‘Bias’ Articles at j’accuse

“Quand j’entends, par exemple, madame Taubira dire qu’elle n’est pas au courant (du fond du dossier), elle nous prend pour des blaireaux. – Gilbert Collard.

One hot issue in French politics right now is that of Sarkozy’s tapped phone. It turns out that Sarkozy was being tapped while conversing with his lawyers and a huge fuss has been made about this – literally left, right and centre. Collard is a Front National representative and he was talking about France’s Justice Minister Mme Taubira who had claimed not to have known about the goings on. According to Collard, it is all a question of accountability and responsibility – Taubira’s portfolio means that police and fonctionnaires with the police and magistrates fall under her jurisdiction. “If she says that she was not aware”, Collard says, “then she is treating us like imbeciles”. Yep. “Blaireaux” means “badgers” but in street language it means idiots.

There’s much of that going around nowadays – politicians treating citizens as though they were idiots. Nothing new under the sun, only that it is becoming much more an “in your face” kind of treatment.

Last Sunday, one of Malta’s main newspapers carried a strongly worded editorial criticising Labour’s one year in government. Anyone who managed to read it would have been pleasantly surprised by the reality check being proposed on a number of fronts by the Sunday Times. A particular paragraph dealing with the impeachment proceedings against Judge Farrugia Sacco did not go down well with the person currently sitting in the institutional seat of Speaker of the House. For the benefit of the members of the public who like me prefer not to pay for the fare on offer on the online papers here is the offensive paragraph in question:

“Once that commission (note: “for the Administration of Justice”) reached a conclusion that was obviously inconvenient for the government, Dr Muscat and the Labour-appointed speaker went out of their way to ensure he (note: Judge Farrugia Sacco) would not be impeached before he reaches retirement age in the summer”. (STOM Editorial – 9 March 2014)

It so happens that the person currently occupying the post of speaker did not take too kindly to the editorial. Free as he was to disagree with its conclusions – and point out his disagreement publicly if he so liked – he decided to take it one step further. Labour-appointed speaker Anglu Farrugia has demanded that the Sunday Times withdraw what he described as “serious allegations against him ‘as a person and as a Speaker'” and threatened to take legal action should the Times not give the withdrawal equal prominence as its allegation.

Reality check: this is the two thousand and fourteenth year of the christian era. 2014. For the second time during the Labour-led legislature, a labour-appointed public official has decided to use the parliament and its structures as a means to silence criticism. Joseph Muscat had earlier taken exception to a statement by opposition leader Simon Busuttil and transformed the parliament into a mini-jury in order to get the man to shut up (only to scuttle off to watch a football match rather than be present for the proceedings that ensued).

Heaven forbid, of course, that we insinuate in any way that members of parliament and its speaker are not within their rights and prerogatives whenever they try to defend themselves and their reputation. Having said that the zero-sum game that Farrugia is engaging with the Times is not a defence of a prerogative. It would not take too much of a genius for even the leak-recipient that is the Times to notice that the chain of events leading to the postponement of the possible impeachment smacks highly in the very least of incompetence for want of trying. It would be the duty of a vehicle of the press that notices such a lacuna in the mechanisms of our institutional representative structures and processes to point such a lacuna out. It’s a fair comment – accuse it of bias if you like (bias? the Times?) but do not gag it.

Using the “position of Speaker” in order to throw unnecessary weight around is an unfair attempt at gagging the fourth estate. Such cases have been dealt with long ago in real liberal democracies. The freedom of the press and its right to point out deficiencies in democratic representation has long been encapsulated and spelled out in the jurisprudence of the aforementioned liberal democracies. We even had our own moment of glory before the European Court of Human Rights with the famous Demicoli vs Malta – where the Court found that the requirements of impartiality must always be preserved whenever the House felt its privilege was violated.

Incidentally, one of the two members of parliament to raise the original breach of privilege back in the eighties was the Joe Debono Grech. Another of the old-timer appointments to token but remunerated positions by this meritocratic government (we also learnt recently, among others, of Alex Sciberras Trigona’s and Joe Grima’s appointment as envoys to World Trade and Tourism Organisations). The revamped (Daily Mail inspired) MaltaToday reported yesterday that “Debono Grech refused to stay for a public consultation meeting for the Gozo minister when he learned that he was not to be placed at the head table.” Not much of a twist on the learning curve there either.

