Tuesday is Tonio Borg’s big day. He faces what increasingly promises to be a grilling before a European parliament committee that is tasked to metaphorically expose the worst traits of potential Commissioners to be. They don’t always work, these grillings. Had someone in the committee bothered to ask John Dalli his opinion on having intermediaries (canvassers) interceding for his cause with potential lobbyists then I strongly doubt whether Tonio would he having his three hours of sweat tomorrow.
Tonio is outraged. To begin with I believe that he is right to be outraged by the allegations with regards to Nursultan Nazarbaev’s son-in-law and the Maltese visa. An ex-East German PM is really pushing the “southern, tin-pot, corrupt country” agenda a bit too far for anyone’s liking – enough to stir the “we are Maltese and we don’t take no shit” kind of sentiments that make the Times of Malta comment board such a funny (if not sad) read. That Borg was the relevant Minister at the relevant moment is neither here nor there. Nor is the fact that a lawyer hiked his fees because of the “difficulty in obtaining the permit”. In short, the Kazakh business is not so “yakshemash” and rather overstretched.
On the other hand the general principle behind the fact of people like Mr Nazarbaev-in-law getting visas in Malta while line after line of “immigrants” get the not so kosher treatment does fall squarely at the foot of Minister Borg’s agenda. There is a concept of responsibility lying not so vaguely around Mr Borg’s portfolio – and consequently this can be used as a measure of assessment of the man’s political non-achievements.
It is not the field (or waters) of immigration that will mostly be used as a Punch and Judy stick to beat at the former Deputy PM as though he were some huge piñata. The big words being thrown at the Commissioner-in-waiting are IVF and abortion. Particularly jarring for many was Tonio Borg’s activist stance in such campaigns as the GoL’s (Gift of Life) vain attempts to entrench anti-abortion provisions in the constitution. Borg seems to be labouring under the impression that this is some kind of “persecution” for his Catholic beliefs and values. He is after all a vociferous exponent of the confessional wing of the Christian Democrat party – whatever is left of it in this day and age of opportunistic populism.
Unfortunately the pinata has got the wrong end of the stick. Buttiglione could state that he was persecuted for his beliefs because in his case he was “punished” for his opinions and thoughts notwithstanding the fact that he had not actively tried to impose them on someone else. Not so with Dr Borg. His political track record speaks with his vote if not with his active support. From the divorce issues to the GoL campaign Borg stood squarely with the movement that would have transformed “personal opinion” into national law (and in the GoL campaign case, constitutionally entrenched law). At that point it no longer becomes a matter of personal opinion.
There is no denying therefore that political formations within the EU Parliament could have a vested interest in avoiding the “embarrassment” of a mitre-wielding lay bishop positioning himself at the helm of the Commission’s health policies. It is not a question of persecuting catholics but a question of ensuring that a the Commission does not become a medium for Catholic propagation and propaganda. There’s a Vatican for that.
So yes. Expect the Greens and the Liberals to vote as they would. Expect the Popular Party to rally behind the nationalist party candidate if only out of a sense of twisted camaraderie. Inevitably the surprise ticket upon which all the vote hinges will be the Socialist vote. We had poker-faced Muscat claiming that he will not stand in the way of the nomination but that he cannot guarantee the Socialists giving Borg a hard time. Which is neither here nor there – and not surprising given that it is Muscat. On the one hand he wants to ring the patriotic bell – hopefully he is aware of the amount of national reputation points at stake behind this new nomination (especially after the battering our pride got with Dalligate). On the other hand he cannot resist the tribal call that would celebrate the nomination’s failure as yet another “falliment” by GonziPN.
As for GonziPN itself. Well they have a Deputy Leadership contest to dazzle the faithful (some real challengers for the leadership have wisely called themselves out of the race – “this is not the right moment”). Come Wednesday morning Tonio Borg will either find himself a comfortable office at the Berlaymont or at sea on a tiny dinghy with not much hope that the rescuers will turn up. Which would be quite ironic. Don’t you think?
It’s unbelievable. Joseph Muscat has gone on record stating that AST’s article was “an academic exercise”. What exactly is that supposed to mean? Is it to be ignored because “academia” is just an exercise in mental masturbation? Is Anton Refalo’s article in today’s Independent academic too? Should academia be dismissed in favour of the more “erudite” rantings of Joseph and his clan?
Let’s face it Joseph. At the end of the day the political chessboard has spoken. The PN is fully aware of the fact that it cannot rely on the votes of some of its MPs for much longer. That is why it “survived” the pre-estival votes and parliament is now in recess. This recess has delivered the obvious reality that the country is in full election mode: just look at the recent Billboard War. This recess will end with a few attempts at legislating that will inevitably culminate in a vote of confidence sooner rather than later.
