In the beginning it was the threat of secularism. This was then followed by the great threat of gender theory. We have now moved on to the dictatorship of relativism. This the Church has claimed. It would be apt to give a brief definition of these principles, that's what Wikipedia is for after all.

• Secularism is the assertion that governmental practices or institutions should exist separately from religion and/or religious beliefs (e.g. a state that is neutral on matters of belief and gives no privileges to a specific religion or religions).
• Gender theory studies the social and cultural constructions of masculinity and femininity. It does not refer to biological difference but rather to cultural difference between the sexes (e.g. "one is not born a woman but becomes one").
• Relativism is the idea that some elements or experience of culture are relative to, i.e. dependent on, other elements or aspects (e.g. "you can't judge other cultures by the standards of your own").

Secularism

It was on the 8th September 2008 when Archbishop Cremona declared the "ideology of secularism" a threat for Christians and the Church, obviously. This came in the light of renewed discussions and interest on divorce legislation, which by the way does not exist in Malta (the only other country in the world where divorce is inexistant is The Philippines). He claimed that after divorce, abortion and euthansia will follow as if they are one and the same concept. It is this secularism, which according to the Archbishop is a powerful influence on State law that threatens to destroy the social fabric of the country. He linked the secularist ideology with that of Fascism and Nazism.

What the Archbiship forgot to mention is that the Church has in the very recent past held extraordinary powers, which have since been minutely diminished. Amongst other things he also failed to mention that the Constitution of Malta declares the Roman Catholic Apostolic Faith as the national religion (Art. 2.1); gives to the Church exclusive power to teach society right principles from wrong ones (2.2); and furthermore that Catholiscism is to be taught at State schools on a compulsory basis (2.3). He did not mention that the Church has a vast hoard of wealth, land, including radio stations, newspapers and tv channels. What he also failed to mention was that extreme political ideologies such as Fascism and Nazism or at least resembling them, of which he was so critical, are ironically the fruit of religious fundamentalism and the fear of other races, religions and cultures. One other thing. The Archbishop forgot to say that the arts are still subject to censor under those same rules existing since the 1930's.

Gender theory

According to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, the idea that one should be allowed to exrpess his masculinity or her femininity in privacy and freedom, i.e. in a way in which he or she sees fit is also a grave threat. In the same way that one must conserve the environment one should conserve gender. Although he did not say it plainly, what he did mean to say was that homosexuality is destructive. This renewed dogma was also echoed in Malta. In a time when the gay community (including Christian gays) is still trying to seek equal rights and inclusion this must have been a huge slap in the face.

Relativism

Gozitan Bishop Mario Grech has been recently infuriated at the degeneration of the Nadur Carnival festivities. Society is living under the dictatorship of relativism where people thought they were free from legal or ethical boundaries and could do what they wanted. I would like to ask the Bishop what dictatorship is he talking about. On the same day that he released this statement I had a lecture in philosophy of ethics. Does he know what the subject material is? Well, it is basically a one-sided approach praising the ethical approaches of Aristotle, Aquinas and a more contemporary philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre who lambasts modern society for failing to revive the traditional morality of Aristotle and claims that the liberalism and reliativsm emerging from the Enlightnment is the downfall of ethics and virtue. This particular subject was compulsory. I have no other choice but to take it and study it. You tell me... where does the dictatorship arise from exactly?

It seems to me that secularists, homosexuals and liberals do not even come close to being dictators. Those, like me, who fall under one such category still wonder 5 years later why on earth we joined the EU. They do not feel that the only reason was for funding and easier passage. Perhaps they sincerely believed that we would finally conform with the broad civil rights ,and to put it plainly, the common sense of our EU counter-parts. We were wrong.

Dictatorship is coming from other quarters.

An odd title but a fantastic movie on many levels. 'Milk' tells the story of American gay rights activist turned politician Harvey Milk (Sean Penn). Set in the years 1970 - 1978 the movie is a great eye-opener on the scarcity of gay civil rights at the time, a time mired by extreme conservatism and religious fundamentalism. It is a the moving saga of a man who took to the streets of San Francisco, California telling the world that gay men and women are not sick, not a threat to society but humans of flesh and blood, humans endowed with inalianable rights just like anyone else. Against all odds, Milk and his movement managed to overcome a law that would have had all gay teachers lose their job just because of their sexual orientation. Milk tragically lost his life in a cold-blooded assasination conducted by his psycopathic ex-political colleague Dan White in November of 1978.