And finally, for something completely different and pythonesque, since we are on the subject of institutional disfigurement we might as well mention the news that Minister Manuel Mallia’s minions are organising government official activities in the very impartial venues of PL Clubs. Yes, that’s Kazini tal-Labour. Here’s how the Times reported the matter (my bold):

Government officials employed with the Home Affairs Ministry’s customer care unit have been detailed to attend meetings with the public organised at PL clubs located in the minister’s constituency. According to newspaper adverts titled ‘Always close to you’ (Viċin Tiegħek Dejjem), Manuel Mallia will be holding a series of meetings with the public in the coming weeks in seven localities in the districts from which he was elected last year. Without giving details of the actual place where Dr Mallia will be meeting the public, the adverts state that two days before each meeting, “people from the ministry’s customer care will be present at the respective locality’s Labour Party Club to meet the public”. (Times Online – 11th March)

What will the excuse be this time? That we are saving public money by using venues kindly provided by the Labour Party? That the Minister did not know and was not aware?

Blaireaux anyone?

“The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers… [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper.” – Thomas Jefferson

Jekk tinzerta tkun qiegħed ħdejn xi bajja Maltija taf tara kartelluni li javzaw lil kull min bi ħsiebu jgħum illi “Topless sunbathing is prohibited”. Dejjem laqtitni din fuq ħafna livelli. L-ewwelnett għax għadna iffissati biż-żejża. L-iskop ta’ din il-projbizzjoni ma hix ċara. Hemm forsi skop sanitarju? Jista jkun li l-“awtoritajiet” qed jikkumbattu il-kanċer tas-sider – għax ħafna xemx mhux tajjeb għaż-żejża? Forsi. Jista’ jagħti l-każ ukoll li din hija projbizzjoni oħra minn dawk ibbażata fuq il-pudur ta’ ħaddieħor. Taf int. Forsi l-“awtoritajiet” qed jipproteġu lili u lilek minn xi esibizzjoni esaġerata ta’ mammarji. Big Brother is protecting you.

Fil-verita l-ebda skuża ma treġi. Għax allura għax ma tipprojbix tipjip fil-pubbliku bl-istess raġunar? U jekk se tuża l-iskuża tal-pudur mhux aħjar tgħid lil ħaddieħor iħares band’oħra? L-isbaħ “No Topless Sunbathing” fil-bajja ta’ San Ġorġ mitt metru bogħod mill-“Gentlemen’s Cubs”. M’għandux x’jaqsam ta – it-topless sunbathing mal-Gentlemen’s Club – imma xorta toħroġ idea konfuża tan-normi li jirregolawna u l-mori li jsejsuhom.

Imma barra dan kollu hemm ħaġ’oħra li tittikani. Il-projbizzjoni m’hijiex ibbażata fuq liġi li tistipula espressament li tixxemex b’sidrek mikxuf huwa illegali. Le. Il-projbizzjoni hija interpretazzjoni ta’ liġi li tistipula li tkun “indeċenti fil-pubbliku” huwa reat. Jiġifieri x’imkien hemm kejl soġġettiv illi f’daqqa waħda isir universali. Il-qrati għalhekk hemm qiegħdin – biex jinterpretaw u japplikaw il-liġi … u kulltant per forza maggiore dik l-interpretazzjoni taf biss tirrinforza l-assurd – sakemm jiġi maġistrat u jinterpreta kollox b’mod differenti.

****

Smajna li l-Kummissjoni għall-Amministrazzjoni tal-Ġustizzja se tinvestiga lil Maġistrat Demicoli wara l-allegazzjonijiet ta’ Anġlu Farrugia. Qabel inkompli irrid ngħid li żewġ il-Maġistrat Demicoli huwa ħabib tiegħi (għax jidher li għal xi nies din l-informazzjoni taf tkun importanti iktar mill-fatti). Issa il-kwistjoni li għaddejja minnha il-Maġistrat hija proprju kwistjoni oħra li tirrefletti l-assurdita ta kif inħaddmu l-liġi – assurdita li ħafna drabi ikollha l-għeruq tagħha fis-sistema partiġġjana.