What does that mean in real terms? It means that the PN is very aware that the present legislature and government has its days counted. What the PN does not do is erode at the legitimacy of the rule of law and the foundations of democratic government by constantly farting spurious arguments about “undemocratic government” that betray a clear will to ignore the rules of the game. Labour on the other hand is lost repeating the mantra of the obvious – clearly more comfortable in the “non-academic” field of conjecture so long as that means staying away from presenting its plan for government should it get elected.
Now Joseph has no qualms in belittling the importance of “academic” arguments so long as he can gain more brownie points in the land of spin, conjecture and away from the tangible battles that should be the real battleground in the run-up to an election.
Incidentally Joseph, if Sciberras Trigona’s exercise was an academic exercise in, say, constitutional law, he’d be sitting in his little study sweating out over his notes prepping up for the September resit. Yes, Joseph, even his academic piece was an abject failure.
Labour leader Joseph Muscat has sidestepped the implications of an article penned by his international secretary, Alex Sceberras Trigona, saying the piece claiming the government had lost its “constitutional legality” was an academic exercise.
Asked if Dr Sceberras Trigona’s analysis reflected his position, Dr Muscat said he would rather focus on the political implications of the current “unsustainable” scenario and added that it was up to the Prime Minister to make the necessary decisions.
Dr Sceberras Trigona’s was “a good academic exercise”, Dr Muscat said.
Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando has been quoted by Malta today saying that “the President of the Republic would be justified in calling the Prime Minister to see if he has a majority after Franco Debono’s comments.” (see also on Maltastar). Well he wouldn’t. The President of the Republic need not take any such initiative because it is not up to him to do so. Our Constitution (God Bless the Paper it is written on) is quite clear about when the President may intervene with regards to the Prime Minister (and the leader of the opposition).
The Constitution
Everybody knows that the President appoints the member of the House who in his (the President’s) judgement is best able to command a majority of the members of that house. That situation arises “Whenever there shall be an occasion for the appointment of a Prime Minister” (article 80). On the other hand the Constitution is quite clear about the removal of the Prime Minister (article 81) and it that case it specifies quite clearly that this occurs: “If the House of Representatives passes a resolution, supported by the votes of a majority of all the members thereof, that it has no confidence in the Government, the President may remove the Prime Minister from office“.
You see Jeffrey. It is not up to the President to decide whether the PM still enjoys the support of the majority of members of the House. It is up to the House voting on a clear no confidence motion to do so. Had the drafters of our Constitution wanted to give the President the power to constantly use his own judgement – and not that of the House – in order to assess whether the PM commands a majority then we would have had an article similar to article 90(4):
90 (4) If, in the judgement of the President, a member of the House of Representatives other than the Leader of the Opposition, has become the Leader in the House of the opposition party having the greatest numerical strength in the House or, as the case may be, the Leader of the Opposition has ceased to command the support of the largest single group of members in opposition to Government, the President shall revoke the appointment of the Leader of the Opposition.
The constitutional provisions have already been ignored once in the Richard Cachia Caruana motion and procedures (article 111 in particular). We cannot afford to have politicians continue to ride roughshod on the constitution, observing only the parts of the law that are convenient to them. Abela’s mission in Peru is safe for now.
Punditry Revisited
I am led to believe that some observes sill imagine an extension of the life of this government beyond the reopening of parliament after recess ends. I disagree. The summer break is a reprieve and a chance for the PN to put its house in order. An election cannot be too long in the waiting once the summer break ends – if only for the simple obvious reason that one of either JPO and Debono will be prepared to vote against the government in a crucial confidence motion.
Whether Lawrence Gonzi is prepared to call their bluff – if only to let the blame of the end of government to fall squarely on their shoulders – is a matter of electoral brinkmanship. What we can say for certain is that this kind of midsummer rumbling is a prelude to the silence before the storm. Expect that silence to occur mid-August and the storm to hit you with a vengeance around September (if you’re still around and haven’t melted in the heat).
I read through Mgr Said Pullicino’s fire and brimstone sermon before the assembled judiciary and other representatives of the legal profession with the patience of a Job tried and tested. Earlier in the day I had published my initial reaction on the blog and for the benefit of those who are lucky enough not to yet have the words reverberating in their ears, I shall translate what LorSignor Said Pullicino (Their Sir – definitely not mine) said:
“Before such a clear doctrine of its Teacher (aka Jesus of Nazareth) the Church has nothing to discuss about divorce and the introduction thereof. She (the Church) must limit herself to teaching that whosoever cooperates in any way with the introduction of divorce into the laws of Malta, whosoever applies the law of divorce and whosoever makes recourse to such a law (not being the innocent party), is breaking the Law of God and therefore will be committing a grave sin (ghalhekk ikun qed jidneb b’mod gravi).”