Sean Penn, who brilliantly portrayed the role of Milk and for which he won an oscar, opened his speech on a light note, thanking the "commie, homo-loving sons of guns" who awarded him his prestigious prize. Yet it's not all humor, for Penn then goes on to say

Persecution and blatant discriminatory treatment for gays was abolished in Malta decades ago and their rights reinforced under the community law of the EU. But it's not all that rosey for Maltese gays. Gay marriage is still light-years away in a country were the relationship between Church and State, or let's put it this way, religion and "secular" politics is still very strong. It was only by the intervention of gay-rights activist Dr. Patrick Attard that an utterly brutal and hateful book "The Catholic Church and Homosexuality" (a book which claimed aids is God's answer for homosexuality and defended the slaughter of gays in the past) was removed from the book-shelves. Like Dr. Attard I am myself confused as to how a person, such as Norman Lowell receives a suspended sentence for inciting racial hatred in his speeches, and the Church does not even issue one apology for selling and promoting this book. The religio et patria (religion and country) sentiment, believe it or not, is still very much alive today. Just take a look at today's politicians and opinionists writing on newspapers.

Back to the point...gay persons also lack other basic rights afforded to heterosexual couples. A clear example is in rent law. Whereas legally married heterosexual couples have the successory rights to a rent, cohabiting and/or gay couples do not. Why? The reason is because the PN (who is in power) is not 'liberal' according to vice prime minister Tonio Borg:

When I look at the Constitution, the European Convention for Human Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the principle consistently embodied therein is one: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." I cannot for the life of me understand how we hold such a noble truth in high regard and yet supress it at the same time. I'm sure Harvey Milk would be most displeased with this current status-quo. I'm sure he would not just sit back and take it however. He would say: it is time to come out of the closet and fight!

For this I congratulate Dr. Attard who is doing a fantastic job - he has my full support.

Well, it's another post on immigration - that dreadful topic that is consuming the country with incessant fear, for that's what I've been told. When I questioned this fear and the utter hatred for migrants I was told to shut up; that I was naive and that I had no idea how much people are scared. I was also told that I wouldn't dare go to Marsa at night. Moreover, when I said that I do not believe in that patriotic slogan"Malta l-ewwel u qabel kollox" (because Malta can never come before the basic rights and dignity of human beings the world-over) I was branded an idealist and a dreamer. I was told people are alarmed, frightened out of their senses and that we must tackle the problem head on rather then let it dangle in vacuum. I was told that I am living in a state of isolation and denial.

Well guess what. I do not deny a single charge. I do not deny that people are consumed with fear. I do not deny that this is an urgent national matter. I do not deny that I am an idealist. I do not deny that I am cut off from the pulse of the people.

1. Fear

The extent of the fear is so deep that it has led ultra-nationalist organizations like CNI to claim that we must "send them back without exception" and AN suggesting that we must immediately suspend our international obligations under the Geneva and Dublin II conventions. The Maltese people must be brave in face of this great invasion and fight for freedom and sovreignty like our fore-fathers did they say. The UN and EU dictators must not be allowed passage to detention centers and they have no right to tell us what to do. They should just shut the hell up and take the migrants themselves if they are so concerned. We don't want them here. I am to understand that the political ramifications and international sanctions incurred as a consequence are simply something that we should have to endure.

2. Urgency

Malta is a tiny country - roughly 4 times smaller than New York city just to give an idea. I don't know if my math is correct but lets assume, for the sake of argument, that 1 migrant in Malta is equivalent to approximately 1000 in Germany. Clearly Malta cannot handle the influx alone and it needs assistance. This I neither deny and I have said it many times over. It is for this reason that this is a national urgent matter, perhaps justifying the use of the word 'crisis'. In fact Muscat from the Labour Party harped upon its importance in parliament. He is correct to do so but I just hope he knows what he is doing. I hope that he has not fallen victim to the national socialist sentiment of his predecessors writing in l-orizzont and betrays the progressive social democrat ideals he is fighting for in the process. That would lead to a crisis of my own. But a strategy and set of proposals on the matter is yet to be drawn up by the LP and one must wait and see with what they come up with before rushing to any conclusions.

3. Idealism

Yes I am an idealist and I have no shame either. If the belief that all men and women of this earth are born free and equal is tantamount to fantasy and idealism than I am that. If the belief that persons have a human right to flee a nation in which they will be persecuted owing to reasons of race, nationality, religion, political opinion is idealism then I am an idealist. Moreover , if the belief that a person although found guilty of entering a country illegaly should still be treated with dignity and detained in humane conditions is idealism then I am an idealist. Guilty as charged.

