tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23564140344513077652024-02-08T14:34:19.805+01:00Andrew SciberrasPolitics, Law and Current Affairs in Malta and BeyondAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14901439816200339974noreply@blogger.comBlogger128125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2356414034451307765.post-76804592749874592402015-07-09T23:36:00.000+02:002015-07-10T16:08:06.564+02:00A Q&A (and Behind-The-Scenes) Guide on the Legal Reforms Regarding Artistic Censorship<div style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">Q.
What shall the reform change and how?</span></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The reform is essentially based on two
documents <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l5 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US">Legal
Notice entitled Criminal Code Amendment Act 2015; and<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l5 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US">2.<span style="font-stretch: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US">Extreme
Pornography Regulations 2015<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The Criminal Code Amendment Act 2015 shall
primarily amend the following:-<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -18.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span lang="EN-US">Article 163</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> of the Criminal Code (</span><i><span lang="EN-US">Vilification of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion</span></i><span lang="EN-US">) </span><span lang="EN-US">– REPEALED<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -18.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US">2.<span style="font-stretch: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span lang="EN-US">Article 164</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> of the Criminal Code (</span><i><span lang="EN-US">Vilification
of other cults tolerated by law</span></i><span lang="EN-US">)</span><span lang="EN-US"> – REPEALED <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -18.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US">3.<span style="font-stretch: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span lang="EN-US">Article 165</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> of the Criminal Code (</span><i><span lang="EN-US">Obstruction
of religious services</span></i><span lang="EN-US">)</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">– significantly amended by removing the
distinction between the Roman Catholic Apostolic faith and “other religions
tolerated by law” whilst considerably reducing criminal punishment to the level
of a contravention (<i>ammenda</i>), save
where the obstruction of religious functions are accompanied by violence;<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -18.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US">4.<span style="font-stretch: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span lang="EN-US">Article 208</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> of the Criminal Code (</span><i><span lang="EN-US">Offences relating to pornographic or
obscene articles</span></i><span lang="EN-US">) </span><span lang="EN-US">– completely substituted by a new crime,
largely modeled on the UK “<b>Indecent
Displays (Control) Act 1981</b>”. The new article shall penalize the display of
pornographic material in public places by means of a fine (contrary to UK law, imprisonment
is excluded) not exceeding €1000. The display of such material, however, shall
be permitted under certain circumstances or controls, namely where the display
is against payment for persons over eighteen years of age and/or where the
establishment gives adequate forewarning to the public by affixing a specific notice.
<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">This article does not apply:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left: 78.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l3 level1 lfo2; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US">a.<span style="font-stretch: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US">To
films and theatrical productions (because these are governed by their own
specific laws and/or regulations);<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 78.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l3 level1 lfo2; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US">b.<span style="font-stretch: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US">To
displays in museums and art galleries (erotic art/sculpture, etc. exhibited in
galleries and museums shall not constitute an offence under this article);<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left: 78.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l3 level1 lfo2; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US">c.<span style="font-stretch: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US">To displays of the actual human body (so
these reforms will not be regulating gentleman’s clubs or by any means
permitting live nudity/sex shows – these will have to be regulated by other
laws). <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 35.45pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The new Article 208
shall be entitled <i>Display of pornographic
material in public places</i><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US">5.<span style="font-stretch: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span lang="EN-US">Pornography and Obscenity Regulations 1975</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> (Subsidiary Legislation 9.05) – REPEALED <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US">6.<span style="font-stretch: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span lang="EN-US">Sub-article (3) of Article 82 of the
Customs Ordinance </span></b><span lang="EN-US">(</span><i><span lang="EN-US">Power to prohibit imports</span></i><span lang="EN-US">)</span><span lang="EN-US"> – minor amendment whereby the words
“pornographic or obscene character” have been deleted throughout and
substituted with “extreme pornographic images”. This article currently empowers
the Commissioner for Customs to prohibit and/or destroy imported material,
which he suspects to be pornographic or obscene. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;">Q.
Will the reform be introducing new laws or regulations?</span><o:p></o:p></span></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Yes, the reform is proposing to introduce
two new articles in the Criminal Code and new regulations on extreme
pornographic images:-<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo4; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span lang="EN-US">Article 208D of the Criminal Code</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> (<i>Offences
relating to extreme pornographic images</i>)
- This law is modeled on the reforms introduced by the <b>UK Criminal Justice and Immigration Act
2008</b> (Article 63 <i>et seq </i>thereof) and
is structured on the existing article 208. It shall be a crime, punishable by a
fine not less than €3000 but not exceeding €6000 or to imprisonment for a term
not less than 18 months but not exceeding three years, or to both such fine or
imprisonment, to produce, manufacture, distribute, trade, etc. in <b>extreme pornographic images</b>, so defined
in specific regulations drawn up by the Minister for Justice. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The proposed law
allows for certain </span>defences<span style="font-family: inherit;"> to be put up by a person accused, such as that
he can prove that such images were sent to him or where in his possession
without his knowledge or consent; or that he did not see such images nor had he
cause to suspect that material in his possession contained such images. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo4; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US">2.<span style="font-stretch: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span lang="EN-US">Article 208E of the Criminal Code</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> (<i>Non-consensual
disclosure of private sexual photographs and films</i>) – it shall now be a
crime, punishable by a fine of not less than €3000 but not exceeding €5000 or
to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years (or to both such fine and
imprisonment) for a person to disclose (share with others) private
sexual/intimate photographs or films of another person without that person’s
consent. Such acts are colloquially referred to as <i>revenge porn</i>. <i><o:p></o:p></i></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">This crime is quite
innovative in scope and substance as it seeks to prevent and condemn, perhaps
for the first time in the history of Maltese legislation, the act of causing
actual emotional or psychological harm caused to others. It is innovative also
in the sense that such law is still the subject of debate in other European
countries. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">This article also
provides certain defences for the accused.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo4; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: inherit;">3.<span style="font-stretch: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><b style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US">Extreme Pornographic Images Regulations, 2015</span></b><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;"> – These regulations seek to replace the now obsolete Pornography and
Obscenity Regulations, 1975 and is mostly </span>modelled<span style="font-family: inherit;"> on the Scottish equivalent of
the English Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008,</span><b style="font-family: inherit;"> </b><span style="font-family: inherit;">i.e. the </span></span><b style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US">Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland)
Act 2010</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: inherit;">. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: inherit;">The regulations define what is meant by “extreme pornographic image”,
and particular offers a coherent and realistic definition of pornography: -<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><span lang="EN-US">Pornographic
</span></i><span lang="EN-US">– in essence, an image is
deemed to be “pornographic” if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably
be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of <b>sexual arousal</b>. Under the present
Pornography and Obscenity Regulations, pornography is primarily defined as the
exploitation of, or undue emphasis on sex, crime violence, cruelty or horror
(!?). Furthermore, in determining whether an image or series of images is
pornographic, reference must be made to the context, narrative and sounds
accompanying such image or series of images. If, when taken as a whole, that
image or series of images provides a context that is not of a nature deemed to
have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal that
image or series of images shall not be pornographic. In simpler terms, the prosecution may not
pick on one scene, passage or word, if such scene, passage or word forms part
of a larger narrative that is not primarily sexual – even if that scene,
passage, or word – when taken by itself – would deemed to be, by any rational
person, pornographic. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><span lang="EN-US">Extreme </span></i><span lang="EN-US">– an image is extreme if it portrays in an <b>explicit</b> and <b>realistic </b>manner
acts that threaten a person’s life, grievous injury, rape, necrophilia and
bestiality<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><span lang="EN-US">Image</span></i><span lang="EN-US"> – an image is defined as any image, whether still or moving as well as
data stored electronically and which is capable of conversion into a still or
moving image<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The regulations do not apply to any images
that form part of material, whether physical or electronic, that serve the
public good on the grounds that it is in the interests of science, literature,
art or learning (the public good defence). <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">Q.
The proposed laws seem to revolve mainly around pornographic images and display
of material. What about literature (words)? Will these be illegal?<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Consider it this way. The law criminalizes
certain images or the <b>public </b>display
and disclosure of pornographic material (in violation of the conditions set out
above). It does not, however, criminalize the written word that is normally
found within the hard (or soft) covers of books and magazines. Indeed, the new
article 208 excludes any material “which is not exposed to view”. Furthermore,
literature generally tends to convey meanings and emotions that are not purely
and solely sexual or otherwise primarily intended for sexual arousal. This
would absolve the writer or publisher from disseminating <i>pornographic </i>material. Always remember the context: “when taken as
a whole”. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US">Naturally, everything has to be considered
according to the particular facts, and on a case-by-case basis, but whatever
the case the reforms are a marked difference from the existing laws which
criminalize any “</span><span lang="EN-US">obscene print, painting, photograph, film, book, card or
writing, or any other pornographic or obscene article whatsoever”, arguably
even the simple private possession thereof. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;">Q.
What about the offence of obscene libel under the Press Act?</span><o:p></o:p></span></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The original draft proposals sought to
repeal the offence of obscene libel (Article 7 of the Press Act). The Ministry
for Justice, Culture and Local Government has, however, decided not to include
this under this particular reform but shall tackle it through a holistic and ambitious
reform of the Press Act itself, particularly reforms to libel law. It is
expected that the offence of obscene libel shall be completely repealed. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;">Q.
What is the rationale for the reform? How does it compare to the reforms in
theatre and film enacted in 2012?</span><o:p></o:p></span></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The reforms proposed and ultimately enacted
in 2012 went a long way in liberating theatrical performances and film (cinema)
from the arbitrary clutches of the censor where a few men and/or women (perhaps
just the one) decided for you what to see and not see – solely guided by what
they, he or she, decided was morally acceptable. It can be said, therefore,
that the purest form of censorship, or <b>censorship<i> a priori</i></b><i> </i>(before the fact, a.k.a. “prior restraint”) has been effectively
abolished. Truth be told, and technically speaking, certain films may still be
banned from public viewing (for example by not being classified; and therefore
not fit for view) but since 2012 (when classification, rather than censorship,
became the rule) this is hardly ever the case. Needless to say these reforms
were an obvious and logical reaction to the infamous <i>Stitching </i>judgment. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Nonetheless certain laws, precisely the ones delineated above in this
Q&A, could still be used – and have indeed been used – to punish artists,
writers, satirists and so on for vilifying/mocking religion or for producing
obscene content. To name a few examples:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l4 level1 lfo5; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br />
<ul>
<li><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: inherit;">·<span style="font-stretch: normal;">
</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: inherit;">In 2010 a certain
Alexander Baldacchino was </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: inherit;">was convicted under Article 208 for
the exhibition of pornographic films in the City Lights Theatre (Valletta).</span></li>
<li><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: inherit;">·<span style="font-stretch: normal;">
</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: inherit;">A year prior, Mark Camilleri and Alex
Vella Gera (the famous <i>Li Tkisser Sewwi</i>
/<i>Realta’ </i>case) were accused under
article 208 of the Criminal Code and article 7 of the Press Act for publishing
and writing (respectively) an obscene short story. They were ultimately found
not guilty but had to endure the ordeal of criminal prosecution for at least
three to four years. In this case the Attorney General argued that it is the
Court alone which should determine what is obscene, without reference to any
expert testimony: meaning that forensic/expert evidence is not allowed in cases
such as these.</span></li>
<li><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: inherit;">·<span style="font-stretch: normal;">
</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: inherit;">In bygone times (1960) the police had
prosecuted a person for playing the song called “Nuda” by Domenico Modugno on a
jukebox in a cafeteria in Sliema. Another for sharing nudist paintings with his
friends (1954). They were both found guilty.</span></li>
</ul>
<!--[if !supportLists]--></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US">So it was felt, and strongly argued by us
(Mark Camilleri and myself who worked on this reform) that </span><span lang="EN-US">on
the basis of laws such as these, Maltese artists and writers rarely dared to
challenge the status quo. Whilst one was technically free to write, to paint,
to sing and to publish that painting, writing, or song, the artist could yet be
ensnared “by the policeman’s intrusive thumb and the judge’s heavy hand”
(Supreme Justice </span><span lang="EN-US">Potter
Stewart, USA). With these laws, the artist risks going to jail dare he stray into the realm of "taboo", and this would lead him
to censor himself: <b>auto-censorship </b>or
<b>censorship <i>a posteriori </i></b>(after the fact). <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">We sought therefore to eliminate this form
of post-censorship as far as possible. In so doing, we were guided by the following
key principles (listed in no hierarchical order):<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo6; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US">The
recognition that concepts/understanding of morality change with time (and
space) and the law ought to reflect such societal changes. The law is, after
all, a living instrument;<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo6; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US">2.<span style="font-stretch: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US">The
simple idea that the State ought not to keep acting as the moral custodian (<i>custos morum</i>) of society. Reasonable
consenting adults should be at liberty to see, read or listen to whatever they
desire provided that no <b>actual </b>harm
is caused to others. Rather the State should ensure that the public is given
prior information or knowledge as to the content of certain material – the
choice is then up to the viewer/reader or listener;<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo6; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US">3.<span style="font-stretch: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US">That
criminal law should ultimately be based on objective, scientific, forensic
evidence and not on mere value-judgments: subjective assumptions or
suppositions of what is morally acceptable or unacceptable;<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo6; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US">4.<span style="font-stretch: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US">That
criminal law should seek to punish, as far as possible, <b>actual harm</b>, proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Thus, protecting
the sexual innocence of minors and criminalizing content that is so (extremely
and realistically so) violent, repugnant, degrading, humiliating as well as the
freedom of religious expression and assembly are public goods that ought to be
protected – and have indeed been protected. This is why we also </span><span lang="EN-US">sought to protect persons from actual psychological harm/distress
caused by “revenge porn”: acts that may lead to depression and even suicide. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo6; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US">5.<span style="font-stretch: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US">The notion that
any limitation of rights, such as free speech, ought to be proportional to the
public good sought to be protected (protection of morals and so on). <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo6; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US">6.<span style="font-stretch: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US">That subjecting
certain material to criminal trial is ultimately self-defeating. To quote
Geoffrey Robertson Q.C. “</span><span lang="EN-US">‘seek to suppress a book by legal action because it tends to
corrupt...the publicity attendant on its trial will spread that assumed
corruption far more effectively than its quiet distribution.’”</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo6; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US">7.<span style="font-stretch: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US">The fundamental
idea laid down by the European Court of Human Rights way back in 1976, namely
that freedom of expression “<span class="apple-style-span"><span style="background: white;">is applicable not only to
"information" or "ideas" that are favourably received or
regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that
offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population” (<b>Handyside vs UK</b>). </span></span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;">Q. How can one
justify vilifying the Roman Catholic faith, the national majority religion, but
punish hatred towards minorities? </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US">To vilify and to incite hatred or violence are very different things.