My initial reaction was simple: The Church, being a private institution (even though we are press-ganged into its membership at a moment in life when we cannot raise much objections), is within its rights to determine the parameters of what constitute bonus points towards an eternity of roasting in hell in the egregious company of infidels. True. There are no two ways to go about that. This is no democracy – it is a Universal Catholic Top Heavy Illumination claiming that its dogmas and precepts are inspired by the Old Man in the Sky. Since the witch doctors, druids and augurers of the past, this has been an absolute unqualified condition of religious authority and it is not up to mere mortals to contradict that.
I bow my head low (as low as is politely possible) to such authority over their flock of fervent followers as I would bow my head to the authority of whatever religious leader has over his particular flock. When Said Pullicino does his pick’n’mix selection of biblical tracts and papal encyclicals in order to substantiate the conclusion that the Catholic Church reaches in this particular corner of the world, I cannot be bothered to cross-refer him to other similar collective quotations used by other denominations to reach dramatically different conclusions since I already know the retort that lies in such a battleground, and it involves diabolical citation of scriptural writings.
The Books of Our Judges
Sure. We cannot interfere in Said Pullicino’s expounding of Catholic dogma – nor can we question his absolute statement, which rules out any form of discussion with the Catholic Church on divorce. It’s their problem. “Their” being Catholics. The problem is that gathered before Said Pullicino was no ordinary flock but the representatives of our legal community (oops I almost said brotherhood) gearing up for the opening of another Forensic Year. I am told that such gathering is by invitation and does not form part of the official events of the legal fraternity so presence at such a gathering was optional.
Having said that, I do find it jarring that a symbol of the wisdom of the secular state and a group of people representing one of the main institutions that guarantee the balance of power in the land gather so forcefully before a particular confession to the point that the speaker from the pulpit could claim that “The tradition in the Church that at the beginning of the judicial year, the Judges and the Administrators come to the Altar to request the help of God, the Holy Spirit, in order that he can help them in their ministry (his words not mine) of administration of justice began in the Middle Ages”. So that’s it then? They gather for the sake of perpetuating tradition, right?
The eminent LorSignor goes on to expound the principle of illuminated decision implying that secular law is really an expression of Natural Law (the Law of God expressed by man in recognition of His Justice) and that such service as is given by administrators of justice is in order to put into effect this natural law for the COMMON GOOD. What follows is a rambling about no man being an island and then a warning of the dangers of a secular society. The cheek. The absolute gall. He WAS speaking to representatives of the state with a duty to apply the laws of that secular state when sitting at the bench.
LorSignor went on to attack the consequences of certain “secularisation” and lists the offending laws with the usual confusion of evils (divorce, abortion, homosexuals) that benefits those who have already ruled out any discussion on any one of them. Which is why he concludes the first part of the Sermon and the Rant with the unequivocal condemnation of collaborators with an eventual law on divorce to the status of “committers of grave sins”. Speaking to an assembled congregation of servants of the Constitution, he actively urges them to break the law by not performing their duty before the law.
And my reaction to that was simply: resign. Not Said Pullicino, but the judges called upon to refuse to administer the law of the land. Should they decide to do so then their position is untenable. We cannot have “conscientious objectors” sitting on our benches in court. We cannot have servants of the law subjecting their discretion to their moral values. Should a judge decide that Said Pullicino’s brand of Catholicism is also his then he is free to do. What he is not free to do is to usurp the workings of a secular state with the morals of a Church that dwells in Middle Age traditions.
The Satanic Versions
What Said Pullicino fails to notice is that having judges sitting on secular courts but applying religious principles above secular law is equivalent to the final admission that this state of ours has succumbed to the Catholic Version of Sharia Law. Which is worrying. Because what will stop Said Pullicino from reviving Mosaic Law in his next Medieval Traditional Sermon next year? And what will he stop at exactly? Given the propensity to confuse adultery with divorce, and given the willingness to throw divorce, homosexual marriage and abortion in the same basket, what will stop LorSignor reminding next years’ legal beavers listening in to his rant that Leviticus 18:22 was confirmed by Paul the Tourist in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Romans 1:28?