4. Denial

I was never a socialite. I'm not a church-goer, I don't really attend meetings, go to pubs for a beer or have chats with the locals at the party or band club. In this regard I must admit that I am rather unaware of the 'word on the street'. For this reason it may be said that I am in denial and not much more than an armchair critic. My looking glass is the news and the respective comments, opinions and letters held therein and I don't like what I see and read most of the time especially on this matter. In any case I don't care if I am alone in my isolated idealistic views. I believe that one day they will be vindicated.

Any seasoned lawyer would be quick to recount that our legislation, especially the civil law, derives heavy influence from the Italian Codice Civile, itself influenced by the Code Napoleon and ultimately the ancient lex Romana. Many legal actions such as the actio rei vindicatoria (an action to demand possession of a thing from another because you are its rightful owner) and the actio legis Aquiliana (to demand damages in tort) have been around for millenia and are still used to this very day. It is the spirit of law which is dominant in the Continent. However, as wise as Roman emperors were they were equally all-powerful; demi-gods of the Empire. This latter spirit also prevails in 21-st century Rome.

As I flipped through the pages of yesterday's The Times I couldn't believe the great sense of irony that manifested itself on page 17. At the top lay a big bold heading "Veltroni quits after poll defeat" and under it "Lawyer sentenced in Italian bribery case". The first article recounts how Veltroni, leader of centre-left Partito Democratico resigned after another big blow in losing the Governer's race in Sardinia. According to this article (cut+paste from Reuters) Veltroni was accused of having failed to capitalise on the economic recession which also penetrated the Italian peninsula, whilst 72-year old imperator (my choice of word) Silvio Berlusconi criss-crossed the island from his Sardinian luxury villa garnering support. In a normal world this would be a normal outcome; a display of maturity and knowing when to step down. But it is far from normality...

The other article, about bribery, recounts how English lawyer David Mills has been sentenced to 4+ years imprisonment for accepting a $600,000 bribe from none other than the imperator himself! It is ironic and absurd that a man, more concerned with his appearence and beautiful women then with running a country enjoys wide-spread political immunity from crime and ousts his political rival to boot. I wonder now, who should have been the man ro resign his seat?

It is sad that not many here on this little island give a damn about all this. It is only when a Communist MEP calls for abortion and gay marriage to be promoted through the entire union that makes the front page because political corruption and perversion of justice is far less scandalous then social equality and civil rights. It is sad that we continue to contribute to the status-quo. Perhaps our very own government has itself adopted some Roman tricks as it now wants to strengthen its power over the legislature.

Quo vadis giustizia?

What is the system?

Each of us sees the system differently but it is always there. It would be a fundamental mistake to deny its existence. I admit that I have been slave to this system. I also believe, however that within me lies the power to change it.

And you?

I read with utmost disgust and disdain the opinion piece 'Telf ta' mpjiegi u xoghol' by Kampanja Helsien Nazzjonali (CNI) published on 'l-orizzont', 5th February 2009. In this opinion, the CNI claims that EU and the Euro has done absolutely nothing to help save employment, on the contrary the politics of the EU has led the country to the destruction of the workforce and takes a look at the dockyard's saga to make its point. In a way I tend to agree with CNI that certain EU politics has caused disruptions and anxiety in people's lives (e.g. its loathing of state subsidies) but vehemently disagree that the EU is the sole reason for mass unemployment and that it does nothing for the workers. But my concern with this opinion-piece is not this. After all, I never expected CNI to be lukewarm towards EU issues.

"The Union has worsened the illegal immigrant crisis" they claim. They make reference to incoming arrivals of immigrants in the winter season and the recent protests and clamour by immigrants in detention. The vast number of immigrants is causing "security and social problems, as well as financial burdens , burdens on health services and is giving us a bad name with foreign countries who accuse us of breaking human rights." Shockingly and ironicaly they then claim that "we must close all doors and must act to remove illegal immigrants by sending them back from whence they came without exception." To this aim the people must "ignore the politics and directives of the EU regarding illegal immigration, forget Frontex, burden sharing and the integration of illegal immigrants in Maltese society and adopt a political approach which does not permit illegal immigrants to stay in our country." All this in the name of the "national interest."

It would be an exercise of pure naivety and folly to deny that Malta cannot cope with such problems alone; that it needs a lot of help and assistance in this regard. There is nothing wrong in taking a firm stance on the issue and demanding assistance from our EU counterparts. Indeed, Nationalist MEP Simon Busuttil had a change of heart and made a plea for compulsory assistance when not long ago he and his party ridiculed the Labour Party when it demanded more than voluntary assistance on this issue. But I did not expect this vile and downright disgusting rhetoric from an organization that prides itself with Socialist ideals. I dare the CNI to send back that woman who's husband was brutally tortured and murdered at home just because he was a member of an opposing tribe, or because he voted for the wrong person. I dare the CNI to send back that 15 year old boy who was searching for a place were he can get an education when, in his voyage to Malta, the boat he was on succumbed to horrific weather and has now lost his entire family, dreading on a daily basis that he had to survive. I dare the CNI to send back that 19-year old preganant woman to her death just because she has fallen in love with another man. These are the same Socialists that fought for equality, a welfare state and decriminalized adultery in our country.

But the CNI does make an exception: that justice and socialism be attributed to Maltese citizens and Maltese citizens alone. I dread the politics of National Socialism and advocate Internationalism. Alas, the CNI, in its obsessive/fundamentalist anti-EU vilification is feeding on growing sentiments and emotions of fear to stake its claim. I applaud 'l-orizzont' for its openneness to expression of opinions but urge it to clarify where it stands and whether it supports the views of the CNI. Absolutely shameful.

Paul Nyrup Rasmussen, current president of PES has recently slammed the EPP for making mention of tax cuts to solve the current crisis. He claims that "the 'draft EPP document election document 2009' gives a clear commitment to cutting taxes, although the shorter 'draft EPP manifesto' hides any mention of tax cuts or unpopular public spending cuts." I quote from the EPP manifest which encourages member states:

To alleviate the general tax burden in Europe - which is still among the highest in the world - in order to provide more incentives to work, save and invest in Europe as reccomended by the Lisbon Agenda.

I have skimmed through this lengthy document and on the outset it appears reasonably motivated; encouraging, amongst other things, full employment and a social based market, regulation, child-care, a clean environment. But Rasmussen's main concerns are on reducing public spending which is definitely not what is needed in a time when workers are struggling.

“EPP tax cuts mean EPP spending cuts. Why don’t they just come out and tell us they want to axe public services? They don’t dare because public spending cuts are the last thing you need at a time of rising unemployment. It is the same old conservative rhetoric, the same old tired ideology.”

The socialist dictum of tax and spend has proved its worth for we would not have had a social welfare state today. Indeed, when Boffa's Labour government in 1948 introduced for the first time the Income Tax regime it was lambasted by Mizzi's Nationalist party for introducing Communism and Marxist elements into the country and this because money would be extracted from the rich, to be given to the poor. Rasmussen also observes that the Nordic countries, which have punitive tax regimes are "among the most competitive in the world...the taxes pay for the life-long learning, the research and development, the child-care." "How can the EPP pay for better child care and for more R&D" he claims, "if they cut taxes?"

Upon reflecting on all this I ask myself - why is the Labour Party today so insisting that taxes be cut (not to be confused with the hotch-potch energy tariffs)? Is Muscat not pulling the same rope as that of his European socialist counter-parts? Shouldn't he be placing more emphasis on public spending, like Rasmussen is doing? But then again there are different contexts and different means. A particular context that comes to mind is our miserable wages. Our Scandivian counterparts may fork out a considerable fortune in their tax return but they surely earn a hell of a lot more then we do. In this sense, the situation is uncomparable. As for the means, and I'm not sure what the EPP exactly proposes, I believe that in this rough patch tax cuts should be given to low-income and middle-income earners. Indeed, Obama intends to reduce taxes for 95% of working Americans whilst refusing to postpone a tax-hike for families earning more than $250,000. In this manner he aims to create more wealth for those in the bottom and middle ranks, rather then relying on the unlikely event that the wealth from those most well-off in society will somehow "trickle down". One can judge, from the recent economic crisis, whether this wealth has really trickled down.

In the end I hope that Muscat's economic policy on tax cuts is a short-term solution with long-term insight. By this I mean that in these dire times tax-cuts for low and middle-income families is well merited so as to keep worker and SME's afloat and capable of overcoming financial difficulties but let us not transform tax-cuts as some quasi-religious dogma to the overall detriment of the welfare state. On the other hand the government is not there to collect money and make profits, whilst treating people as numbers and statistics. The government is there to serve the people, especially those most in need, and not to be served by them.

Clearly, something big is happening in this little world of ours. Little did America, and indeed the rest of the world ever think that a young man of African descent would, one day, win the highest seat of power in the world with such overwhelming conviction. But the American people, fortunately enough did not fear change, rather they embraced it and elected Obama as their president. It is evident that, to the discomfort of radical democrats and progressives like myself, Obama will not pursue what we expect of him with such haste and vigor...but not all is lost. Of itself, his victory means something - if anything it means that the world is no longer the slave of tradition and that things can change.