Il-Kummissjoni għandha kull dritt (Artiklu 101A (11) (f) Kostituzzjoni):

li tiġbed l-attenzjoni ta’ kull imħallef jew maġistrat fuq kull ħaġa, fil-qorti li fiha hu jkun ipoġġi, li ma tkunx konduċenti għal funzjonament effiċjenti u xieraq ta’ dik il-Qorti, u li tiġbed l-attenzjoni ta’ kull imħallef jew maġistrat għal xi aġir li jista’ jolqot il-fiduċja li għandu minħabba l-kariga tiegħu, jew għal xi nuqqas minn naħa tiegħu li jimxi skond xi kodiċi jewkodiċijiet ta’ etika li jkun japplika għaliha;

Mela sew. Il-Kummissjoni dehrrilha li għandha tara jekk l-aġir tal-Maġistrat Demicoli kienx influwenyat minn xi bias politiku kif allegat minn Anglu Farrugia (li barra li hu politiku hu ukoll avukat). Din l-investigazzjoni tista twassal għal “ġbid ta’ l-attenzjoni” tal-Maġistrata ikkonċernata. Nimmaġina li jiktbu ittra oħra fejn jsemmgħu il-preokkupazzjoni tagħhom dwar bias possibbli. Pero ħaġa waħda ma ddoqqlix. Sakemm ma hemmx xi prova ta’ influwenza esterna (tipo telefonati, tixħim, pressjoni mill-partiti jew Ministri jew xi ħaġa hekk), l-uniku indizju li għandha il-Kummissjoni hija l-kawża innifisha.

Is-sentenza tal-Maġistrat Demicoli hi dik li hi. Kienet waħda motivata u ma ninsewx li peress li qed nitkellmu fuq kamp kriminali qed ngħidu li irid ikun hemm każ “beyond reasonable doubt”. Dik l-istess sentenza diġa ġiet eżaminata fl-appell u diġa ingħataw raġunijiet sostantivi u raġunati għalfejn għandha tinqaleb. Li jinkwetani allura hu li l-Kummissjoni se tkun qed taġixxi bħala Qorti ta’ Appell ieħor. Jew se taqbel mal-Imħallef Mallia u jekk tagħmel hekk ikun fuq punti ta interpretazzjoni legali, jew le. Il-kwistjoni ta’ bias politiku m’għandhiex x’taqsam.

Biex nagħti eżempju fittizju, stajna kellna sitwazzjoni inversa fejn il-Maġistrat sabet lil Bartolo ħati u dan inħeles fuq Appel. Allura konna ngħidu li l-qorti tal-appell hija biased? Skond statistika li qaluli fuq xi 600 kawża appellata xi 200 jiġu mibdula fl-Appell. Dan huwa normali fl-iter legali. Il-problema ma hix il-bias potenzjal ta’ imħallef jew maġistrat imma li partit politiku (jew membru tiegħu) ħass il-bżonn li jkompli jippolitiċiżża il-qrati u jkompli jimmina l-fiduċja pubblika fil-ġustizzja. Deherli li Muscat sewwa għamel li talab ir-riżenja ta’ Farrugia għal daqshekk (ġietux ix-xoqqa f’moxxtha jew le).

Wara kollox għandna kultura miftuħa ta’ Maġistrati u Imħallfin li huma jew ta’ xi kulur jew ta’ ieħor. Mhux sigriet. Ara x’ġara ma’ l-aħħar skandlu – il-partiti jippuntaw subgħajhom lil xulxin “Dak tagħkom… appuntajtuh intom”. Sfortunatament il-verita hi dik li hi. Il-ġudikatura s’issa kienet appuntata biex jitpaxxew il-partiti. Li jiġu issa l-partiti u l-makkinarji tagħhom u jibdew jakkużaw lil min jaqblilhom b’bias politiku jikkonferma kemm aħna dilettanti tal-liġi tal-assurd.

spread the word:

spread the word: