Tag: prohibition

Categories
Politics

The Wisdom of Tomatoes

wisdom_akkuza

I saw this meme the other day that had a couple of paraprosdokian phrases and particularly liked one of them. It said “Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.” Often life has its ways of coughing up situations that are full of tomato conundrums. Take the problem raging in the US’s southern states after the massacre of black persons in a church. The huge debate is whether the “confederate flag” – for long a symbol of slavery and suppression – should be banned and removed from public places.

The killer in the church shootings was a southern fanatic and publicly acknowledged that he did what he did because he wanted to provoke another civil war in the name of the confederate flag. So what do they do? They blame the flag. They blame the symbol. Sure, because it was a flag that shot and killed nine innocent persons in a church. Not guns. No. Definitely not guns.

The root of the problem – legal purchase and possession of weapons in the US is nowhere near being tackled because of the US’s perverted love of the right to bear arms. The Americans prefer to keep putting tomatoes in their fruit salad.

Back home we have just heard the announcement of a new possible 40 storey colossus in the middle of Sliema. What is another concrete tower? What indeed? The perverse conviction of the development community and of the politicians in their pockets that Malta can sustain a steady stream of new developments in ODZs and beyond seems to know no end. The recent non-partisan front created with regards to the Zonqor space cannot be limited to that space. The Sliema monstrosity is proof that a charter on sustainable development and a clear plan for the future of planning in Malta needs to be pushed and marketed.

Which brings me to the controversy on the church school plans for Ghaxaq. The church is now a victim of the Zonqor madness. While Zonqor was evidently an excuse and a provocation by the government to allow its trojan horse of a crazy development that has nothing to do with education to be pushed (and many swallowed the bait), it would seem that the Ghaxaq project is the result of studies and the proper use of exceptions insofar as educational development is concerned. We are now however faced with the socialist scythe of equality inducing measures: the analysis is not legal or environmental, it’s simply No Zonqor, No Church Development. We’re throwing the tomatoes with the pineapples and the melons. It’s crazy.

Using the letter of the law to smash its spirit. That is just the phrase I was looking for. We are witnessing it every day and the rapid decline and fall is preposterously horrifying for those who care to worry about the future of our nation.

Categories
Politics

The Legal Dope

Saturday’s protest called “Cannabis Reform Demonstration” has sparked off a few interesting discussions on the ether. The Times finds itself at the end of many an accusing finger for what seems to be a deliberate attempt to put cannabis in a bad light through “slanted” reporting and not so hidden innuendos. It’s not that reports on the harmful effects of drugs suddenly surface as the demo-day draws closer – it’s the deliberate attempt at confusion, putting cannabis on the same scale as the real killer drugs. I am not here though to go into the scientific evidence of the effects of drugs or to discuss the salutary effects of a good high or, for that matter, the negative consequences of control-freak prohibition.

Another interesting aspect has surfaced in this sudden revival of the Dope Discussion. MaltaToday carried a feature about the fact that “lurking behind next Saturday’s planned march in Valletta is a far wider-reaching challenge, which aims to end the absolute discretion enjoyed by the office of the Attorney General on decisions which would radically affect the possible sentences for certain crimes – drug-related offences being but one example.” Now I may be physically cut off from the Maltese scene but I have still to find a reference elsewhere to this aspect of the demo.

Is the demo or is it not a challenge to “the absolute discretion enjoyed by the AG’s office”? MT has quotes from two lawyers specialising in criminal defence – Joseph Giglio and Franco Debono. We do find a frank “admission” if you like halfway through the article that:

Independently of Saturday’s protest, lawyers like Giglio and Debono openly question the sheer breadth of the Attorney General’s discretion to choose between different courts (with all the serious implications for sentencing), in the light of a number of anomalous and often inconsistent decisions: including, but not limited to, the case of Daniel Holmes, whose 11-year sentence exceeded the very maximum he would otherwise have faced, had his case been heard before the Magistrates’ Court.

