate to police for publishing an explicit story in a student newspaper had the law been clearer, though he sees no reason to apologise. Now that’s interesting. Here is the rector:

“Whether it is a fictional story or not is beside the point as far as I am concerned. I was not acting from a moral standpoint, nor as a literary critic… I acted with prudence and referred the matter to the police for their consideration because it was not at all clear whether the text, the way it was presented without disclaimer, and the way it was being distributed, even to minors, was in breach of the law or not.”

It’s hard to get this straight. The rector was, by his own admission, acting on legal advice – as he should in such cases. It should be safe to assume that the legal advisor was a little more clear about the import of the law than that and yet he or she still advised a referral to the police. In this particular case (hereafter referred to as the Realtà Case) we had a case that dragged two persons (author and editor) and that involved a police prosecution as well as an AG appeal. At stake, according to many was our “freedom of expression”.

“People say graffiti is ugly, irresponsible and childish… but that’s only if it’s done properly.”  – Banksy

If it ain’t broke…

What really was at stake was a definition of our laws on obscenity in accordance to the mores of the day. In simpler terms – we have a law intended to protect citizens (especially those who are unable to protect themselves) from obscenity and pornography. The basic assumption in our law is that you can publish and be damned. What you cannot do is publish something that can be deemed to be obscene (I’ll stick to one out of the two). IF there is a suspicion of obscenity you still have exceptional circumstances that would protect the publication from attack: one of these is generally (and vaguely -as Anti-Acta campaigners would have it) is art.

There lies the crux of the matter. In order for this law to work you need to define a piece of work as “art”. Away from the philosophical world of “what is art?” you still need a qualification in order to have a law that works and, ironically, that is not intrusive. The issue with this kind of law is that it is time-sensitive. It needs to be tested time and time again as mores and attitude changes. Let’s exaggerate for the sake of example. Imagine one exception to obscenity is if it was a piece of “music”. I love to use the example of Igor Stravinsky’s Rites of Spring. At it’s premier, the piece of “music” was violently criticised as being anything but.  Here’s good old Wikipedia describing the goings on in Paris that night in May 1913:

The première involved one of the most famous classical music riots in history. The intensely rhythmic score and primitive scenario and choreography shocked the audience that was accustomed to the elegant conventions of classical ballet. The evening’s program began with another Stravinsky piece entitled “Les Sylphides.” This was followed by, “The Rite of Spring”. The complex music and violent dance steps depicting fertility rites first drew catcalls and whistles from the crowd. At the start, some members of the audience began to boo loudly. There were loud arguments in the audience between supporters and opponents of the work. These were soon followed by shouts and fistfights in the aisles. The unrest in the audience eventually degenerated into a riot. The Paris police arrived by intermission, but they restored only limited order. Chaos reigned for the remainder of the performance.

To add to the intrigue various historians allege that Stravinsky actually invented the stories of the riots to spice up the reception to his new music but that is not my point. Discussions on art and its nature can be highly controversial and many would agree that the place to discuss this would not be the straightjacket chamber of a law court. The point is though that the rules of society that allow us to coexist need take into consideration the right of an artist to express himself conjointly with the right of weaker members of society not to be harmed. Having an exception to obscenity laws which is based on a legal definition of art carries baggage with it.

So yes, Alex Vella Gera and Mark Camilleri were inconvenienced by the immediate need to “update” the definition of art. The law is not unclear though. It is a necessary law that need not be tampered with. All you need to do is imagine the law prohibiting obscenity without qualifying exceptional circumstances such as art. Can you imagine that? I hear you now yelling “self-censorship” as though it is only now that we discovered such a maravilious concept. Self-censorship is obviously one of the basic implied precepts of most of our freedoms at law. Not just in our law but in basic Human Rights texts. Fighting the law to obtain “better” definitions of what can or cannot be published or produced is counter-productive. It is a naive invitation to the dabblers in law to create faulty legislation by attempting to define the undefineable.

“Policemen and security guards wear hats with a peak that comes down low over their eyes. Apparently this is for psychological reasons. Eyebrows are very expressive and you appear a lot more authoritative if you keep them covered up. The advantage of this is that it makes a lot harder for cops to see anything more than six foot off the ground. Which is why painting rooftops and bridges is so easy.”  – banksy

A certificate to rebel?

I am angrier at the local art community than at Juanito Camilleri. They seem to have been waiting for an official certificate for them to be able to write or paint about vaginas, sexual lust and urges. Not all of them mind you. Alex Vella Gera has gone on record more than once that he would have preferred avoiding this mess. Others like Immanuel Mifsud have been quietly publishing thought provoking explicit stories without so much as a whimper. The impression from the “Front Kontra c-Censura” front is that of others who almost abet the nanny state concept. Artists don’t wait for their expression to be legal before expressing it. They express. The logic of it all – even within our supposedly archaic constrained legal order – is that if it’s art then it’s good.