Vilify is generally defined as “</span><span lang="EN-US">to say or write very harsh and critical things about (someone or
something)” (Merriam-Webster), whereas incite is defined as </span><span lang="EN-US"> “</span><span lang="EN-US">to cause (someone) to act in an angry,
harmful, or violent way” or “to cause (an angry, harmful, or violent action or
feeling)” (Merriam-Webster).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Under article 82A of the Criminal Code it
is a crime to incite hatred or violence against other persons because of their
race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, <b>religious beliefs</b>, and so on. This has not been touched by the
proposed reforms. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">So once again, the notion of actual harm
comes into play in the distinction of being criticized or offended (on the
basis of your beliefs) and actually being intimidated/threatened or otherwise
put into peril/manifest jeopardy (because of your beliefs). <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">It is therefore posited that by ridiculing
your beliefs by words or depictions, usually to express an idea or message,
such as anger at the Catholic Church’s dogmatism on condom-use, homosexuality,
inaction/silence on </span>paedophilia<span style="font-family: inherit;"> by the clergy – or,conversely, by ridiculing
the atheist’s own dogmatism on the non-existence of God, Church-bashing or (what one may perceive
and believe to be) lack of values, I am not placing you, nor your belief/disbelief
in any harm. <o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">For further insight into this subject see Guardian opinion piece <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2015/jun/30/pope-benedict-portrait-condoms">here</a>. </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;">Q. Is there a
difference between blasphemy and vilification of religion?</span><o:p></o:p></span></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US">The difference, if any, is very subtle. Blasphemy is typically
defined, as “</span><span lang="EN-US">something
said or done that is disrespectful to God or to something holy”
(Merriam-Webster). Strictly speaking, therefore, to vilify a religion is akin
to being disrespectful to that religion. Perhaps a simpler distinction can be
made between doing or saying something disrespectful to God or something holy
and rude/uncouth utterances of God/holiness said <i>in vain</i> (in Maltese: dag</span><span lang="MT">ħ</span><span lang="EN-US">a). <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The act of uttering obscenities and
performing lewd acts in public is still punishable as a contravention under
article 338(bb) of the Criminal Code. Article 342 of the Criminal Code specifies
further that where those obscene utterances consist in blasphemy (dagħa) the
lowest punishment is an <i>amenda</i> of
€11.65 and the maximum is imprisonment for three months. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">However, that article (338(bb)) is
qualified in the Maltese text by the phrase “għad li jkun xurban”. The English
text is somewhat different and states “even though in a state of
intoxication…”. It is to my mind unclear, therefore, whether such contravention
is qualifying whether a person is to be intoxicated or not. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">This article was not touched by the reform.
I confess that it may be correct to say that it was missed by the undersigned
and Mark and I therefore encourage the legislator to look into it, since it
could still be used against the arts. I would advocate complete repeal save for
the part concerning lewd acts in public. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">Q. Will these
reforms permit live nudity or sex and/or sex shops?<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Displays of the actual human body are not
covered by the proposed reforms – to the contrary it is explicitly stated in
the proposed (new) Article 208 that this article is not to be interpreted as
permitting any show of live sexual activity involving the sexual organs made
solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal. Gentleman’s clubs,
therefore, are not strictly speaking subject to these laws and such
establishments still require <i>ad hoc </i>regulation,
which – I am informed – the Government is looking into. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Sex shops selling pornographic content or
materials, on the other hand, will be permitted under the proposed reforms
provided an adequate warning notice (the wording of which is specified in the
law) is displayed and that nothing pornographic is publically displayed. Having
said that, it stands to reason that such shops ought to be subject to special
police licensing (regulating, for example, the locations where such shops may
be opened). Moreover, the commercial viability of such shops is somewhat
dubious when such content may be viewed, accessed or purchased in complete
privacy at the click of a button. It is important to highlight that the main
scope of these reforms was not the legalization of porn shops as some sections
of the media regretfully highlighted. This is merely an ancillary consequence
of the main objective(s) that have (hopefully) been highlighted above. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">DISCLAIMER: THE ABOVE Q&A SOLELY REPRESENTS THE UNDERSIGNED’S
PERSONAL INTERPRETATION, VIEWS AND OPINIONS AND NOT OF ANY PUBLIC OR GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY. <o:p></o:p></span></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<b><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Dr. Andrew Sciberras</span></span></b>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14901439816200339974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2356414034451307765.post-87962518971351949392013-03-12T14:49:00.002+01:002013-03-12T16:23:43.812+01:00Post-Vote<div style="text-align: justify;">
Here's a couple of thoughts now that Election 2013 has come and gone. In droves, the people have spoken and voted for change. They gave a massive middle-finger and a righteous ass-kicking to the status-quo. To be honest with you, I was skeptical to the very last moment. When they were banging on the perspex 30 or 40 minutes past 11 on Sunday morning I still couldn't fathom who had won. But my distrust or pessimism was entirely misplaced. The electorate has not feared to change when change was needed. It did it before on several occasions, 1971 and 1987, 2011 (divorce referendum) to name a few. It was, beyond a shred of doubt, a historic result in a local context (any delusions of grandeur would be misplaced). </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>The Victor</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As a natural consequence of its campaign, the PL now faces a tall order and high expectations. In its first 100 days of government it must set in motion its energy plan, enact the Whistleblowers Act, party financing legislation, and the removal of time-bars on political corruption. In the first year it must embark on a thorough reform of justice and home affairs. Coupled with this would be a much needed (and anticipated) Constitutional reform. This is just the bare minimum that is being expected. Equally important would be to instill a culture of meritocracy and transparency in public appointments, but it would be foolish to assume that Muscat's government should be devoid of persons who enjoy his party's trust and vision. In all European democracies this is a <i>sine qua non</i>. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A fundamental aspect of PL's campaign was its energy plan. Had it failed to be credible on this issue its entire edifice would have crumbled and I would assume that we would have had a possible 2008 repeat. But it is rather clear that it has been credible on its plans. Now it must transform that credibility into concrete action. In doing so, however, it will surely face fierce criticism on three crucial aspects: (1) the two-year time frame, (2) the public procurement aspect, and (3) the environmental impact assessments. It must be prepared to tackle these issues and give clear answers. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
One also expects crucial reforms on social issues such as gay rights. I also wish that PL will revise its position on IVF both on its social aspect by making it accessible to all persons and on its scientific aspect by allowing for the freezing of embryos. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Most importantly, however, PL must be closer to the people. This, in realization of the most basic fact that it is there to serve them, and not the other way round. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>The Loser</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I am elated that the PN lost the way it did for the simple reason that it taught them a much-needed lesson that the days of nepotism and political patronage are over. All that talk about "arrogance", "cliques" and "oligarchy" might've sounded absurd but there was a lot of truth in that absurdity. Now this is a golden opportunity for the PN to renew itself as a modern Christian Democrat/centre-right party. European Christian democrats might stand for conservative social policies (ideally mild or moderate) and liberal economic policies but they should never treat people as numbers or scum as that would be a gross betrayal of their supposedly Christian roots. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In my opinion, Simon Busuttil should not even be considered as a contender for the PN leadership. His oratory my be calm and sharp but he sounds (and acts) like a patronizing priest preaching from the pulpit. He has proven to be sickeningly condescending as well as gaffe-prone and, therefore, a liability. More serious contenders for this post would be Mario Demarco or Chris Said who are (I hope) more amenable to collective/national interest rather than political/partisan interest. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In essence, PN requires a thorough cleansing of its entire political structures. Rather than embarking upon the project of building a new parliament building it should have seriously invested in rebuilding itself. Yet, despite these much needed calls even from significant insiders the PN continued to pander to personal interests and never distanced itself from scum like DCG, il-Bocca (<a href="http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20130311/blogs/the-new-agenda.461024">who has laughably taken credit for PL's victory</a>) and the WE crew. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Kudos go to Dr. Lawrence Gonzi for being more than gracious in defeat although I do respectfully disagree with certain statements I've seen that Lawrence Gonzi's exit was a mistake. Lawrence Gonzi might have fared more than well on the economy but he was dethroned by major political and personal interests throughout these five years and had failed to do anything about it. If not direct acceptance it was a tacit one. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>The Minnow</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
AD was once again the minnow of the electoral result. But this time it got its best result yet with a respectable 1.8% of the national vote (roughly an increase of 38% - 40% over its 2008 result). Hand on heart, however, I truly believed that AD would fare better by making it to the 2% - 2.5% region as polls were showing. I think AD believed this too, or were at least highly optimistic about it. AD must take stock and do away with the profound belief that as a party it is infallible, rather it is the system and/or the electorate which is against it. Blaming everything or everyone but itself would be a grave mistake. I also maintain that AD erred (big time) by ridiculing and generalsing about everyone who would not vote for it. Instead of ridiculing it must ask why. Blaming DCG and Lou Bondi for a swing in Labour's favour is feeble. AD must also accept that even though a mere 8 or 15 minute appearance on public broadcasting is undemocratic, it did get far more airtime, publicity and endorsements this time round. AD also ran an impeccable campaign in social networking. Furthermore, whereas Michael Briguglio's chairmanship might have garnered the respect of the radical left wing, AD needs to stop relying on disgruntled Nationalists (which might explain the great disdain for Muscat) and move beyond the 10th District. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
However those 5,500 AD votes should not be forsaken. These votes exceed the national quota. I am delighted that Evarist Bartolo <a href="http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/en/newsdetails/news/elections2013/WATCH-Evarist-Bartolo-backs-constitutional-amendment-for-AD-representation-20130312">has already spoken up</a> about this issue concerning electoral reform and hope that it is taken on board in this legislature. Bartolo extended the olive-branch before but unfortunately it was shot down by Cassola and (especially) Cacopardo who I respect and admire. Unfortunately an arrogant streak (i.e. a belief that progressive politics is the sole domain of AD) got the better of them at the time. I hope for AD's sake that this does not persist. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I do not expect a co-option in this legislature but I do seriously hope for amendments to the 2007 electoral reforms through which parties or independents can be represented in parliament if they obtain a national quota. I also concur with Mark il-Biwwa that proposing an AD speaker would be a sign of good-will. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
*** Fin ***</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14901439816200339974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2356414034451307765.post-47578953383866274682013-03-06T14:23:00.000+01:002013-03-06T14:54:14.739+01:00Vote 2013 Explained<h2>
The primary concern</h2>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The first thing that comes to mind is change from the <i>status quo</i>. This change must not be based on a mere transition of faces, colors and slogans but it must be deep-rooted; that is to say from the top-down, from the bottom-up and from side to side. It must reflect a change in political culture and ultimately socio-cultural mentality itself. It must therefore be a change that resists and overcomes the culture of patronage and individual interests. It must defeat divisions and destroy divide-and-rule. It must, at the very least, lay the groundwork to eradicate nepotism and cronyism which, in turn, give rise to abuses, clientelism and corruption. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h2>
Secondary but (pretty much) equally important concerns</h2>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h4>
A - Social Equality and Liberties</h4>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Equality is a social issue that is closest to heart. It must be real and it must be felt. The underlying motif should always be that basic fundamental norm that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and in rights. All distinctions based on race, sex and gender, creed, sexual orientation, political grouping and so on must be slowly destroyed. But I do not realistically expect that on the morrow of the election we will have a complete liberalization of all social constraints. Socia liberalisation, secularisation and europeanisation cannot be completely divorced from historical identity at the click of a finger. Prudence demands patience, mutual understanding and compromise and I am somewhat irked by the mentality of "all or none". The same reasoning applies to addressing immigration. I expect much more to be done to safeguard and enhance rights and dignity of asylum-seekers but won't go to the other extreme by claiming that greater efforts at EU-level on responsibility sharing is taboo or unjust, especially considering Malta's limited size and resources. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h4>
B - Social Justice </h4>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Social justice is equally as important. I am not against success and profit so long as it is shared prudently and fairly. I want to be able to be truly proud to pay taxes in the full knowledge that they are going to benefit those who are lesser off. Having said that, no one should simply live off social benefits for the simple reason that they couldn't be arsed to at least try. I am somewhat averse to means testing but I find nothing wrong with giving people the choice to opt out, voluntarily, from benefits such as stipends - guided by civic duty and social justice. Also, austerity politics should be overcome as it is short-sighted and self-defeating. Saving and spending should be wise and prudent. My basic economic compass tells me you should tighten the belt when the economy is strong and smooth - to spend when rainy days come (and not the other way round). Furthermore, spending should be made on things that matter and reap long-term benefits. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h4>
C - Social Corporatism </h4>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I am not anti-capitalist and have faith in the private sector but I expect employers and laborers to have equal seats at the table. I also believe that the state has a role to play in guiding and regulating economic practice when necessary. This is no taboo and should never be treated as such. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h4>
D - Transparency and Accountability in Governance</h4>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Transparency and accountability are pretty much tied up with my primary concern. It goes without saying that enacting transparency and accountability requires a holistic approach and not 1 or 2 pieces of legislation. Nonetheless a Whistleblower's Act, party-financing legislation, appointments on public authorities and boards, and stronger action against political corruption should be mandatory for a new government (although I do agree that with respect to political corruption - the same measures should apply to the corrupter whoever he or she or it may be - and not just the politician). </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h4>
E - Justice (Law & Order)</h4>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Justice is also close to heart especially now that I work in the field. The judiciary and organisation of the courts require urgent reform ranging from the way appointments are made to increasing court facilities and staff. There are many issues that need to be addressed which I have briefly touched upon <a href="http://andrew-sciberras.blogspot.com/2012/06/fair-society.html">here</a> (paras 18 to 24) and <a href="http://andrew-sciberras.blogspot.com/2012/12/judicial-reform.html">here</a>. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h4>
F - Other issues</h4>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Several other important issues that must be addressed such as ending moral paternalism, sustainable development and planning, constitutional revision, child-care, employment, energy poverty, electoral reform and so on. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h2>
The Choice</h2>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<h4>
AD</h4>
<br />
I confess that, being a social democrat firmly on the side of the liberal left, the most obvious choice would be to choose AD in these elections. However, you would be mistaken to think that it is so straight-forward. AD has made grave errors in this election and it is not infallible or beyond reproach. AD is right to claim that is has been consistent and progressive. Yet, in claiming the mantle of "the voice of reason" it has zealously overstepped limits of even basic courtesy and manners by dubbing anyone who votes otherwise as "tribalist", "sheep" or unable to "think freely". This is insulting to say the least and betrays its progressivism and inclusiveness by giving way to quasi-unbridled arrogance which really puts me off. It seems that AD has become an exclusive club that measures intelligence and free-thinking on the basis of your vote. I am also completely against the "PNPL-dichotomy" label because it is a historical falsity. It is PN which has been in power for the last 25 years and not PL. There is no wrong in differentiating oneself from other parties (actually this is a <i>sine-qua-non</i> in politics) but to lump all the country's faults as "PLPN" is misleading.<br />