What was that about? I’ll tell you what that was about. Here’s Leviticus: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” And here’s Corinthians: “Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” What guarantee does Said Pullicino give the secular members of this state that homosexuality will not become his next pet inspiration and anathema? And if it will not? Why not?
strong>To’ebah (abomination)
All is not lost though and it is important to keep matters in perspective. Others have begun to react to this Medieval Speech – Here’s what just-retired Judge Philip Sciberras had to say: “I am a practising Catholic but I believe the state is obliged to regulate such situations by introducing laws. Members of the judiciary should not object to hear divorce cases because of some medieval imposition.” Michael Falzon (of the Constructor’s Association) pointed out the apparent contradictions in Roman Catholic practices in his blog on MaltaToday (“The Tribe that lost its head”, Friday 8 October) and I.M. Beck also had something to say as to the insensitivity of some arguments.
The truth of the matter is that much as we might find it interesting to try to “convince” the Church and its flock of the politically and democratically heretic nature of this latest intervention, we might as well be arguing with a gagged, blindfolded and deaf monkey. Said Pullicino told us that clearly: “the Church has nothing to discuss”. And so be it. In doing so the Church (in the guise of Said Pullicino) is also abdicating its tradition of social contribution that started in the early 1800s.
I count myself among those who argue in favour of a social role of the Church in discussions about family, social cohesion and solidarity. What I refuse to consider is the Church of indulgences, fire and brimstone, mortal sin and whatever other superstition it chooses to revive. By shifting the argument from social participation as a peer with valid experience in society to the field of supernatural abomination and fear, the Church does not only not wish to discuss but it also finds itself in a position when it stops being anybody with whom it is worth discussing. The Church has abused the supernatural before to meddle with the secular – remember the abuse of the Fear of Mortal Sin in the 60s when reading a newspaper could win you a timeshare in hell?
Kill your idols
This is a secular society at the start of the 21st century. We are proud members of a wider community that recognises basic fundamental rights as being the foundation of harmonious living in which society strives towards a common good. These include respect for the dignity of man, the right to life, the right to integrity of the person, the right to private life and to a family and the right to marriage and the founding of a family. This society believes in freedom of thought, conscience and religion and believes that we are all equal before the law, which is why it is founded on the principles of non-discrimination and recognises cultural, religious and linguistic diversity.
This society has enshrined such principles as solidarity, equality and justice in its basic tenets and now, thanks to the Charter on Fundamental Rights within the European Union, we have added an extra cushion and guarantee to these rights and principles. The preamble to the Charter states that: “Conscious of its spiritual and moral heritage, the Union is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity; it is based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law. It places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing the citizenship of the Union and by creating an area of freedom, security and justice.” The ultimate aim is a future of peace based on common values.
Given the choice between the comfort of secular law inspired by the common fundamental values of mankind and the volatile superstitions of the Catholic imposition I know where my heart lies. What I do find disappointing is the abdication of responsibilities by the majority of our political leaders. It is evident that they are biding their time – unable to really fathom which way the wind is going to blow in the end. They have been dealt quite a blow by Said Pullicino since any MP voting for the law will surely be branded a “co-operator” and public sinner – so a huge big up (well done) to Pullicino Orlando for continuing his crusade. It is not a sinful crusade. It is a crusade to grant a civil right and possibility to numerous individuals who would love a second, civil chance at marriage. No amount of Taliban-like rhetoric should prevent that right from being enacted at law and applied in the courts of our land.
Pauline Privilege
I had not heard of the Pauline Privilege until the whole ruckus began. Look it up – it is an interesting, exceptional circumstance that relates to ‘pagans’ (who incidentally don’t only live in the African bush). It is an interpretation of another of Paul the Tourist’s letters (1 Corinthians 7:10-15) and is interpreted “as allowing the dissolution of a marriage contracted between two non-baptized persons in the case that one (but not both) of the partners seeks baptism and converts to Christianity and the other partner leaves the marriage”. In that case the Church is perfectly happy to recognise the divorce for the sake of greater proselytising.
Pauline Privilege or no Pauline Privilege, we are not meant to be discussing the contradictions of the Church. The issue at stake is the secular laws and their application. There is no doubt that Said Pullicino’s faux pas has not contributed in any good way to the issue of the introduction of divorce. When I say faux pas I repeat that this is not in any way a judgement on the beliefs and interpretations of the religious institution but on its evident intent of holding the servants of the state in a moral blackmail and preventing them from performing their duty.
It is in that sense that we risk being damned as a nation. Condemned to the damnation of the imposition of the beliefs and values of the few over the laws for and by the many. It is, in its own way, another watershed in the defining of this young nation of ours.
www.akkuza.com is recovering from a savage bout of the common cold and flu.