That’s not how some of our artists seem to think. They are caught up in this anti-ism of Big Brother, Censorship Laws, etc and suddenly become all preoccupied about what is legal and what is not. Their primary concern is not art but legal art – and they themselves have wrought an ugly mental cage from which it is hard to get free. What do they want? Do they want a public list of dos and donts? The rules of the land are there to protect the weak. Art should be pushing the boundaries, provoking thought and ideas not waiting for the nihil obstat from society. Sure there’s a few risks involved especially if you get misunderstood but as the Realtà case showed… it’s common sense that magically and historically prevails. More often than not.

 

“Think outside the box, collapse the box, and take a fucking sharp knife to it.” – Banksy

 

Categories
Arts

Gallery Pi goes Yerbury

Bertu of Bertoons for J’accuse has sent in a promo blurb for this exhibition that is runnning at Rupert Cefai’s Gallery Pi between the 14th and 24th October. J’accuse dutifully passes on the information to its readers – do go check out Rupert’s little corner of Valletta in Archbishop Street.

“Naked ruins exclusive at Gallery Pi”

Like Madonna, the Yerbury duo constantly reinvent themselves with fresh  approaches to their art – and challenging diversions within the social portraiture genus.

As the 4th generation of this celebrated Scottish photographic dynasty, Trevor spent many years concentrating on fashion and private nude commissions. He returned to social and wedding photography in the mid 90s and immediately created a unique style of photography, which not only earned him the title of “Kodak UK Wedding Photographer of the Year” in 1997 & 1999, but his influential style helped change the course of wedding photography into the relaxed, informal style we have today.

No stranger to the media, Trevor has been interviewed about his individual style of photography on national television by Noel Edmonds for the BBC, Carol Smillie for ITV and Paul Ross for SKY. He is a regular contributor to BBC radio arts programmes.

Trevor was featured on the BBC Arts documentary “The Bigger Picture” where he was filmed making a portrait of Billy Connolly. The resulting image was used as the opening scene for each episode and has since become an iconic image.

Their work in photographing the female nude has been recognised internationally, resulting in overseas exhibitions and seminar tours. In 2003,the Yerburys’ talent was commissioned to supply the entire artwork for the new Glasshouse Hotel in Edinburgh – a brave concept, but one that resulted in the hotel recently being voted Sexiest Hotel in Scotland.

The Yerburys have held several exhibition of their work in galleries around the UK including the Association of Photographers Gallery in London and the Demarco Gallery in Edinburgh. Their work has also been exhibited in America, France and Spain. Their work has been featured in many books and photographic magazines on the Nude Trevor holds a total of 14 Kodak European Gold Awards. His other awards include SWPP UK Glamour Photographer 2006 and UK Fashion Photographer 2006.

Four years ago Trevor Yerbury was voted one of the world’s top ten photographers by a leading Spanish magazine…despite having once declared: “I won’t shoot the wedding if the bride isn’t beautiful”.

Faye joined Trevor full time in 1996 and has earned an enviable reputation for her work. On 3 occasions she has won the title of “Kodak UK Child Photographer of the Year”. She also holds a Kodak Gold Award and SWPP UK Architectural Photographer 2006.

The Yerburys now devote much of their time to their seminar and workshop programme, convinced that education is essential for today’s professional photographer. They are committed to providing a platform and an environment in which all levels of photographers can come together and develop their own individual creative talents.

Trevor and Faye have judged both nationally and internationally. Trevor has just finished judging the annual European Professional Photographer of the Year Awards 2011.

The exhibition will run exclusively at Gallery Pi Archbishop Str., Valletta, from the 14th to the 24th October 2011, The Gallery will be open from Tuesday to Friday from 10am to 2pm and Saturdays from 9:30 to 12:30 or by appointment. For more information please visit www.gallerypi.com

 

Categories
Arts

imagine 18 revisited

And this is where I continue from yesterday’s post. As I was saying (at some point) my biggest worry in this kind of events is that the “culture” crowd gets a little toy and keeps it to itself for a few events that would be deemed “arty-farty”. I am sure that this is not my concern alone but also that of the organisers – it was evident from some of the Monday presentations that they were assessing how to involve more and more people in this festival of all that is art.

Having lived through Luxembourg’s experience of European Cultural Capital (2007) I can see the first-hand benefits to be had to a whole cultural landscape. Luxembourg has been on a massive growth curve in terms of the general culture scene. It does have the added advantage of being part of a “Greater Region” that includes French Lorraine, German Rheinland-Pfalz and to a lesser extent Belgian Luxembourg. Initiatives in Luxembourg may have a wider catchment reaching out to these areas too but the benefits of 2007’s experience remain very local.