<br />
<h4>
PN</h4>
<br />
The only thing that PN has going for it is the relative economic stability in a turbulent economic climate. Of course this has to be qualified by conservative and prudent banking policies. And to be fair, one must conduct a thorough audit of all public authorities and corporations to be able to get a better picture of the state's finances. Other than that PN represents the status-quo defined in my opening paragraph. No chance.<br />
<br />
<h4>
PL</h4>
<br />
This leaves PL. The thing that put me off most about PL throughout this entire campaign was Muscat's answer to push-backs on asylum-seekers, even if he has qualified this insofar as Libya is a "safe country". Secondly, the hunting issue will cost more votes than gained; that is a certainty. I don't appreciate hunting and have difficulty appreciating law-breaking hunters even more than hunting itself. But the portrayal of Muscat as a reckless gun-toting-bird-killing redneck irks me when you consider that he has been very clear: hunting strictly within EU-law framework and increase in enforcement. If you are truly against hunting then criticize the law that allows it to happen in the first place including the judgement that allowed for a spring-hunting derogation under strict supervision. Furthermore, if you are truly against hunting you should call for it to be banned outright. In my opinion, Muscat's true mistake on this issue was not inviting ENGO's such as Bird-Life to also have a seat at the table of discussion. Because of this omission, ENGO anger is merited.<br />
<br />
Whilst there are clear red-lines for me on immigration, I will not base my entire vote on spring hunting as the major issue of this campaign. One has to also acknowledge the fact that it is simply not possible to agree with absolutely everything. If I want a party with which I can agree with 100% I'll just go and become a candidate myself. Indeed, Michael Briguglio himself had disagreements in 2008 with AD. Unlike Briguglio, however, I do not think that either-all-or-none is a valid approach to take. I will not abandon ship (as I've done before) but do my damnedest to vocally-crticise and sway opinion, and I do believe that Muscat is not averse to changing his opinion.<br />
<br />
These issues aside, PL has opened up. It has been firm and consistent on the need for change from the status-quo, as it has been firm on equality, transparency and accountability.<br />
<br />
<h2>
Decision</h2>
<br />
Sorry to disappoint, but my "very limited cognitive faculties-<i>cum</i>-tribal instinct" tells me to vote for PL candidates best placed to bring about change. Don't worry though, insults aside, AD will still get my cross-vote, with a higher preference than you may think. </div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14901439816200339974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2356414034451307765.post-22067848785749187242013-02-26T12:32:00.001+01:002013-02-26T13:34:10.181+01:00Criminal Defamation: Just Plain Evil or Necessary Evil?<div style="text-align: justify;">
From the outset the title of this blogpost immediately conveys the idea that I consider criminal defamatory libel "evil". In particular, I find that it is inherently wrong and undemocratic to put someone in prison for words or writings about others even if they end up to be purely speculative or outright false. Criminal libel is part of our criminal law and is established as a crime in Article 252 as follows:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>252. Whosoever, with the object of destroying or damaging the reputation of any person, shall offend such person by words, gestures, or by any writing or drawing, or in any other manner, shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to a fine (multa). </i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The penalty is decreased where the defamation consists of vague expressions or indeterminate reproaches, or where the words or gestures used are merely indecent (crime becomes a contravention). However, it is increased if such defamation occurs in writing, drawings or effigies that are divulged and exhibited to the public (imprisonment of up to one year). Moreover, the party who defames is not allowed to produce evidence of the truth except in the case of public officials and he/she shall only be exempt from punishment where that truth is deemed by the courts to be in the public interest. It appears that in the case of private individuals there is no defence. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The criminal law, however, makes a distinction between defamation and libel on printed matter. In the latter case, it states that the provisions of the Press Act shall apply. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The issue with defamation is a delicate one. Unfortunately for free-speech radicals, damage by words or writing to the reputation of others is one of the exceptions to freedom of expression. One must bear in mind that the motivation behind such law is that a person who, in bad faith and with malicious intent, conjurs up a falsity to utterly destroy the reputation and honour of another (his family included) should be made to suffer some form of punishment. I think that most would agree that this is a serious inherent wrong that is objectively justified. The problem arises with respect to punishment: is imprisonment a proportionate response to counter such wrong? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Furthermore (and parallels can be drawn here with the laws on obscenity and their consequences viz-a-viz artists) such a punishment may indeed serve to stifle the media. But one must not immediately come to the conclusion that, as a result, laws such as these should be immediately demolished and thrown in the dustbin of history. That would be rash and may open up a Pandora's box - or simply a case of going from one extreme to the other. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The UK abolished criminal defamatory libel as recently as 2010, but as other more recent events suggest (Leveson comes to mind), the media too can play very dirty games. Of course, one has to take into account the fact that the case with NotW/Murdoch/etc involved other offences relating to privacy - but these same issues (recordings and whatnot) are cropping up here too. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Whatever the case, I claim that the motivation behind this law is well-reasoned but it does require serious reform. Perhaps one step forward would be to give the alleged "defamor" more freedom to prove the veracity of his allegations - in other words this defence should not be restricted in any way. Secondly, the law or procedure should be drafted in such a way that the prosecution and/or complainant must prove beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever three key points: (1) the falsity of the words, writing or gestures (the mind boggles at what such gestures could be) ; (2) bad faith; (3) malicious intent. Thus, even though a writing may found to be ultimately false, the "defamor" should be exonerated when he/she proves that such writing was drafted in good faith and/or without malicious intent. A case that comes to mind is that issue concerning Joseph Mizzi's (public official) alleged "drunk" episode at the Eurovision. Mizzi may have furnished proof that his drink was in fact spiked, but it does not mean that the press who brought this incident to light did so in bad faith. Other obvious cases are articles on statements on serious shortcomings - even corruption (and associated whiffs) - but which cannot be definitively proven. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thirdly, the punishment for imprisonment should be removed as I feel that, although the damage caused may be serious, it would be a disproportionate response to mitigate such a crime - all the more so when it is applied to journalists who draw up articles from various sources. Furthermore, it appears that such punishment is a mere relic of the past as it is supposedly no longer applied/enforced by the courts.<br />
<br />
Another plausible alternative would be to merely remove the criminal aspect and to retain the civil "offence" under tort/libel. A legitimate downside to this (in my opinion) is that in the civil realm, the court bases its decisions on what is called 'balance of probabilities' rather than 'proof beyond reasonable doubt'. Thus it may be easier for a civil court to conclude that harm was done than a criminal court; and there is more scope for subjectivity rather than objective forensic evidence. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Ultimately, the monetary compensation and the exoneration by the court of the alleged crime should definitely serve as sufficient remedy. Coupled with this should be other procedural reforms in the sense that such cases are treated with greater urgency by the courts. This is best for both parties for on the one hand the alleged victim may lose not only his reputation but also livelihood (by being forced to resign for example), and on the other hand (if the criminal offence is retained) the alleged violator would be accused of a crime which is serious in itself. Another interesting aspect (more substantive than procedural), but which may not go down well, would be to apply fines that are proportionate to the damage suffered - both actual and moral - and not a mere maximum of €x. Lastly, and perhaps this is the most difficult part albeit the most obvious, persons in the public sphere have to acknowledge that they are not immune from scrutiny - that the functions they serve (and not their private lives, please) and how they serve them must be put under the magnifying glass. </div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14901439816200339974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2356414034451307765.post-17213999325110029682012-12-14T12:32:00.000+01:002012-12-14T12:35:25.057+01:00Judicial Reform<div style="text-align: justify;">
We've probably heard it all before in 2001; that the judiciary is in need of a complete overhaul. Nothing much has really changed though, if at all. During that time I was but 14-15 years old, probably studying O-Level Chemistry and Biology, growing my hair, headbanging to Opeth and Beheaded and not giving too many shits about current affairs. In that rebellious spirit I was adamant to steer away from law, aiming for Medicine & Surgery instead, because it was bloody intriguing (pun intended). Horns up and all that. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But times changed and the "family footsteps" I have indeed followed. Just one tiny step away from being a fully-fledged lawyer interested in litigation, the very foundations of the justice system have been rocked once again (can't wait to see next year's B.Comm or Architecture & Engineering buscade banners) and this time it <i>stings</i>. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So here's my two-cents about judicial reform. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3>
A Universal and Objective Truth </h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
First and foremost, no system will ever guarantee foolproof protection against corruption and bribery. The vice of corruption in inseparable from big fat human mistakes which not only destroy one's career but - far worse - one's integrity, reputation and honour. Having said that, there may be ways that can offer a greater guarantee of appointing more suitable members to the bench. Or at least, certain manners of appointment may offer a greater degree of public trust in such a vital institution. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3>
The Current System </h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The current system, enshrined as it is in our Constitution, provides that both Judges and Magistrates are appointed by the President in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister. In other, words, Judges and Magistrates are appointed by the Prime Minister of the day. In other other words, Judges and Magistrates are either appointed by a Nationalist or Labour administration. These are, pretty much, political appointments limited only by certain factors, such as that Judges may only be appointed after he or she has practised law as an advocate in Malta for an aggregate of twelve years (seven for Magistrates). Nonetheless, the allegation/insinuation/perception (call it what you will) that Judges and Magistrates are either blue or red-eyed is not that wide off the mark in the whole scheme of things, even if they have to exercise their functions and conduct themselves (both judicial and personal - ideally) in a manner free from all political bias or connections whatsoever. For the maxim that justice must not only be done but must also be <u>seen</u> to be done, the current system does not offer such a solid guarantee. Furthermore, the current system offers no guarantee of appointing members to the bench that are truly well versed in the law, its interpretation and it's application to the facts of a case, resting as it does on a largely subjective decision of the Prime Minister and, presumably, his Cabinet. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3>
Democratisation of the Judiciary?</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What if we were to adopt a system whereby members of the judiciary are democratically elected by a free and sovereign people? This would surely take the decision out of the politicians' hands and offer the greatest degree of public trust possible. I mean if a majority of people directly elect members of the judiciary then they must surely have trust in him or her. All pretence of subjective and political appointments would wither away. But the pitfalls of this system, promising though it may sound, are larger than its positive aspects - at least in my opinion. First of all, the judge would him or herself become somewhat of a "politician" susceptible to lobbying by major interest groups. We would have the Judge or Magistrate of the Chamber of Commerce or the Hunting and Trapping Federation to whom he or she would owe a certain fealty. The more wealthier lawyers, with the greater connections would surely have a greater advantage - even if he or she is a nincompoop when it comes to the law. This could be tempered by disallowing all forms of advertising, lobbying, endorsements and donations in the case of judicial elections - but that, in turn, could give rise to free speech issues. Secondly, holding nation-wide elections in a system where judges and magistrates are appointed "for life" (or rather until they attain the age of 65 years) would surely give cause to logistical and financial headaches. Whilst this is no reason to hinder democracy, it is, nonetheless, a real problem.</div>
<h3>
The Academic Judge</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Another system, followed in certain nations of the Continent, such as Italy, Germany and Spain, is based on actually studying and obtaining a degree/doctorate (whatever) to become a judge or magistrate. This would require the creation of a specific "Judiciary Course" whereby holders of a law degree or doctorate would further their studies to become judges or magistrates in a competitive academic system. Here again, and if the selection process is truly fair and based on merit, the decision is taken out of politicians' hands. This is an interesting way in which to solve current shortcomings, for in one fell swoop it would decapitate political subjectivity and guarantee that the persons sitting on the bench are more specialised in legal interpretation and application. The problem here, however, is that if one where to immediately further his studies to become a judge or magistrate then he or she would be deprived of any *real* court practice. He or she would be more of an academic rather than a lawyer - not that there is anything really wrong in that , but as any budding lawyer will tell you - there is a veritable yet metaphorical ocean separating life at university/academic theory and the real nitty gritty of court practice. It is much like getting out of the frying pan and into the fire - at least until you manage to settle in. This anomaly could be tempered by keeping the twelve (or seven) years court practice requirement before being eligible to enrol for such a course; plus ensuring that any such judiciary course requires mandatory practice as judicial assistant or associate judge for at least one, if not two, years. Another issue would be that such a course would have to be very restrictive and, ultimately, competitive - opening only when a vacancy is imminent - and from which only the very best may pass. Major problems would arise if no one is interested in the job, or if only one candidate would apply. Nonetheles competition, even if nasty, is healthy. This is a system which one should keep in mind. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3>
The Representative Judge</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Another way round to reforming the judiciary is one which I have previously advocated <a href="http://andrew-sciberras.blogspot.com/2012/06/fair-society.html">here</a>. Whilst it still leaves the decision of appointment in the hands of politicians, it is taken away from the Executive and vested in the Legislature. In other words, members of the judiciary may only be appointed in the same manner by which they are impeached; that is by a two-thirds majority of the House of Representatives. Such a system would ensure a broad-spectrum of support and approval by all parties in the House and is surely a form of semi-democritisation of the current system. The vote could be preceded by a specific Parliamentary Committee, chaired by the least partisan person possible (maybe the Speaker or the President of the Republic himself) which nominates candidates in conjunction with the advice of the Commission for the Administration of Justice, the Chamber of Advocates and, why not, the Faculty of Laws (comprising the Dean and Heads of Departments). Politics would not be completely avoided and headaches/delays may arise if major disagreements exist - but it is a leap forward from what we currently have. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3>
Thorough Reform</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Reform, however, cannot start and end with the manner in which we appoint members of judiciary. It has to be thorough and from the bottom up. Furthermore, judicial reform must be accompanied with major political reforms. Since Franco Debono said so much about this and, love him or hate him, he is right - I will spare you further reading.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14901439816200339974noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2356414034451307765.post-90955786697510925182012-09-28T15:54:00.000+02:002012-09-28T16:01:32.884+02:00[Minimum] Discrepancies<div style="text-align: justify;">
Somewhat of an uproar has been caused by the recent PL declarations on the minimum wage. I use the terms "somewhat" specifically and "uproar" loosely because I am not entirely sure whether this particular round of annoying electoral propaganda and spinning is on everyone's minds to be quite honest. Nonetheless, terms like "wage-freeze" and "wage-gate" have been banded about bringing to mind a dark atmosphere of foreboding. The heinous and unspeakable crime? Joseph Muscat and his Labour Party have declared that, should they be elected in government, they will not increase the minimum wage but will reduce utility tariffs. Whatever the case, how interesting it is to see how easily people forget and how convenient convenience has become. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
First let us begin with the deeply-rooted notion that "MuscatPL" has established a political philosophy grounded in populism, a.k.a. "being everything for everyone". I wonder now whether such arguments may still be made by those whose sole agenda is driven by a personal hatred for the man. If Muscat is purporting to be everything for everyone would it not be rather obvious to advocate an increase in the minimum wage (or the establishment of the so-called 'living wage') for workers and, simultaneously, a reduction in utility tariffs for businesses end employers? For better or for worse, Muscat - and by extension the PL - have changed their minds and ditched the living wage proposal. Truth be told, this was never set in stone. In fact a <a href="http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20101118/local/living-wage-should-be-a-voluntary-yardstick-muscat.336770">timesofmalta.com article</a> dated 18 November 2010 reports Musact telling employers [on the living wage]: </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">"I am here with an idea and an open mind, asking you to join forces with me. I am ready to change my position as long as you too are prepared to shift yours towards the common goal of raising living standards."</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But alas, it is very convenient to twist facts and to spin isn't it? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Secondly, let us take a look at "MuscatPL's" policies on fiscal responsibility. Of course, Muscat and his party are the most fiscally irresponsible people on earth and should never be trusted. They want to take us back to "Mintoffianeconomics" coupled with wage-freezes, dire poverty, hunger and bailouts. Now here is MuscatPL, prepared to pursue a core party policy (reducing utility tariffs) by sacrificing an increase in the minimum wage for the time being. The idea is obviously to boost the economy by lowering recurring business expenditure and, consequently, to lower the cost of living which has catapulted in recent years. This can reap beneficial rewards such as boosting the tourism and manufacturing industries and increasing employment. Now I am no economist, so I cannot say with any scientific precision whether this will work out in the long-term. But do you remember how often you used to ask MuscatP: "How?" Well here is just one answer. But alas, MuscatPL is still irresponsible. In the euro-crisis MuscatPL should have lowered utility tariffs AND raised the minimum wage. That would have been the more responsible route, surely. Speaking of crises...is Malta now not part of the euro and the rest of the world? I would like to know how it isn't all of a sudden. For while other countries are bludgeoning their populations with punitive austerity we are taking Muscat to task for not increasing the minimum wage.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thirdly, I cannot fathom how we can so easily equate Malta with the Scandinavian countries. I'd love for Malta to become more Scandinavian, mind you. Excellent wages and the best social-safety net in the world. A quasi-socialist and liberal utopia. Leaving aside the fact that such countries impose heavy taxes on the rich and big corporations (50% +), they also have something that we surely do not: resources. Can you envisage, for instance, a flourishing oil industry in Malta? Or arms manufacturing? Car manufacturing at best but from where do we get the raw materials? And you know what? <b>None of the nordic countries have a statutory minimum wage</b>. Neither do Italy, Germany and Austria. The United Kingdom adopted the minimum wage in 1998 - not in the 70's. All minimum wages in these countries are regulated by collective agreements. Read <a href="http://www.nordiclabourjournal.org/nyheter/news-2012/article.2012-05-22.8368695730">here</a>. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Fourthly, it is interesting to see how we expect Labour to be a fully-fledged workers' party but to simultaneously move on with the times. True, the working-class struggle has been rekindled of late (assuming that Malta is part of the world that is) but I cannot understand how we expect PL to burn all bridges and become the arch-enemy of both business and employers and yet remain modern and mainstream. Please tell me which modern European socialist-democrat party speaks only in terms of working class -vs- bourgeoisie. I even doubt whether the most radical Greens and committed but forward-looking European Communists in the vein of GUE/NGL adopt such attitudes. Like it or hate it, the fact of the matter is that PL is not only a government in waiting but has also to be seen as a government in waiting and not a radical left-wing party with nothing to lose. Like it or hate it incentivising business and investment can also benefit the working class. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now here's a little twist. Truth be told, I'm no major fan of this policy even though I do believe we need to tackle cost of living and energy poverty seriously. It has a "trickle-down" tinge to it which tends to put me off. I am also a firm believer in the idea of spending more - not less - as a means to boost the economy. But sometimes the world does not work this way. You can never get exactly what you wish for and in life you have to compromise. Yet I've had enough of all the lies and spin; the propaganda and the mediocrity. Why can't we criticise maturely and without hidden agendas? Why can't criticism in this god-forsaken country be intelligent and not tainted by agendas, whether political or simply personal? And why does it have to be so childish? Beppe Fenech Adami <a href="http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/en/newsdetails/news/national/Labour-Our-position-on-minimum-wage-the-same-as-PN-s-20120928">took Muscat to task for not suing Maltatoday for libel</a> for being the first paper to report that PL will not increase the minimum wage. Did it also say that Muscat intends to adopt a wage-freeze and deny COLA-increments? How low can you go? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
With the elections round the corner, the PN has just announced a lucrative public-sector wage increase (including pensions...even though government has been berated time and time again on pension reform) and I bet my bottom cent that if they actually do go for a budget they will implement an increase in the minimum wage believing that this will be a 'political coup'. I just wonder if there will be anyone who has no axes to grind or not blinded by partisan tribalism who will dare to ask: where are you going to get the money from and how will it affect our public finances? But I forget. Such questions are only reserved for MuscatPL. </div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14901439816200339974noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2356414034451307765.post-73003938417808642132012-06-01T15:11:00.000+02:002012-06-02T15:34:54.467+02:00A Fair Society<div style="text-align: justify;">
Here is my take on what should seriously be looked at to ensure a fair society. Several points do not touch solely upon social matters but taken together they would, in my opinion, ensure a fairer society. There is no particular order of importance. I'm sure that there are other valid and more important points to be added here.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Ensure that all citizens residing in Malta can keep the public administration in check by widening the concept of juridical interest (e.g. Body A implements a measure which negatively affects the surrounding environment but does not directly and personally affect individual B - individual B would still be able to make a claim). Ensure that registered NGOs such as environmental and consumer organisations are allowed the right to institute class actions without delay. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Ensure that any Whistleblower's Act would also provide for the protection of persons involved in the offence where possible or that punishment is drastically reduced for accomplices who blow the whistle. Furthermore, ensure that the Act applies retroactively to cases of corruption.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Ensure that a Freedom of Information Act is broad and that it allows for easy and unfettered access to all public documents with very limited exceptions (e.g. for the safety of national security and public order). </li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Ensure that a clause providing for a right to a basic yet decent and dignified standard of living is guaranteed in the Constitution - to accompany a balanced budget provision. This right should be enforceable in a court of law.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Ensure that wealth is more distributive. Consider heavily and progressively increasing taxes for any earnings exceeding €230,000 annually. Consider also the adoption of a windfall tax on banks and profitable industries. Adopt a tax on financial transactions. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Reduce public expenditure by reducing investment on non-essential and frivolous works such as fancy bridges, underground tunnels, dancing fountains and all the pomp and ceremony that goes with them. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Reconsider the notion of civil partnership and opt instead for gay marriage with full rights (including adoption).</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Adopt an effective cohabitation law which would give registered cohabiting partners (even if homosexual) all adequate rights and obligations including medical and inheritance rights in case of intestate succession and the right to demand the reserved portion as well as the right to all forms of prison visitation (whether ordinary or conjugal). </li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Abolish all remaining discrimination with respect to the inheritance rights of children born out of wedlock. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Ensure access to IVF treatment without exception or obstruction. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Insert an exception to abortion in the Criminal Code where the life of the mother is in serious and grave danger as a cause of the pregnancy. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">End moral paternalism and treat adults as adults with respect to all sexual or otherwise 'obscene' matters (physical, audio-visual and literary). The regulatory powers of the State should, in this respect, be solely limited to the protection of minors and ensuring that obscene acts or articles are not foisted on the public without precaution/warning as to the content where applicable. Remove or amend all vague offences concerning injury/offence to public morals and indecency. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Invest in child-care facilities. Where possible all public buildings and facilities that serves as a place of work should have an in-house or adjacent child-care facility (similar to the one currently found at the University of Malta). </li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Remove all discrimination in the Criminal code with respect to religious offences. Consider decriminalising blasphemy and the removal of reference to a state religion in the Constitution. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Give local (councils) and regional (EU) voting rights to all who pay taxes or otherwise contribute to the economy, including refugees and persons with subsidiary or temporary protection domiciled in Malta. Such right should also extend to general elections after a specified period (e.g. 10 years) of continuous residence and economic contribution. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Treat people as humans not parasites or scum. Mandatory detention for asylum seekers should be drastically reduced to a maximum of three months (2 months prior to first hearing and 1 month prior to appeal). This should only serve as a transitory measure until effective responsibility sharing is guaranteed at an EU
level (adoption of a concrete Common Asylum Policy) whereupon mandatory detention is removed altogether except in those cases were effective steps can be taken towards repatriation. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Ensure that all children of settled migrants are accorded full citizenship rights as another concrete step towards integration in the community. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Ensure that all members of the judiciary and all high level officials in the public administration and public companies are appointed by a resolution of a two-thirds majority of the House of Representatives. Such persons should initially be nominated by a special and fully representative parliamentary committee which should also be able to invite members of civil society for discussion where appropriate. Enhance supervision and scrutiny of said persons by increasing the powers of the Commission for the Administration of Justice with respect to the judiciary and by making it easier to institute public inquiries with respect to public officials. Consider increasing the salaries of the judiciary to ensure greater impartiality whilst reducing excessive salaries and perks for certain public officials such as the Chariman/CEO of MEPA. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Ensure that all members of the judiciary are provided with suitable facilities and staff to aid their functions and to make proceedings more efficient. Consider, for example, allowing members of the judiciary to employ judicial assistants on a full-time basis and invest in a proper legal library at the law courts or in the vicinity. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Desist from transferring or terminating Court staff periodically. Sacrificing experience would reduce the efficiency of justice. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Empower Magistrates to conduct inquiries independently of the executive authorities such as the Minister for Justice/Home Affairs or the AG.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Institute the office of a Public Prosecutor who is solely tasked with prosecuting cases o.b.o the Republic of Malta in front of the Criminal Courts (both superior and inferior: thus removing the power of the Executive Police to prosecute). The Attorney General would be a distinct office solely tasked with representing the Government in executive matters and vested with judicial representation of the Government in the courts of law. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Ensure that all prerogatives and discretion of the Public Prosecutor (see above) are subject to judicial review. Where possible ensure that all individuals accused with a crime are ensured equality of arms during investigation or inquiry and the course of criminal proceedings. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Ensure that persons investigated by the Police are afforded the right to have a lawyer present during the interrogation who is empowered to intervene on his or her behalf (as opposed to a mere 1 hour communication). Limit or disallow the inference of guilt if the person investigated refuses to speak after obtaining legal counsel. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Ensure an adequate and serious party funding law where any donations (singular or cumulative) exceeding the threshold of €2,300 are to be published with all relevant details. Consider the adoption of a state-funding mechanism for parties based on the percentage of votes garnered. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Consider increasing the salaries of Members of Parliament only on condition that they are to be disbarred from practising their profession or engaging in any other employment (no second jobs) during the course of their tenure. Furthermore, consider reducing the number of members elected in the House and imposing penalties for failure to attend a number of parliamentary sittings without proper justification. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Consider amending the electoral law to ensure representation of political parties that reach an established quota (e.g. 5% of the national vote). </li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Consider the adoption of incentives for identifiable property owners to sell derelict buildings to the State for an appropriate fee and without a property tax so as to ensure that development is more sustainable. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Enhance patient rights and ensure unobstructed and unfettered access to personal medical files. Reduce waiting lists by investing heavily in primary healthcare and consider allowing patients to sue the State for damages (moral or physical) for poor and inhumane treatment (e.g. being placed in corridors). </li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Reduce energy poverty by reducing utility bills but only on condition of drastically increasing fines and fees for polluters as well as businesses and households that exceed a specified quota. Invest heavily in renewable energy and incentives for renewable energy.</li>
</ol>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14901439816200339974noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2356414034451307765.post-79483417585709748612012-05-10T10:03:00.001+02:002012-05-10T10:16:20.493+02:00There is always a 'but'<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vBJhNHLjdxw/T6t2MlUg67I/AAAAAAAAAa4/OswPK1YkAr4/s1600/undecided-which-one-is-better.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vBJhNHLjdxw/T6t2MlUg67I/AAAAAAAAAa4/OswPK1YkAr4/s320/undecided-which-one-is-better.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Did you ever notice how us Maltese have developed an unfortunate habit of qualifying a position against or in favour of something with a counter-position? Let me give you a few examples:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<ol>
<li>I am not racist....but these people should be sent back immediately from where they came. </li>
<li>I do not condone poaching and illegal hunting...but those Germans had no right to film such illegalities and give Malta a bad name.</li>
<li>I am hell-bent on bringing down this oligarchic power-block...but I am not willing to do so directly so that I can be used as a scapegoat (???)</li>
<li>I am not against gay marriage...but I do not believe that gay couples should have the right to adopt children</li>
</ol>
<span style="text-align: justify;">I'm sure there are plenty of other examples that are better or more ridiculous than the ones I have listed above. One wonders why we have a knack of adopting 'neither here nor there' positions. Is it out of fear of being labelled or perceived as being loony, radical or controversial? Is it a cause of recent historical events which have ingrained in us a certain caution to be as objective as possible? Is it the cause of purely individual/egoist interests; that is, not to step on anybody's toes or to be in everybody's good books despite one's personal beliefs? </span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It could be none of the above, or a mixture of all of them. I don't really know for I am no sociologist. What is sure is that this culture of caution is all pervading. It is especially prevalent in most politicians; such that we are not exactly sure what they actually stand for. This is precisely why you come to have some respect for politicians such as Dr. Adrian Vassallo, who are consistent and unashamed of their beliefs, even though you may or may not disagree with them.<br />
<br />