Well yes. The thing is that the aim of such a demo is probably best served if the demonstrators were to concentrate on the punishment – the severity of punishments determined by law for the crime of possession of cannabis and similar crimes. Even if it is not all out legalisation the problem here is more that a Welshman is in prison for 10 years for possessing what many would agree to be a harmless drug (though not the experts consulted by the Times). That is where the focus should be.

Whether politicians who in their spare time act as criminal lawyers (or should it be vice-versa) should be diverting the focus of the protest in connivance with a newspaper is questionable. I have no doubt that there could be an occasion to discuss the merits and demerits of the set-up for criminal prosecution and the very specific powers of the Attorney General but this is definitely not the time to be confusing issues. Taking advantage of public sentiment (even if a minority) with regards to the issue of penalties for cannabis-related crimes in order to rough through an amendment to an important part of our criminal procedure is just not done.

And one last note, one that we have often repeated from this blog. It is hard enough to be living in a country where human resources are not that easy to come by and therefore where specialisation in a field means you stand there with a few other good men or women. What we do not need is the two-hat politician who reforms the laws with one hand and benefits from them in his professional capacity with another. Good intentions or not is beside the point.

Like justice, law making must also be performed in a transparent manner.

 

 

Categories
Divorce Politics

Warning: Divorce can harm your religion

I am a non-smoker. I have been a non-smoker since November 2008 and it has been a long time since I last craved a cigarette (I almost wrote “craved a fag on my lips” we’d never have heard the end of it…).  Nowadays I find the strong stench of cigarettes repulsive and given the choice between a smoke-free environment and a room full of tobacco enthusiasts I will choose the latter.

My evening habits have changed since I very rarely venture into bars or clubs that oblige me to smoke passively as though my life depended on it. One of the things that has crept into the Top Ten Things I Hate List is using a lift after a bunch of smokers have just exited. Stomach-wrenching stuff. I will still happily puff on the end of a Fiorentino cigar any day though.

It’s all about choice really. Smoking is bad for your health. I was brought up in the eighties and nineties when the crusade on smoking was in full swing and am now living in the aftermath of the politically correct naughties were the final nails in the coffin are being hammered into the cigarette industry. Growing up in Malta I’d expect an institution such as the Department of Health to warn me about the dangers of smoking. I’d acknowledge the use of fiscal measures to disincentivise smokers from indulging in their habit. What I would never condone is the government banning cigarettes outright. It would just not make sense would it?

I mean health-wise it would be a bonus for our society in general and I do know that I am toeing a fine line when I say that the there is a line to be drawn when it comes to government interference in what is essentially a pleasant addiction for many (why not drugs? why not less rules on hunting?). The “harm” issue is also fluid here since the question of harm to the self can be counterbalanced by the harm to others issue when it comes to indulging in a puff or two outdoors or in public places.

Yet we accept the state of affairs. The DH warnings get more and more critical (this year the ugly photos of the effects of tobacco on humans will appear on your pack of 20). The government will tax and tax. But you still have the choice as to whether or not to smoke. It’s a matter of your will – and until the balance is definitively tilted about the social burden and harm of tobacco we will never see a ban on tobacco. The tilt is towards choice.

There. Now think in terms of divorce. Think of the Church as the Department of Health – issuing warnings to the health conscious about the recommended way of life for a longer and healthier living. Is it that hard to understand the difference between a fully informed citizen having the option and choice and one who has been totally deprived of choice by the nanny state that thinks it knows better?

Call me presumptuous but I think that someone who willingly quit smoking after realizing the dangers involved is in a much better position than someone who had the last cigarette pulled out of his mouth. From a purely Christian perspective the No to Divorce activists who kick start their reasoning from the “Alla U Gesu ma jridux id-divorzju” perspective should be asking themselves whether not choosing the option of  divorce is the same as not being able to divorce.

I have long gone on record that a christian-democrat politic can comfortably accept divorce legislation as a right in society. Which is why the new Catholic Pro-Divorce movement does not surprise me at all. What does surprise me is how the Nationalist Party has rejected this strand of christian-democracy in the most unqualified of manners.