I’d like to expand on the village festa and village space concept, especially after Liz’s comment on yesterday’s post. What I meant when comparing “invasion” with “relation” was exactly what Liz emphasised. The village set-up built around organising mass scale events involving the whole population is there to be nurtured not radically changed. Liz echoed my thoughts when she said that the festa people might do with some inspiration to switch from tombola mode and explore new options of entertainment that might be deemed more “culture-worthy” by the snob among us.

Echternach in Luxembourg has the funny-walking march (dancing procession) on the occasion of the feast of Saint Willibrod attracting thousands of pilgrims/tourists to the area. The Limburg carnivals are a huge festival of celebration in the catholic “enclaves” of the Netherlands that turn out to be a massive street party along the canals of Maas for example complete with beer fests, food fests and shopping extravaganza. But we know this don’t we?

We also might have heard of the light show that illuminates Strasbourg’s immense cathedral in summer. We already have a series of summer “festivals” of our own in Valletta and beyond so there’s not much to learn there either. So what can Valletta 18 do that we are not doing already?

I’d suggest, as a first idea, to pilfer the TED format even further. Is there a Ministry building, a department, a hangar or something somewhere in Valletta (I’d bank on Strait Street) that can become a permanent workshop for Valletta 18? I’d turn it into a regular appointment for the business, art and political community. A stage, a powerpoint system, (some fans or aircon would be swell), chairs, coffee bar and bob’s your uncle. Imagine a weekly appointment at 7pm for two or three speakers to give 8 to 10 minute presentations and open the floor for discussion.

Create the thinking space. Give Valletta a brain. Let it build itself into a thinking city. The subjects could be anything – just like TED – so long as they could be linked to Valletta. Ideas about events, ideas about performances, transport, linking, networking…. how about it then?

Categories
Articles

J’accuse : Sophistry, Protagoras & San Ċipress

The return of summer has meant the return of the time-slot dedicated to listening to podcasts at a leisurely pace while lapping up the sun on a beach. This week I caught up on the “History of Philosophy without Gaps” series delivered by Peter Adamson of King’s College (available gratis on iTunes). As luck (and universal karma) would have it, I had stumbled on the episode called “Making the Weaker argument the Stronger: the Sophists” (ep. 14 if you care to look it up) and it couldn’t have been a better time to discover the sophists and their school of thought.

Thanks mainly to Plato (see “Protagoras”), the school of the Sophists has had quite a bit of philosophical bad mouthing through the ages and this is mainly because they were seen as a professional class of thinkers who dabbled in the art of “spurious learning that would lead to political success”. From the sophist school (or rather from their detractors) we get the word “sophistry”, which is invariably defined as “an argument that seems plausible but is fallacious or misleading, especially one that is deliberately devised to be so”, or as “the art of using deceptive speech and writing”.

The early sophists invested much in the concept of “virtue” but would soon inject it with a huge dose of relativism − as Protagoras himself would tell us: “Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not”. The problem with sophists however was that via this relativism they were more concerned with persuasion than with the value of truth. In teaching the early politicians the art of persuasion they also thought them that truth could only stand in the way of a successful politician. Truth was not a priority − they would boast that a good sophist could persuade someone that the worse was the better reason… they could make black appear to be white.

The Sophist school lives

The Divorce Debate Hot Potato has left the hands of the people who spoke decisively on the matter and is back in the hands of the bungling lot who are still at odds trying to understand why the rest of the world calls them “representatives”. This is the short-term after-shock when the rocked establishment does what it does best and pulls out the shots for its own survival. Let me put it bluntly: We have two anachronistic parties that had been stripped bare of any semblance of principle beyond the one and only grail of vote-grabbing. Both parties are at this point busily attempting to show the people that they represent their will (Hell Yeah) while contemporaneously attempting to have officially nothing to do with it in the process (Heavens No).

A few weeks back I wrote about Pontius Pilate. His ruse of “release Barabbas” never worked. The people threw the Messiah back into his hands and all he could do was wash them. Not with our modern day Sophists though − far be it from them to wash their hands publicly. Instead they do the impossible and find themselves ditching truth in order to sell the implausible and fallacious packaged as political dogma. To me, the prize of the day, nay the millennium, must go to Inhobbkom Joseph. Sophist to a tee, il-Mexxej has wriggled his way out of Labour’s non-position to the extent that a huge amount of his supporters actually believe that the Labour party is in favour of the introduction of divorce legislation.

Muscat’s post-result speech fell just short of letting people assume that it was thanks to Joseph and his party that Yes carried the day. Nothing new there… I still meet Nationalist Party card carriers who believe the spin that the Yes movement seven years ago was a purely in-house affair. Muscat then performed logical acrobatics of an impressive kind in which he managed to imply that the Nationalist Party is obliged to vote Yes (or resign) while conveniently ignoring the fact that this paladin of progressive politics has not got the balls to tell his own party to stuff the free vote where the sun does not shine. The fallacy (Labour is a pro-divorce party) had been sold − hook, line and sinker to the electorate − while Muscat abetted anti-divorce MPs in his own party. Epic representative fail but huge sophist success.

The powers of an MP

At the other end of our poor political spectrum, the only man with a pair of considerable male attributes remains unsurprisingly Austin Gatt. Much as I disagree with his position (completely and utterly) on divorce itself, there is no doubt that Austin Gatt was clear from day one and his position is an interesting standard in the sea of wavering compromises that are the official party positions. Austin said he could never fit in a party that would be in favour of divorce and that he would resign if his party would pronounce itself in favour. His position is that his conscience trumps the voice of the people in this matter and that he is willing to face the consequences with the electorate (luckily for him he will not be contesting the next election so not much facing to be done there).

I have consistently argued that a referendum was not the right way to introduce a civil right such as divorce. One reason was that in the real world we would have clear direction from parties who could legislate responsibly and professionally with the balance between common good and minority rights in mind. The mess this referendum has put us in is not a result of the YES/NO answer (it has been pointed out that the 53/47 per cent ratio was the same as when the “debate” was officially launched) but a result of our representatives abdicating their responsibility at the start of it all. We cannot have spineless parties without a position (two sets of free votes − 69 consciences − and a collective bandwagon of shameless sophistry) suddenly being trusted with the enacting of such a delicate piece of legislation − and all the signs show that they cannot seem to understand how to do it either.

Kollox suġġettiv (everything’s subjective)

It’s now all about fine-tuning for the parties and the electorate would do well to take note. Muscat’s PL and Gonzi’s PN are about to pull one of those wool-before-your eyes tricks in which they excel. Our tendency to be card-carrying voters before being free-thinking emancipated citizens risks nullifying all the awareness that has been gained over the last four weeks. Both PL and PN want to be seen as fulfilling the will of the people while also being non-committal as parties on such an important aspect as a minority right.

Through the divorce debate we saw the gradual rise of a kernel of a Civil Rights Movement. It was one that “Stood Up” and called a spade a spade beyond the useless rhetoric and empty sophistry of the parties. It was promising − and we recognised the momentum. What seems to have been heavily underestimated though was the pulling power of the parties in their attempt to hegemonise (and in the process mollify) the political decision making in our country. Sure, eventually the Ayes will have it − and Austin will do his little tantrum − but will we revert to the spineless politics and the slow pace of opiated Maltese dualism?

The answer to this question seems to be a resounding “of course”. Deborah Schembri has done us the honours. She was a more than promising leader for the kernel Civil Rights Movement and proved her ability to argue above the noise. She surprised everyone by announcing on the people’s forum − (very aptly) Xarabank − that she would choose a career in politics over a vocation as people’s representative (my choice of words). Another one bites the dust (forgive us for being sceptical about the chances of Debbie changing Labour rather than vice-versa).

San Ċipress

And if you were wondering whether Debbie’s absorption will be a one-off distraction factor then look at the new spin from the PN camp involving another budding star − Cyrus Engerer. No sooner had Deborah announced her “career path choice” did the spin begin to portray the liberal side of PN as the new stars. Much as you might like Cyrus and Deborah as politicians who showed their mettle in the divorce debate, you might be heading towards grave disappointment as they are transformed into the latest tools for survival by the PL-PN opiates.

The boredom threshold of a tired electorate is lower than that of a prime time “journalist”. Having taken great pains to cast his decision, the voter just cannot wait for his representatives to just get a move on beyond the fuss and enact the damn law. The voters’ impatience is the political party’s boon − they will reason their way out of this mess and both will try to sell the idea that they are the people’s party. Meanwhile, the short-lived Civil Rights Movement risks being the greatest loser: can you imagine the PLPN handling other important issues beyond divorce? Of course not. And yet Cyrus and Deborah chose to obstinately operate from within the rudderless ships and allow themselves to be paraded like the latest “vara” (statue) at some village festa.

In the words of one of Malta’s foremost philosophers of the 21st century… “jekk intom ghandkom vara, ahna ghandna vara isbah minnkom, jekk intom qieghdin hara, ahna qieghdin hara iktar minnkom,… u jekk intom ghandkom lil Debbie… ahna ghandna ‘l Cyrus (ahjar minnkom)”….

Will we ever learn? If you’re still not convinced by all this sophistry then you might want to try to take a peek on Alternattiva’s quest to remind our representatives why they should stop dilly-dallying. They’re meeting (aptly again) on 7 June at Hastings Garden at 9.30am. If you’re taking an iPod along then do buy the single “I’d rather dance with you”… by the Kings of Convenience − a pleasant tune to listen to before the latest round of philosophy – hopefully there will be less sophistry involved.

www.akkuza.com − thinking different because you don’t seem to want to.