Being in favour or against something with certain reservations is not bad or deplorable or anything of the sort. But when you see a consistent pattern of cautious speech/actions you begin to wonder whether there is something more to it than meets the eye. To be honest though, sometimes it really pisses me off, especially when the X but Y position is just ridiculous and illogical. In any case, it would be an interesting to study this, I guess. </div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14901439816200339974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2356414034451307765.post-29303524065691159482012-05-07T17:48:00.002+02:002012-05-07T19:31:08.746+02:00Le changement?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-V_pXm-MVwIU/T6ftnPjKa0I/AAAAAAAAAag/OqqRrCTBzV4/s1600/2DB558FC9D5044118FAAA07BEEAADD.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-V_pXm-MVwIU/T6ftnPjKa0I/AAAAAAAAAag/OqqRrCTBzV4/s320/2DB558FC9D5044118FAAA07BEEAADD.jpg" width="194" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Throughout the European Union government leaders and heads of states from both sides of the (central) divide are being chucked out of power. This is a testament to the utter failure that is austerity economics/austerity politics which seeks to appease the markets purely out of human misery. Pardon my French, but let's face it, you have to be absolutely fucking mad to expect people to give you gratitude for ending up jobless, hopeless and in complete disarray largely through no fault of their own. Why should people have to pay for the gross negligence of a select few?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This failure, which mainstream parties seem to be unable to appreciate, has given a great boost to extremist or fringe parties thus putting centrist parties at the cross-roads. With the exceptions of Portugal and Spain, which have both elected mainstream conservative parties respectively (and that after long-term centre-left or socialist governments), the political centre is paying the price of its obstinacy and blindness. Francois Hollande, who hails from the mainstream French Socialist Party, got elected on an anti-austerity/pro-growth ticket. Whether he would be constrained to drift towards what I call the "pure centre" during his tenure remains to be seen. But I see no reason why he should unless he also wants to get the boot after one serving one term. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Recent elections also point towards a rejection of a Franco-German hegemony that has completely usurped the European <strike>Union</strike>.There is simply no "Union" if Member States are constrained to the diktats of France and Germany, regardless of how well-meaning their ultimate intentions may be. Europhiles and federalists alike should reject this powerblock hegemony, not embrace it - and one can only hope that Hollande remains true to his word; that is, by remaining steadfast in reshaping France's diplomatic relationship with Germany and thus its overall outlook on Europe. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But it is not all rosy for those, like myself, who are anti-austerity and welcome <i>le changement</i>. The rise and rise of the fringe also translates, very evidently, to the ugly rise of fascism which can easily capitalise on hopelessness and fear. This is a big challenge for the common-sense politicians who must convincingly establish that they can offer ordinary people a hope that is greater than populist isolation, protectionism and xenophobia. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The recent tidal shift in contemporary politics requires a new mindset. Until recently politicians seemed content to justify their actions because of global economic constraints. This is clearly no longer a legitimate excuse. Furthermore, reducing budget deficits by cutting spending is no longer the be all and end all. Keynesian economics, expansionary monetary policy and so on should no longer remain anathema.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
At the end of the day people may be willing to let go of privileges and luxuries like travelling abroad, eating out and so on and so forth. But to go so far as to deny persons a basic yet decent and dignified standard of living is not only absolute madness but completely self-defeating. This right, in my opinion, is as fundamental as free speech, freedom of conscience and all the other basic rights and should be enshrined as such. It would surely be a good accompaniment to a constitutional provision which demands a balanced budget. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Who knows if politicians will ever learn from this crisis? </div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14901439816200339974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2356414034451307765.post-78754564799242500322012-04-04T15:27:00.000+02:002012-04-04T21:45:02.163+02:00Which are the real Six Points?<div style="text-align: justify;">
<h2>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Disclaimer</b></span></h2>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I am not a historian and I have neither studied this matter academically nor professionally. To this extent I cannot claim any authority over the subject, yet the beauty of history is that it is always written. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Neither is it my intention to criticise the documentary </span><i style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Dear Dom</i><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> or its producers and director for the simple reasons that: (1) I have not yet seen it; and (2) I vehemently disagree with that species of ignorant criticism born out of pure political fanaticism.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">My intention is simply to examine the historical basis of the Malta Labour Party's infamous 'Six Points' on Church-State relations with the sources that I have at my disposal, given to me by my father, Philip, who lived those days (the 1960s) and followed politics with keen interest in his youth. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
The Six Points</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In the trailer to the recently released controversial documentary, <i>Dear Dom,</i> it has been asserted that last of the Malta Labour Party's "Six Points" (<i>Is-Sitt Punti</i>) called for violence in certain instances:</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6Vkm27ubCTQ/T3s01MQiJ4I/AAAAAAAAAXo/xUi81cpurHM/s1600/in+certain+instances.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="112" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6Vkm27ubCTQ/T3s01MQiJ4I/AAAAAAAAAXo/xUi81cpurHM/s200/in+certain+instances.jpg" width="200" /></span></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DdW8KhHJNbc/T3s0-THiF8I/AAAAAAAAAXw/Dpl4k_HPcn0/s1600/violence.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="111" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DdW8KhHJNbc/T3s0-THiF8I/AAAAAAAAAXw/Dpl4k_HPcn0/s200/violence.jpg" width="200" /></span></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">To be fair, when I first saw the trailer, I did not really digest this point. It grabbed my attention, incidentally, from a ToM.com readers' debate following a </span><a href="http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120403/opinion/Dear-Dom-banal-and-insolent.413978" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">scathing criticism by Fr. Mark Montebello of the documentary</a><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">. Some asserted that this point was the pretext for violence that many associate with Malta Labour Party, whilst others denied that the 'Six Points' made any reference to violence. Whether the former case was established in the documentary, I do not know. Lino Spiteri apparently explains that this point was intended to mean violence against the British colonial regime (e.g., the struggle of April 1958). To be precise, the list of points as drawn out in the trailer read as follows:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<ol>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The separation of Church and State</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A secular state</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Civil marriage</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Limit <i>privilegum fori </i>so bishops will no longer remain above the law</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Censorship without Church interference; and</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In certain instances, violence. </span></li>
</ol>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Yet I have in my possession a document published by </span><i style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Kummissjoni Centrali Stampa ta' l-Azzjoni Kattolika Maltija</i><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> (Empire Press, Istitut Kattoliku, Floriana) entitled '</span><i style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">l-emendi mressqa mill-malta labour party'</i><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> which tells quite a different tale. In this short pamphlet these six points are listed as follows (in brackets is the how the </span><i style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Azzjoni Kattolika</i><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> named them):</span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<ol>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The introduction of civil marriage and divorce (Żwieġ Ċivili u Divorzju);</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The right of parents to exempt their children from religious education in State Schools (Nuqqas ta' tagħlim reliġjuż obbligatorju fl-iskejjel);</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The right to be buried in cemeteries wholly or partially built or maintained by the Government of Malta (Profanazzjoni taċ-Ċimiterju Kattoliku);</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A State power to halt religious functions aimed at disturbing public meetings or demonstrations (Tfixkil ta' funzjonijiet reliġjużi);</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A concept of public morality and decency that is based on Western European, not Catholic, standards (Moralita akattolika); and</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The removal of the <i>privilegum fori</i> and the introduction of spiritual/religious threats as a corrupt practice (Tneħijja tal-"Privilegium Fori" u l-Liġi tal-"Corrupt Practices"). </span></li>
</ol>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The pamphlet places these points under the heading "IS-SITT PUNTI TA' LONDRA" (The Six Points of London). The reference to London is quite straightforward: the six points were legislative amendments that the Malta Labour Party wanted to introduce to the Independence Constitution during the Malta Independence Conference held in London in August 1963. These amendments can be corroborated by the Malta Independence Conference Report presented to the British Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Colonies in August 1963 (Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, Cmnd 2121).</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zxHlrQLCNqQ/T3xB7a5xR9I/AAAAAAAAAX8/0lD1W2dSPOA/s1600/IMG.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a></div>
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-I2-OFSXLJxY/T3xCIRFKCLI/AAAAAAAAAYE/fdZydBkNw54/s1600/IMG_0001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zxHlrQLCNqQ/T3xB7a5xR9I/AAAAAAAAAX8/0lD1W2dSPOA/s1600/IMG.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zxHlrQLCNqQ/T3xB7a5xR9I/AAAAAAAAAX8/0lD1W2dSPOA/s200/IMG.jpg" width="138" /></span></a><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-I2-OFSXLJxY/T3xCIRFKCLI/AAAAAAAAAYE/fdZydBkNw54/s1600/IMG_0001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-I2-OFSXLJxY/T3xCIRFKCLI/AAAAAAAAAYE/fdZydBkNw54/s200/IMG_0001.jpg" width="142" /></span></a><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VdCWhtdh5PA/T3xW-QaXW6I/AAAAAAAAAZk/3QGKEOJqYLU/s1600/IMG_0016.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VdCWhtdh5PA/T3xW-QaXW6I/AAAAAAAAAZk/3QGKEOJqYLU/s200/IMG_0016.jpg" width="141" /></span></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Eue5gNMWxRE/T3xCzIYkvQI/AAAAAAAAAYM/YKHg9qlc-wk/s1600/IMG_0002.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Eue5gNMWxRE/T3xCzIYkvQI/AAAAAAAAAYM/YKHg9qlc-wk/s320/IMG_0002.jpg" width="207" /></span></a></div>
<b><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
The Constitutional Amendments on Church-State Relations proposed in 1963 by the Malta Labour Party</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><b>1. Civil Marriage and the Principle of Divorce</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In clause 4F(4) it was stated that law will provide for marriages celebrated before a public registrar or before a recognised minister of another religion . In these cases, such marriages are not subject to the Canon law. In the following subsection it was stated that marriages celebrated according to Canon law or where either of the parties is Catholic cannot be dissolved by divorce. It follows that divorce should be allowed in case of marriages not celebrated by the Canon law or where both parties are not Catholic:</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>4F</b>. (4) Il-Liġi taħseb ukoll għal żweġijiet li jiġu ċelebrati quddiem reġistratur pubbliku jew ministru rikonoxxut ta' xi reliġjon oħra u f'dan il-każ ma humiex soġġetti għal-Liġi Kanonika.<br />(5) Żweġijiet ċelebrati skond il-Liġi Kanonika jew fejn waħda mill-partijiet hi kattolika ma jistgħux jinħallu bid-divorzju.</span></i></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-H46i-gdmBik/T3xF2YNrpxI/AAAAAAAAAY0/9Y3B94ah9D4/s1600/Marriage.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="156" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-H46i-gdmBik/T3xF2YNrpxI/AAAAAAAAAY0/9Y3B94ah9D4/s320/Marriage.png" width="320" /></span></a></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2. The Removal of Obligatory Religious Education in State Schools</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The second law that the Labour Party wanted to introduce in the new Constitution was based on the removal of obligatory religious education. Clause 4L stated that whereas the religious education pertaining to the Catholic faith was to be provided in State schools, parents may exempt their children from such teaching and from the obligation to sit for the religion exam:</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>4L</b>. It-tagħlim reliġjuż tal-Fidi Kattolika jingħata fl-iskejjel ta' l-Istat. It-tfal ta' dawk il-ġenituri li ma jridux, jiġu eżentati minn dan l-obbligu u mill-obbligu li jersqu għall-eżami tar-Reliġjon.</span></i></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-iGEohiKV4Zo/T3xGnczuidI/AAAAAAAAAY8/qPqCdUa2_3E/s1600/Religious+Education.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="55" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-iGEohiKV4Zo/T3xGnczuidI/AAAAAAAAAY8/qPqCdUa2_3E/s320/Religious+Education.png" width="320" /></span></a></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">3. The Right to be Buried in State Cemeteries </span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Another law that the Labour Party wanted to enshrine in the Constitution was that no person, either for political or religious reasons, can be denied a burial in cemeteries built or maintained, wholly or partially, by the Government of Malta. This formed part of that Chapter of the Constitution pertaining to fundamental human rights (ancillary to the right not to be subjected to inhumane or degrading treatment). </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>19. </b>(2) Ebda persuna għal raġunijiet politiċi jew reliġjużi ma tiġi mċaħħda mid-dfin fiċ-ċimiterji mibnija jew mantenuti għal kollox jew f'parti mill-Gvern ta' Malta.</span></i></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ajmBbp-igbg/T3xHIaLM6yI/AAAAAAAAAZE/eeyNkRpiudU/s1600/Burial.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="104" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ajmBbp-igbg/T3xHIaLM6yI/AAAAAAAAAZE/eeyNkRpiudU/s320/Burial.png" width="320" /></span></a></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">4. A right of the State to Halt Religious Functions Aimed at Political Interference</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The fourth point or law regarded an inherent State power to halt religious functions aimed at political disturbance or interference. The ringing of Church bells, whistles and heckling by Catholic activists was customary during Labour Party public meetings in the 60s. The law stated that sacred ceremonies in churches adjacent to places where public meetings or demonstrations are held cannot serve as a pretext to prohibit such meetings or demonstrations. The Police have the power to enter Churches during celebrations of sacred functions to halt the ringing of bells or other nuisances that can disturb public order during public meetings (this was an amendment to the fundamental right to freedom of assembly and association). </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>25. </b>(4)...Ċerimonji sagri fi knejjes qrib ta' postijiet fejn ikunu ser isiru meetings jew dimostrazzjonijiet pubbliċi ma jistgħux iservu bħala pretest għall-Awtoritajiet biex jipprojibixxu l-meeting jew id-dimostrazzjonijiet.<br />(5) Il-pulizija jkollha s-setgħa li tidħol fi knejjes waqt iċ-ċelebrazzjonijiet ta' funzjonijiet sagri biex iżżom id-daqq ta' qniepen jew tfixkil ieħor li jista' jiddisturba l-ordni pubbliku waqt meetings pubbliliċi. </span></i></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9kL8GFnUMBk/T3xIJCuubRI/AAAAAAAAAZM/eB7ultN8C4k/s1600/Public+Meetings.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="170" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9kL8GFnUMBk/T3xIJCuubRI/AAAAAAAAAZM/eB7ultN8C4k/s320/Public+Meetings.png" width="320" /></span></a></div>
<b><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></b><br />
<b><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">5. A Western European Morality (The Separation of Religion (Church) and State)</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The fifth point was, in my opinion, the most crucial and the most far reaching, largely because from all the Six Points made by the Labour Party, it is still not universally applied to this day. It held that the terms 'public morality, decency and public order' should be interpreted according to the principles generally accepted by Western Europe. Morality and public decency should not be interpreted as being exclusively equivalent to the sense of morality or decency as understood by a particular faith (this was a clause pertaining to the interpretation of Chapter III on fundamental rights and freedoms, specifically to those limitations of such rights in the interests of the protection of public order, public morality and decency). </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>28. </b>(4A) F'dan il-Kapitlu, moralita pubblika, deċenza u ordni pubbliku għandhom jiġu interpretati skond il-prinċipji ġeneralment aċċettati mill-pajjiżi ta' l-Ewropa tal-Punent. Il-moralita u d-deċenza m'għandhomx jiġu interpretati bħala esklussivament ekwivalenti għall-moralita jew deċenza kif jifimhom xi twemmin partikolari.</span></i></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YDvTaUQ71BA/T3xKg0BFkBI/AAAAAAAAAZU/Wp5lkshH6WA/s1600/Public+Morality.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="73" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YDvTaUQ71BA/T3xKg0BFkBI/AAAAAAAAAZU/Wp5lkshH6WA/s320/Public+Morality.png" width="320" /></span></a></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">6. The Removal of the <i>Privilegum Fori </i>and the Introduction of Spiritual Threats or Harm as a Corrupt Practice</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Finally, the last point was that pertaining to the removal of the <i>privilegum fori</i> of Maltese and Gozitan Bishops (which effectively put such Bishops above the law and prohibited any legal scrutiny of their actions by the Courts) and the introduction of a clause which considered, as a corrupt practice, spiritual threats or harm aimed at swaying persons to vote against their political convictions or to refrain from voting:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>37A</b>. Tiġi konsidrata bħala prattika ta' korruzzjoni li tolqot il-liberta tal-votazzjoni u li għandha tiġi kastigata bil-Liġi bħal kull prattika oħra ta' korruzzjoni minn kull persuna waħedha jew ma' kull persuna oħra li tagħti jew thedded li tagħti xi inġurja spiritwali-reliġjuża lil xi persuna biex tħajjar jew iġġiegħel lil din il-persuna li tivvota kontra l-konvinzjoni politika tagħha jew ma tivvotax (added to the section on 'Voting at Elections' in Chapter V - Parliament) </span></i></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I could not find any specific provision pertaining to the removal of the </span><i style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">privilegum fori</i><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> of the Bishops however consider the following clause that the MLP wanted to introduce into the Constitution:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>4D.</b> (1) All citizens are invested with equal social dignity and are equal before the law, the Administration and justice, without distinction of sex, race, language, religion, political opinions and personal or social conditions. </span></i></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rNqJZkjh6qs/T3xL2QVgfcI/AAAAAAAAAZc/y45gP32YUXg/s1600/Privilegum+Fori+and+Corrupt+Practices.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="132" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rNqJZkjh6qs/T3xL2QVgfcI/AAAAAAAAAZc/y45gP32YUXg/s320/Privilegum+Fori+and+Corrupt+Practices.png" width="320" /></span></a></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Decried as a true and proper Socialist and Secularist program, which the Catholic Church can neither approve nor accept, these proposals were rejected in their totality.</span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<b><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
The 1963 MLP-Church Peace Talks in Rome: An Alternative 6 Points?</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">However, there is another set of 'Six Points' which apparently emanated from private discussions between Mintoff and the Church/Holy See in Rome (IS-SITT PUNTI TA' RUMA). These discussions were aimed at establishing peace between the Church and the Malta Labour Party following the turbulent 1962 elections. In an announcement made by <b>Mgr. E. Galea</b>, Bishop of Tralles and Vicar-General on behalf of the local Curia, dated May 22 1963 (a couple of months before the Independence Conference), the latter lists these six MLP demands for peace as follows:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<ol>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Separation of Church and State;</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The State should be "secularist" and should treat all religions equally;</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Acceptance of Civil Marriage;</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"Privilegum fori" should be limited;</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Censorship of films and books should be carried out exclusively by the Government; and the Church should be unable to interfere;</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In certain cases violence is admissible</span></li>
</ol>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">They bear a striking similarity to the Six Points mentioned in<i> Dear Dom</i>; in fact, they are so similar, that it is reasonable to assume that these are the very same Six Points that the documentary mentioned/was based upon.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-a6pj4b5jl8U/T3xDd8wQLGI/AAAAAAAAAYU/0mcXGZnlxyc/s1600/IMG_0003.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="285" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-a6pj4b5jl8U/T3xDd8wQLGI/AAAAAAAAAYU/0mcXGZnlxyc/s400/IMG_0003.jpg" width="400" /></span></a></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<b><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
The 1965 MLP-Vatican Correspondence</span></b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ocJ-sCXU9OU/T3xD6BmU50I/AAAAAAAAAYc/4faj8Y7UBu0/s1600/IMG_0004.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ocJ-sCXU9OU/T3xD6BmU50I/AAAAAAAAAYc/4faj8Y7UBu0/s200/IMG_0004.jpg" width="147" /></span></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Dom Mintoff documents in his treatise 'Malta: Church, State, Labour' the correspondence between the MLP and the Vatican (a set of discussions held in London, 20 February 1965) which regarded the MLP's Policies and Principles on Church-State relations. The Vatican wanted the MLP to water down the original 1963 proposals to a level it deemed acceptable. However, the MLP did not relent save on the point, it seems, concerning the interpretation of public morality. These points are once again listed as:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<ol>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: red;">Marriage</span>: the MLP wanted to introduce Civil Marriage for all, irrespective of religious creed whereas the Vatican wanted it to apply in the case of non-Catholics only;</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: red;">Religious Instruction in State Schools</span>: the MLP still wanted to apply a general right for parents to exempt their children from religious education whereas the Vatican wanted this right to apply solely in 'very special cases';</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: red;">Corrupt Practices</span>: the MLP wanted to retain spiritual threats during elections as a corrupt practice whereas the Vatican originally wanted it removed until it settled for a compromise (it is noted that 'H.E. Mons. Cardinale (unnamed) not only disagreed with the imposition of mortal sin by the Maltese Bishops in 1962 but had stated quite categorically that the Labour Party would not be hampered by this spiritual impediment in future elections').</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: red;">Right of Burial</span>: on this point both parties agreed that there should be no interference in the burying of persons in State-owned cemeteries;</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: red;">Definition of Public Morality and Public Decency</span>: A watered down version was adopted, basing the interpretation of these concepts on 'generally accepted Christian principles';</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: red;">Public Demonstrations and Public Meetings</span>: The MLP wanted to retain the spirit of the original proposals on this point (religious functions are not a pretext to prohibit public meetings and any disturbance breaking public order and peace during said meetings is a criminal offence). Whereas the Vatican agreed, it wanted abuse to be dealt with by the 'appropriate civil and ecclesiastical authorities'. </span></li>
</ol>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Once again, these points do not make any mention of 'violence' or that violence be acceptable in certain circumstances. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0tlzhkezhs0/T3xEm-bULII/AAAAAAAAAYk/RwNSUZmCdFg/s1600/IMG_0005.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="228" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0tlzhkezhs0/T3xEm-bULII/AAAAAAAAAYk/RwNSUZmCdFg/s320/IMG_0005.jpg" width="320" /></span></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BJRzDvCTGt8/T3xE93s9pLI/AAAAAAAAAYs/_B4aBMolGZI/s1600/IMG_0006.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="227" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BJRzDvCTGt8/T3xE93s9pLI/AAAAAAAAAYs/_B4aBMolGZI/s320/IMG_0006.jpg" width="320" /></span></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">****</span></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>
Questions, Comments and Observations: </b></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<ol>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In both instances, be it the six points mentioned by the </span><i style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Azzjoni Kattolika</i><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> concerning the Constitution proposals or those mentioned by Bishop Galea concerning the MLP-Church peace talks, the 'Six Points' are attributed to Church documents. Were the 'Six Points', therefore, a creation of the Catholic Church alone? </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Which are the real Six Points? The Independence Constitution Proposals or the MLP-Church peace demands? To be fair, there were several other amendments that the MLP wanted to introduce to the Independence Constitution. They were not, strictly speaking, just six (which reinforces the first observation made above) - but they were the six amendments/proposals that struck at the heart of the Church's spiritual and political supremacy (that is why they are termed by the </span><i style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Azzjoni Kattolika</i><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> as: 'L-Emendi tal-M.L.P. li jolqtu l-Knisja'). </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If the answer is that there are two different sets of 'Six Points' (The Rome/Peace set and the London/Independence Constitution set) which is the official one? Were the London/Independence Constitution proposals omitted from the documentary? If so, why? </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Is it scientifically sound to base the 'Six Points' on those merely mentioned in the Bishop's missive concerning the abortive peace talks in Rome?</span></li>
</ol>
</div>
</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14901439816200339974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2356414034451307765.post-39640718758931810412012-03-25T13:22:00.000+02:002012-04-04T20:38:33.811+02:00Tackling Malta's racism: Scope for legal intervention?<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XAlI5itv3fk/T27_9PQ_N-I/AAAAAAAAAXU/KvSeoCcJofc/s1600/1797954963_98846d177d.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XAlI5itv3fk/T27_9PQ_N-I/AAAAAAAAAXU/KvSeoCcJofc/s320/1797954963_98846d177d.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There is no doubt in my mind that a pernicious racism problem exists in Malta. It is not my intention to enter into a profound or detailed study into the causes of racism and xenophobia so this post will rest on this assumption. The facts, though, seem to stand out; ranging from racist killings (to give the benefit of the doubt, let me qualify them as 'alleged') to blatant discrimination, intolerant discourse and bigotry in the workplace, the street, the press, and even in the highest institutions of the state. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Anti-discrimination laws have a basis in fundamental human rights. Consider the following articles: </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 14px; text-align: left;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">'All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status' [Article 26, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">'All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.' [Aritlce 7, Universal Declaration of Human Rights] </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">'The enjoyment of any right set forth by law shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.' [Protocol Twelve, Article 1, European Convention on Human Rights]</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Our very own Constitution states that:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">'Subject to the provisions of sub-articles (6), (7) and (8) of this article, no person shall be treated in a discriminatory manner by any person acting by virtue of any written law or in the performance of the functions of any public office or any public authority.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">In this article, the expression "discriminatory" means affording different treatment to different persons attributable wholly or mainly to their respective descriptions by race, place of origin, political opinions, colour, creed or sex whereby persons of one such description are subjected to disabilities or restrictions to which persons of another such description are not made subject or are accorded privileges or advantages which are not accorded to persons of another such description.' [Article 45, Constitution of Malta]</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Yet, as far as I am aware, these laws largely relate to the so-called 'vertical relationship' between the state and its treatment of individuals as opposed to a 'horizontal relationship' between two private individuals. Nonetheless, the state has (or should have) a positive obligation to disallow discrimination even in the private sphere. Otherwise the state would be passively tolerating racism and discrimination. Should the law in this regard be strengthened? Article 82A of the Criminal Code already establishes the offence of 'incitement to racial hatred', whilst other laws (e.g. employment law) makes provisions against discrimination, but is this enough? Should we consider the promulgation of one consolidated and far-reaching 'Law Against Racism' or 'Anti-Racism Act'? (This could be more comprehensive so as to include provisions against all forms of discrimination - not racism or racial discrimination alone). </span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Evo Morales's <span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19px; text-align: -webkit-auto;"><i>Ley Contra el Racismo y Toda Forma de Discriminación </i>[2010] makes for interesting reading. Article 14, which concerns 'private institutions', states [loose translation]:</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: -webkit-auto;"></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small; line-height: 19px;">All private institutions must adopt or amend their by-laws so as to include offences involving racist and/or discriminatory behaviour, such as:</span> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">a) Racially and/or discriminatory motivated verbal aggression;</span> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">b) Denial of access to a service for racist and/or discriminatory reasons;</span> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">c) Physical, psychological, sexual, racist and discriminatory abuse, not constituting a crime; and</span> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">d) Demeaning actions </span></blockquote>
<div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 19px;">However, the European Union's 'Racial Equality' Directive [Council Directive 2000/43/EC] already makes reference to non-discrimination regarding access to services (even in the private sphere) in Article 3 (h) thereof, but I am not entirely sure whether this extends also to, say, access to a nightclub. Nonetheless, it is questionable whether such measures are being effected in practical day to day life. Our laws concerning racial equality are found in various provisions of various different Acts and laws but they are mostly concerned with the prohibition of blatant racial hatred/discrimination (see for instance, Subsidiary Legislation 350.26 concerning '<a href="http://www.justiceservices.gov.mt/DownloadDocument.aspx?app=lom&itemid=10181&l=1">Requirements as to Standards and Practice on the Promotion of Racial Equality</a>'). The question I am posing is: do these laws go far enough to tackle the actual problem?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 19px;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 19px;">However, a very valid argument exists that no matter how many laws you may wish to introduce the problem will not be solved for it is deeply rooted in the collective psyche or culture so to speak. Racism, like political tribalism, starts at home and is fostered in places like schools and work. Being in a group of friends who advocate xenophobic opinions would also put pressure on a person not to speak out (if not to actually agree with such opinions). </span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 19px;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 19px;">In light of these facts ambitious political, cultural and educational reforms are needed. Reform has to start with politicians and political institutions. For too long have we heard and seen politicians attempt to curry favour and popularity by exploiting voters' fears of immigration. This is a practice that has to stop although it does not mean that politicians should remain silent on issues such as responsibility sharing among EU Member States; especially in light of Malta's very limited resources. Such discourse is not racist, in so far as it is based on objective and reasonable demands for EU aid (as opposed to discourse like 'invasion', 'disease and pestilence', 'country X should serve as the rubbish bin for Africans', etc like we are accustomed to hearing).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 19px;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 19px;">Secondly the state has to ensure stricter vigilance and discipline on the police corps. Various persons have stated that the police either remain indifferent to racially motivated crimes or actually participate in them. Should the powers of the National Commission for the Promotion of Equality (NCPE) (is this body actually functioning (?) because I haven't heard anything about it in the press) be strengthened in this respect so as to be able to conduct independent inquiries into the conduct of the police force upon complaints of alleged racial abuse or omitting of their duties? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 19px;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 19px;">Thirdly various educational campaigns are needed aimed at promoting racial equality and harmony. The state would spend its money better on campaigns like these rather than on useless (and non-transparent) consultancies and the like. The national curriculum of education should also include concrete measures aimed at promoting racial equality amongst students. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 19px;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 19px;">There is so much that could be done. All it takes is a little bit of will-power. </span></div>
</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14901439816200339974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2356414034451307765.post-13860638557727449332012-03-20T21:39:00.000+01:002012-04-04T21:25:29.381+02:00A (Very) Brief Legal History of Artistic Censorship in Malta (2): The Legal Changes of the 70's<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In the period <span lang="EN-GB">beginning from
1970 onwards the silent protest against artistic censorship and the "brute
dogma" that characterized the censorship regime continued; for the most
part as a public outcry on the press. Whether this could be construed as
Malta's mild and belated "1968" moment is a matter for debate best
left to qualified historians, sociologists and philosophers. Dr. Paul Xuereb,
Librarian of the (Royal) University of Malta at the time, wrote a letter to the
Sunday Times of Malta ('Censorship Discontent' - published 15 November 1970)
which captures this moment. He states:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 2cm; margin-right: 71.1pt; margin-top: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WL27kjhXU0g/T2jlyiyQWMI/AAAAAAAAAWs/F2Wb14hyvGs/s1600/IMG.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WL27kjhXU0g/T2jlyiyQWMI/AAAAAAAAAWs/F2Wb14hyvGs/s320/IMG.jpg" width="273" /></span></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 2cm; margin-right: 71.1pt; margin-top: 0cm;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">'Recent correspondence in this and in other papers is evidence of
a widening discontent with our literary and screen censorship. Though there are
others who react to any mention of censorship reform by predicting an era of
widespread depravity and debauchery in the country, it cannot fail to puzzle me
why our Government continues to adopt a phlegmatic attitude to the
sensible and far from radical proposals on the subject that have already been
made to it'. </span></span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The same lamentations were made in the context of theatre and (especially)
film censorship on which hundreds of articles and letters of protest were published
in the local press. They were not wholly in vain. In 1972 the newly
elected Labour government ushered in some timid reforms concerning stage and
film censorship which mainly consisted in a reconstitution of the board of
censors. The aim of the reforms was to replace a pure moralist censorship
regime with a balanced and more ‘mature censorship’.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zhmnb0gLEu4/T2jqkr8T7TI/AAAAAAAAAXE/AvRmo3671fU/s1600/Untitled.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zhmnb0gLEu4/T2jqkr8T7TI/AAAAAAAAAXE/AvRmo3671fU/s320/Untitled.png" width="123" /></span></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">On the 21<sup>st</sup> of March 1972 <i>l-orizzont</i>’s editorial<i> </i>reported
a change in the composition of the censorship board. It stated that the new stage
and film censorship board was composed of persons who had publically criticized
the archaic censorship regime (“mill-ħafna anzjani li kien hemm fil-bord
l-antik ma baqax wieħed, u ħafna minn dawk li kienu jikkritikaw saru ċensuri”).
It further stated that the new board was now composed of journalists,
industrialists, a priest, a trade unionist and a famous author. <i>L-orizzont</i>
also claimed that whilst it expected the new censors to take Malta out of the
Dark Ages they should not forget that Malta is a Catholic nation which has no
need of those ‘excesses’ found in Scandinavian nations (e.g. Denmark had
formally decriminalised adult pornography, even the ‘hardcore’ species, in 1969;
the first Western democratic nation to ever do so). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-GB">Further changes occurred in 1975. One of the more notable
amendments was the abolishment of the postal censorship regime which (as stated
in my previous post) was vested with a <i>carte
blanche</i> to withhold any books it found objectionable. The new Postal
Services Act 1975 (</span><span lang="EN-GB">introduced
by Act XXXV of 1975) seemingly replaced the former Post Office Act. Whilst the
new Act still allowed (and still allows) for the sifting of imported postal material
(other than letters) in terms of the customs law (see Article 35 of the Postal
Services Act), it makes no mention of nebulous concepts such as morality and
impiety. Nor is there any mention of ‘Postal and Customs Printed Matter’ review
boards. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">However, the Customs Ordinance still vests (to this very day) the
Commissioner for Revenue (not sure if this office was previously termed ‘Comptroller
of Customs’) with a general power to
inspect and destroy imported material upon mere suspicion that it is
pornographic. This is established in Article 82 of the Customs Ordinance which
seems to be completely outdated (still makes reference to the defunct Post
Office act) if not unconstitutional and contrary to EU rules on free movement
of goods. Whether this law is enforced is another matter. Perhaps some politicians or journalists that may read this piece should inquire. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-GB">A second notable change was the introduction, also in 1975 (by Act
XXVII of 1975), of what is now Article 208 of the Criminal Code which criminalizes
the manufacture, distribution, etc., of obscene and pornographic material. Legal
Notice 80 of 1975 also introduced the Pornography and Obscenity Regulations
which defined the meaning of ‘obscene’ and ‘pornographic’ in Article 3 thereof
as an article (</span>any object containing or embodying
any matter to be read, looked at or heard) which has, as its dominant
characteristic, ‘the exploitation of, or undue emphasis on, sex, or any one of
the following subjects, namely, crime, horror, cruelty and violence’. It is
interesting to note that the main source of inspiration for this particular definition
was neither the English nor the Italian obscenity law but the Australian and
Canadian laws. The same regulations also introduced the so-called ‘public good
defence’ or ‘defence of artistic merit’ which absolve works that serve the
public good on the ground that they are in the interests of science,
literature, art or learning.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Taken together these new reforms
suggest that the legislator’s intention was not to absolve the arts from any
scrutiny whatsoever but, rather, to replace the archaic and arbitrary system of
</span><i>a priori </i>censorship (in the context
of printed matter) with the fundamental liberty to publish and be damned. As a corollary to this legislative shift, the matter of whether an artistic work was to be deemed 'pornographic or obscene' was a matter for the court, and not some unknown body of censors, to decide. </span></div>
</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14901439816200339974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2356414034451307765.post-46806535935389765602012-03-19T13:32:00.001+01:002012-04-04T21:25:41.279+02:00A (Very) Brief Legal History of Artistic Censorship in Malta: With special emphasis on the early 20th Century up to the 1970s<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">From the
research conducted it appears that Maltese jurisprudence on the matter of
obscene publications (artistic or literary publications in particular) is very
scarce. This could be due, in part, to the rigorous censorial activities of the
postal censors and customs officers which had the power to examine and withhold
books and other imported materials deemed to be objectionable and prohibited by
the laws of Malta.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 150%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 150%;">For
instance, one could point to Article 24 of the Post Office law (1924) which
stated:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 2cm; margin-right: 71.1pt; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">‘No person shall send by post any
indecent or obscene print, picture, pictograph, lithograph, engraving, book,
card, or any other indecent, obscene or impious article, or any postal article
having thereon or on the cover thereof, any words, marks or designs of an
indecent, obscene, seditious, scurrilous, threatening, or grossly offensive
character...’</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 150%;">Article 60
(b) of the Customs Ordinance (1909) was also cited as grounds for restricting
imported books. It established as an offence ‘any prohibited goods whatsoever
which are imported or brought into any part of Malta’.</span><br />
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 150%;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zFHZmKYDXbU/T2ci8KVvkEI/AAAAAAAAAV0/Qelhat7kXp0/s1600/IMG.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zFHZmKYDXbU/T2ci8KVvkEI/AAAAAAAAAV0/Qelhat7kXp0/s320/IMG.jpg" width="247" /></span></a><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QOy6txHinmY/T2d17XpJVbI/AAAAAAAAAWk/11see8FFpDk/s1600/IMG_0001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QOy6txHinmY/T2d17XpJVbI/AAAAAAAAAWk/11see8FFpDk/s320/IMG_0001.jpg" width="247" /></span></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 150%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 150%;">With regards
to literature in particular, it is suggested by some that such officers went so
far as to base their decisions on the infamous <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum">Index Librorum Prohibitorum</a>.</i> This was especially prevalent up to the 1960s which was characterised by
religious dogma and repressive spiritual sanctions by the local Curia during
the turbulent political history of that period in Malta. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 150%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KcuqIVWJUJ0/T2cl3qiLrTI/AAAAAAAAAWM/AUFiF0HzqRw/s1600/IMG_0003.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KcuqIVWJUJ0/T2cl3qiLrTI/AAAAAAAAAWM/AUFiF0HzqRw/s320/IMG_0003.jpg" width="247" /></span></a><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 150%;">Such facts
can be attested by various articles and letters of complaint published in local
newspapers. In 1964 alone, 1014 books and 557 other publications were withheld
by the Postal and Printed Matter Board of Censors.</span><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height: 18px;"> </span><span style="line-height: 150%;">Several classics such as </span><i style="line-height: 150%;">Fanny Hill</i><span style="line-height: 150%;">
by John Cleland, </span><i style="line-height: 150%;">Lady Chatterly’s Lover </i><span style="line-height: 150%;">by
D. H. Lawrence and </span><i style="line-height: 150%;">La Romana</i><span style="line-height: 150%;"> by
Alberto Moravia where nowhere to be seen on the Maltese book-shelves, including
works by famous writers and thinkers such as Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, and
Havelock Ellis.</span><span style="line-height: 150%;"> Moreover,
no appeal to the ordinary courts was permissible from the final decisions of
the Customs Printed Matter Appeals Board.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 150%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cUCYz6-UFG4/T2cmSWPabjI/AAAAAAAAAWU/KxCLv625yGY/s1600/IMG_0002.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="247" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cUCYz6-UFG4/T2cmSWPabjI/AAAAAAAAAWU/KxCLv625yGY/s320/IMG_0002.jpg" width="320" /></span></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 150%;">Censorship was
also prevalent in film and stage productions. In one letter to the editor of
the Times of Malta, Dr. Benny Camilleri laments that ‘[t]he censors have been
so severe to most of the good films being produced today that we are in the
position of having to go to London or Rome in order to be able to see a good
film.’</span><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height: 18px;"> </span><span style="line-height: 150%;">In 1964, Lino Cassar writes in </span><i style="line-height: 150%;">Il-Helsien</i><span style="line-height: 150%;">,
that the censors withheld 15 films and made cuts to another 74.</span><span style="line-height: 18px;"> </span><span style="line-height: 150%;">In 1969, 24 films were banned and another 40 in 1970.</span><span style="line-height: 18px;"> </span><span style="line-height: 150%;">In 1963 the theatre censors banned the plays </span><i style="line-height: 150%;"><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-P6_iYfh1g">Sei Personaggi in Cerca d’Autore</a></i><span style="line-height: 150%;"> and </span><i style="line-height: 150%;"><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5h0RH4q2Tc&feature=related">L’Uomo, La Bestia e La Virtu</a></i><span style="line-height: 150%;"> by Luigi Pirandello leading various
commentators to ask ‘[h]ow long are we going to suffer at the hands of these
people who cannot tell the difference between pornography and art?’</span><span style="line-height: 18px;"> </span></span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 150%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-o76OLk-g48E/T2cnSD5lErI/AAAAAAAAAWc/IsahuGkKs88/s1600/IMG_0004.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-o76OLk-g48E/T2cnSD5lErI/AAAAAAAAAWc/IsahuGkKs88/s320/IMG_0004.jpg" width="247" /></span></a><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 150%;">So ingrained
and deeply rooted was the state of censorship that a certain ‘A.A.M’ writing to
the Sunday Times of Malta proclaimed that ‘[w]e have come to accept the censor
as an institution that constitutes an intimate part of the normal State
machinery. We have conjectured, accepted and cited repeatedly “valid reasons”
to institute and expand the censor’s ramifications’.</span><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height: 18px;"> </span><span style="line-height: 150%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 150%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 150%;">In its few judgments on the subject, the influence of the
court also had a role to play. In <b>Il-Pulizija vs Domenico Catalogna</b> (</span>Court of Criminal Appeal (Inferior), 30 January 1954 (Vol XXXVIII (1954), Part 4, Page 798))<span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 150%;">,</span><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height: 18px;"> </span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="line-height: 150%;"> for
instance, the defendant was convicted for an </span></span><span style="line-height: 24px;">offence</span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="line-height: 150%;"> to public morals for
inadvertently showing nudist paintings to his friends in public. In its
judgment the Court of Criminal Appeal quoted the Italian jurist Cocurullo who
argued that art should have no business in displaying the vice and depravity
found in nature and society; it should not lift that veil.</span></span><span style="line-height: 150%;"> In the slighlty more bizarre judgment of <b>Il-Pulizija vs Anthony Deguara</b> (</span></span>Court of Criminal Appeal (Inferior), 26 November 1960)<span style="line-height: 150%;">,</span><span style="line-height: 18px;"> </span><span style="line-height: 150%;">the accused was convicted for an offense to public morals for playing the song
‘<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk5vNLGroiU">Nuda</a>’ by Domenico Modugno on a jukebox in a cafeteria in Sliema. In its
judgment the court of criminal appeal held that the words ‘jew b’xi mod ieħor
mhux imsemmi band’oħra f’dan il-Kodiċi, joffendi l-morali, l-imġieba xierqa,
jew id-diċenza’ (in what was then Article 352(z) of the Criminal Code) was comprehensive
enough to proscribe any behaviour which in some way offends morals and concluded
that the fact that such a song was played on a jukebox in a public place
undoubtedly offends public morals.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 150%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 150%;">In light of these historical realities, Maltese artists and
writers rarely dared to challenge the status-quo. Art, for the most part, had
to be timid, aesthetically pleasing and inoffensive to pass the censor’s test.