And, as I listen to the soothing genius that is Sigur Rós, a post-rock band from Iceland, which inspired me to write this blog-post, I cannot comment on yet another unthought of victory. Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir has been called upon to become the Prime Minister of Iceland after a restless, worried but united people brought down her predecessor for failing to overcome the current economic crisis. Notwithstanding the Vatican's recent condemnation of homosexuality as some kind of unholy disease, she has become the world's first openly gay head of government in the modern era. The political situation in Iceland, although currently turbulent is seemingly very interesting as the Left-Green Movement are touted to win the next elections. I hope and sincerely wish that many Jóhanna's are yet to come; that she is only the first but defintely not the last.

Tonio and Joseph

Whoever thought that politics in Malta is simply about two very centrist, strikingly similar political parties, either clinging on to or vying for power ought to think again. It may have been the case for the past 20 or so years, as the Nationalist Party eventually adopted leftist dialectic and the Labour Party fashioned itself on modernity and accepted the free-market ideal. Yet I believe the conservative/liberal ideology has awoken from its dormant slumber and I attibute this recent revival to Labour leader Joseph Muscat and the impact Obama's victory has made on the world. Just a few days ago, VPM Tonio Borg revealed to all and sundry, and to the dismay of Nationalist liberals, that the Nationalist Party is not a liberal party. He argued that homosexual and unmarried couples do not have the right to inherit rented property for it goes against the "social conscience" of the country. In the meantime, Joseph Muscat said, in the Labour Party's AGM that his party does not judge persons according to their wealth, location, race, sexual orientation; that political parties are not there to pass judgment on our private lives but to respect people's choices.

This does not mean that the Nationalist Party is strictly conservative, and Labour strictly liberal. Both parties, being mainstream, have their fair share of liberals and conservatives - but it is, surely, an indication of principle. I hope and sincerely wish that Joseph Muscat will, in the years to come, truly estabish a victorious progressive movement that he is seeking to create. It will be a cumbersome and difficult task but if I have faith in anything, I have faith in this ambitious goal. It explains why I joined the Labour Party and why I advocate and shall continue to advocate a Social Democrat-Green alliance. The country deserves it.

Pairing

Parliamentary pairing is a dirty game. It has its pros and its cons. It aids democratic efficiency, for it gives leeway to government ministers to pursue their foreign commitments but it hinders those who have been democraticly elected by abstaining from that which is theirs by right. It is a political tool capable of being exploited by both parties in the House. It is thoroughly understandable that the Nationalist Party desires it, especially when it has only a majority of one seat. After all they were victorious in last March's election, albeit just winning with a relative majority. Yet Labour's recent refusal to grant it is equally understandable especially in the face of governmental arrogance and stuborness when it comes to certain major democratic reforms such as establishing transperancy on party funding and in limiting governmental powers as soon as an election has been called. In the end, refusal to give pairing may have just reinforced and strengthened the Labour party's followers and gave the Nationalist Party fodder with which to attack its rival. It is the same old game of cat and mouse which must be undone. It has been abolished in the United Kingdom in 1997 and I think we should follow suit.

Trade Unionism

It truly pains me to see a unionist movement that is trying to establish a sense of purpose but is struggling to do so both because of the above-mentioned governmental arrogance and more worryingly because of historical rivalry between one another, especially the major ones. It is truly a shame and I must say, a betrayal of the working community to be faced with such a situation in which, to the minds of many, trade unions are but puppets of political parties. On the other side of the coin, many party gurus and acolytes on both sides do not help at all by falling victim to this sorry state and are content with reinforcing union rivalry to the detriment of workers who are, today, in a state of struggle and uncertainty. Yet in spite of this popular image I am still hopeful that one day greater unity of the trade-union movement will be achieved and to a certain extent such an intention has been revived. I feel it is a duty of the progressive movement to to aid the unions in this regard.

Social Europe

The Party of European Socialists (PES) have come up with a manifesto which places people at the heart of Europe; people first. Amongst other things it aims to establish 10 million jobs in the alternative energy sector, financial market regulation, climate-change emission reductions a European pact on decent minimum wage for all member states and championing gender equality accross the continent. This is a vision which I strongly support. I equally support the European Green Party's vision for a green social and economic Europe. This is why I will vote for Malta's social democrats and greens in 2009 in the hope that my voice will take Europe that one step closer to my progressive perspectives.