Anything sexual was always taboo. The fear of criminal punishment or the
censor’s ban and the lack of appeal from decisions of the censors, whilst
unfortunate in themselves, necessarily lead to a scarcity of local jurisprudence
on this matter. </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div id="ftn2">
</div>
</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14901439816200339974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2356414034451307765.post-46796536495725005332012-02-12T14:12:00.000+01:002012-04-04T21:26:12.480+02:00What is so wrong with ACTA?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HOZXtYUxsHU/Tze7ST2oWgI/AAAAAAAAAVc/LqNfQLPczr0/s1600/221440-acta_protests_poland.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="223" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HOZXtYUxsHU/Tze7ST2oWgI/AAAAAAAAAVc/LqNfQLPczr0/s400/221440-acta_protests_poland.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Let me begin by stating that I am not well-versed in intellectual property or copyright law. Not at all, in fact, save for a brief introduction on the subject during my commercial law lectures way back in my second year of studies (which only dealt with unfair practises concerning trademarks) and a minor credit on Intellectual Property in my fifth year. In this light I can never claim to be an authority on the subject or that I shall be imparting words of wisdom. Pity that there are some who believe that they are so high and mighty and infallible that content themselves by inflating their egos and pouring scorn and ridicule upon those who disagree with their opinions. What I intend to do in this piece is to briefly pour over the main criticisms being levelled at ACTA and questioning their validity. It's going to be a long one but I am going to try to avoid the nitty-gritty of complex and technical legal jargon. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b></b></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><b><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1: ACTA was conducted and negotiated in secrecy - an affront to transparency and open public scrutiny</span></b></b></div>
<b><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span></b><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Back in 2009 a worldwide coalition of 'Non-Governmental Organizations, consumers unions and online service providers associations' published an <a href="http://freeknowledge.eu/acta-a-global-threat-to-freedoms-open-letter">open letter</a> to the European Institutions condemning the effect that ACTA will have on innovation as well as the secrecy of the negotiations. They contend that:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>The negotiation process itself raises important questions of transparency and due democratic process, given that the content of the draft agreement has been kept secret for more than 18 months, although some details about the proposals recently leaked to the public. More worrying still, while the European Parliament has been denied access to the documents, US industry has been granted access to them, albeit only after signing non-disclosure agreements.</i></span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The <a href="http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2008/october/tradoc_140836.11.08.pdf">general response by the European Commission</a> was that:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>For reasons of efficiency, it is only natural that intergovernmental negotiations dealing with issues that have an economic impact, do not take place in public and that negotiators are bound by a certain level of discretion. However, there has never been any intention to hide the fact that negotiations took place, or to conceal the ultimate objectives of the negotiations, the positions taken in the negotiations or even details on when and where these negotiations are taking place.</i></span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Fair enough. But it is also true that back in 2006 the very same European Commission issued a <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/eti/docs/gp_en.pdf">Green Paper </a>called 'The European Transparency Initiative' which stressed the importance of a “high level of transparency” to ensure that the Union is “open to public scrutiny and accountable for its work”. The Commission believed (at the time, perhaps) that 'high standards of transparency are part of the legitimacy of any modern administration. The European public is entitled to expect efficient, accountable and service-minded public institutions and that the power and resources entrusted to political and public bodies are handled with care and never abused for personal gain.' More importantly, it stressed that:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>When lobby groups seek to contribute to EU policy development, it must be clear to the general public which input they provide to the European institutions. It must also be clear who they represent, what their mission is and how they are funded.</i></span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The question begs an answer: why is it that the political will for greater transparency, established in 2006, was not reflected later on in the negotiations concerning ACTA? The situation is all the more damning when the European Council accepted the ACTA treaty during a meeting which was concerned with <a href="http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/agricult/127031.pdf">Agriculture and Fisheries</a> on the 16th of December 2011. techdirt.com <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111219/02385917123/eu-council-quietly-adopts-acta-hiding-it-agriculture-fisheries-meeting.shtml">put it bluntly</a> by stating that by:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>continuing the tradition of denying European citizens any opportunity to offer their views on ACTA, the Council of national ministers employed the shabby trick of pushing the treaty through by adopting it without debate at a meeting whose main business had nothing to do with international trade.</i></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="text-align: justify;">This tradition, it seems, was employed in Malta and other Member States. Like a bolt from the blue, on </span><a href="http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/en/businessdetails/business/businessnews/Malta-signs-anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement-20120126" style="text-align: justify;">26 January 2012</a><span style="text-align: justify;"> we got to know that Malta signed the 'controversial' ACTA treaty without a single shred of prior knowledge or public debate. In fact, the French MEP Kader Arif who acted as the European Parliament's rapporteur on the ACTA treaty resigned, </span><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16757142" style="text-align: justify;">describing the negotiations as a 'masquerade'</a><span style="text-align: justify;">. The latter went on to issue a strong-worded statement: </span></span><br />
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>I condemn the whole process which led to the signature of this agreement: no consultation of the civil society, lack of transparency since the beginning of negotiations, repeated delays of the signature of the text without any explanation given, reject of Parliament's recommendations as given in several resolutions of our assembly.</i></span></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Verdict: This criticism is well-founded. </span><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This veil of secrecy is almost reason enough to make the case that there is something rotten about this treaty. </span><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It brings to the fore the perception, if not the factual truth, that there are certain vested interests in keeping this treaty hush-hush. Which leaves asking: why?</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2: ACTA will allow authorities to police the internet and criminalises the sharing of free knowledge and the small fish who download songs or movies - a threat to fundamental rights and privacy (Chapter II, Section 5 ACTA)</span></b></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The <a href="http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/acta/">main criticism being levelled at the time</a> (2008) was that ACTA 'creates a culture of surveillance and suspicion, in which the freedom that is required to produce free software is seen as dangerous and threatening rather than creative, innovative, and exciting.' Moreover, it was <a href="http://freeknowledge.eu/acta-a-global-threat-to-freedoms-open-letter">held</a> that the treaty:</span></div>
</div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>...profoundly restrict the fundamental rights and freedoms of European citizens, most notably the freedom of expression and communication privacy. These are very much at risk, since the current draft pushes for the implementation of three-strikes schemes and content filtering policies by seeking to impose civil and criminal liability on technical intermediaries such as internet service providers. </i></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">One <a href="http://kestudies.org/node/20/">commentator</a> argued (in 2008) that:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>ACTA would create unduly harsh legal standards that do not reflect contemporary principles of democratic government, free market exchange, or civil liberties. Even though the precise terms of ACTA remain undecided, the negotiants' preliminary documents reveal many troubling aspects of the proposed agreement. For example, ACTA advocates intend to further criminalize non-commercial copyright and trademark infringements. They also aim to reinforce so-called “Digital Rights Management” (DRM) technologies that currently prevent the personal, legal reproduction of optical discs like DVDs and trample on “fair use” rights. In addition, rights owner lobby groups want the agreement to undermine legal safeguards that protect Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from liability for the actions of their subscribers. It would also facilitate privacy violations by trademark and copyright holders against private citizens suspected of infringement activities without any sort of legal due process.</i></span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Nonetheless, many of the most significant and dangerous provisions of ACTA have now been watered down. Nate Anderson (Forbes) <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/01/28/final-draft-of-acta-watered-down-tpp-still-dangerous-on-ip-rules/">points out the following changes</a> as follows:</span></div>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The provision that proposed to criminally punish ordinary users (think college kid downloading music) with fines, jail time, seizure of computers, etc., was significantly scaled back as the negotiation process moved on and finally eliminated in the final text.</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The provision that required all ACTA countries to hold third parties, such as ISPs and consumer electronics manufacturers, liable for their customers’ infringement was eliminated. This provision, as drafted, was inconsistent with U.S. law and would have required changes to this complex and evolving policy space.</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The provision that required countries to institute safe harbors for ISPs from their customer’s infringement was eliminated. While the idea of providing ISPs with a safe harbor is a good one and facilitates the development of platforms and services on the Internet, the way in which ACTA would have required these safe harbors was not good. It lacked safe guards for users that are contained in U.S. law. Further, it could have provided the excuse for measures such as three strikes and deep packet inspection.</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The DRM provisions of ACTA were improved significantly. Earlier leaked drafts had called upon countries to prevent circumvention of DRM, treat them as both civil and criminal offenses, and consider them illegal even when there was no underlying attempt to infringe copyright. Furthermore, these drafts had not acknowledged that circumvention could be done for lawful purposes. The final text overcomes these deficiencies and gives countries flexibility in how they implement DRM provisions.</span></li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It has been <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/internet-awash-in-inaccurate-anti-acta-arguments.ars">noted by Timothy B Lee</a> (<i>Ars Technica</i>) that many of the claims made against against ACTA are either outdated or unfounded. For instance, the claim that <a href="http://www.geekosystem.com/acta-primer/">"ACTA gives [ISPs] the power</a>—or more accurately forces them—to monitor all your packets, all the time" is no longer accurate. Nonetheless, the site goes on to maintain that 'None of this is to say ACTA is positive. It isn't. It has both procedural and substantive problems—and critics need to attack it on the right grounds.' For starters, it reiterates the secrecy criticism above-described: </span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>ACTA was negotiated in extreme secrecy by a small group of wealthy nations. As leaked documents <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/secret-us-cables-reveal-acta-was-far-too-secret.ars">make clear</a>, the explicit goal of this approach was to bypass existing international instituions like WIPO where other countries might object to even stricter IP enforcement. Instead, ACTA was a "coalition of the willing" which "would aim to set a 'gold standard' for IPR [intellectual property rights] enforcement among a small number of like-minded countries, and which other countries might aspire to join."</i></span></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Another existing problem is that 'the treaty requires signatories to adopt anti-circumvention rules...and a regime of statutory damages like the one that produced a <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/the-first-p2p-case-to.ars">$1.5 million judgment</a> against Jammie Thomas-Rasset for infringing 24 songs.' Trusty Wikipedia explains that 'Anti-circumvention refers to laws which prohibit the circumvention of technological barriers for using a digital good in certain ways which the rightsholders do not wish to allow. The requirement for anti-circumvention laws was globalized in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996">1996</a> with the creation of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO_Copyright_Treaty">WIPO Copyright Treaty</a>.' In other words anti-circumvention prevents you from jail-breaking your PS3 or iPhone for it to be able to play copyrighted material or to allow software and file formats for which it was not made. Indeed, I can not find a morally sound argument as to why jailbreaking should be allowed other than, perhaps, that one should do as he pleases with the property he has legitimately purchased. However, people far wiser than me have made the argument that anti-circumvention measures <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/293/5537/2028.abstract">have an impeding effect on science and innovation</a>: </span></div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>Scientists who study encryption or computer security or otherwise reverse engineer technical measures, who make tools enabling them to do this work, and who report the results of their research face new risks of legal liability because of recently adopted rules prohibiting the circumvention of technical measures and manufacture or distribution of circumvention tools. Because all data in digital form can be technically protected, the impact of these rules goes far beyond encryption and computer security research. The scientific community must recognize the harms these rules pose and provide guidance about how to improve the anticircumvention rules.</i></span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Furthermore, Lee continues, 'ACTA establishes a new, higher minimum of copyright protections and enforcement that countries must provide, but it doesn't require countries to preserve mechanisms like fair use and intermediary immunity that protect intellectual freedom.' We have recently learned that government intends to establish new '<a href="http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/en/newsdetails/news/national/Legislation-to-strengthen-civil-rights-in-government-offensive-against-ACTA-uproar-20120211">legislation to strengthen citizen’s rights to information and expression through internet</a>'. However, the argument goes that If 'Congress (Parliament in our case) ever decides that IP rights have swung too far in one direction, it can always rebalance them by changing the law, right? Not exactly. International agreements like ACTA bind the hands of legislators unless the US is willing to withdraw from them first.' The argument is, therefore, that once this treaty becomes binding on the signatories nothing much can be done to counteract its provisions. </span></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Verdict: A cautious criticism is well-founded but on the wrong reasons. In its current format it does not appear to have a far-reaching detrimental effect on internet freedom but it remains vague. Moreover, we can never be so sure what effect this treaty will have on internet rights until it's enforcement mechanisms are activated and court interpretations are given. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">3. ACTA criminalises generic medicine (Chapter II, Section 3 ACTA) </span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The ACTA treaty will allow national customs authorities to 'act upon their own initiative to suspend the release of suspect goods' but also empowers rights holders to 'request its competent authorities to suspend the release of suspect goods'. According to Kader Arif (MEP) this has a detrimental effect on the transportation to generic medicines (generic versions of patented medication) that are essential for third world countries:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>The problem with ACTA is that, by focusing on the fight against violation of intellectual property rights in general, it treats a generic drug just as a counterfeited drug. This means the patent holder can stop the shipping of the drugs to a developing country, seize the cargo and even order the destruction of the drugs as a preventive measure. Generic medicines are not counterfeited medicines; they are not the fake version of a drug; they are a generic version of a drug, produced either because the patent on the original drug has expired, or because a country has to put in place public health policies (<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/feb/01/acta-goes-too-far-kader-arif?newsfeed=true">source</a>)</i></span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In his <a href="http://www.google.com.mt/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=the%20effect%20of%20acta%20on%20generic%20medicine&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC8QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.auilr.org%2Fpdf%2F26%2F26.3.7.pdf&ei=yLc3T5HkO8qc-wbF0e2VAg&usg=AFQjCNHf1Dg543ydSEcg3llk2ybgRYJs9w">treatment of the subject</a>, Andrew Rens states that: </span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>ACTA threatens access to medicines through the indeterminacy of the terms “counterfeit” and “enforcement. Even if these provisions ultimately exclude pharmaceutical patents [which it does in footnote 6 to Section 3]...trademark and copyright claims can still be used to block generic medicines. For example, in 2009 German customs officials seized and held a shipment of the generic drug Amoxicillin, which was being shipped through Germany to a least developed country. The drugs were held for four weeks because German customs officials were confused by the alleged similarity of the generic name Amoxicillin with the GlaxoSmithKlein brand Amoxil. The incident highlights the negative consequences for global health when customs authorities are empowered and required to engage in determinations of IP rights with respect to goods in transit.</i></span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Timothy Lee argues, however, that 'at the margin, ACTA might be bad for the flow of generic drugs to poor countries, but it's a huge exaggeration to say that generic drugs would be "banned."' Furthermore, he argues that under the current wording manufacturers of generics could escape punishment if they 'tweak the appearance of their drugs to avoid infringing on trademarks.'</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Verdict: Despite the loopholes, ACTA could have very serious consequences on the shipment of generic medicines which are vital for health especially in third world countries. I'm sure the fat cats at Bayer and GlaxoSmithKline had a hand in this. Truly, this could be more devastating than certain policing of the internet.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Concluding remarks</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The problem with ACTA is that it shifts the balance between internet freedom and the legitimate interests of rights holders in favour of the latter. The secrecy of the negotiations conducted and the drive by Western nations to entrench its own copyright laws on the rest of the world (SOPA, PIPA thankfully dead and buried and ACTA) at the behest of powerful corporations and lobby groups indicates that this is the case. The danger is a disproportionate piece of legislation that stifles freedom and innovation, whilst criminalising the small players together with the worst infringers. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I also agree that any resistance to ACTA must be coupled with a call for r<a href="http://jamesdebono.blogspot.com/2012/02/what-is-all-this-fuss-about-acta.html">eform in intellectual property law in general</a>. There is a strong popular resistance to internet regulation in the digitial age. The internet has become an integral and inseparable part of our lives that we cannot be made to live in fear that we could get fined and jailed for the most trivial things such as sharing a song. Moreover, the sharing of art and knowledge is an intrinsic public good that should be respected and enhanced, not stifled and censored. Rights holders should also recognise that the discovery of obscure musical groups or interest in literature or film has increased with internet sharing. I would have never known about certain bands where it not for internet downloading and I would never have bought any of their material. </span></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14901439816200339974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2356414034451307765.post-34715795763082046542012-02-08T14:41:00.000+01:002012-04-04T21:25:57.635+02:00A landmark judgment on freedom of expression and artistic freedom<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mALSwcKk3eo/TzJ7COJzV1I/AAAAAAAAAVE/BcKWbK2WMKU/s1600/t_440x0_malta_law_courts.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="224" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mALSwcKk3eo/TzJ7COJzV1I/AAAAAAAAAVE/BcKWbK2WMKU/s320/t_440x0_malta_law_courts.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I do not intend to romanticise or exaggerate the issue but it is my humble opinion that today's <i>Realta</i> judgment represents a significant turning point in Maltese obscenity and morality law; freedom of expression and artistic freedom. If anything, it is the first judgment of it's kind, in Malta, that deals specifically with the nebulous concepts of obscenity and pornography in literature as well as the defence of artistic merit and public good (as found in the Pornography and Obscenity Regulations 1975 - L.N. 80 of 1975). </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The fact of the matter is that our courts, especially the appellate courts, always had a tendency to adopt purely moralist or ethical interpretations of obscenity that are loaded with subjectivity and cut off from contemporary reality. In effect, they served the function of guarantors of the 'nanny state'. Thus we find in judgements such as <i>Il-Pulizija </i>v <i>Domenico Catalogna et</i> (Court of Criminal Appeal, Inferior - 1954), a case that dealt with the public exhibition of a nude painting, that '[c]hi si scusa col dire che egli dipinge il vizio e la dissoluzione, cosi come la trova nella natura e nella societa, dimentica che, per gravi ragioni, la societa esige che di alcune cose non si faccia ostentazione...Perche dovrebbe l'arte alzare quei veli? Quale ragione avrebbe per sottrarsi alle regole comuni?' (quotuing from Cocurullo, <i>L'Oltraggio al Pubblico Pudore mediante Scritti</i>, <i>Disegni ed Oggetti,</i> 1910). Coupled with this one finds various judgments declaring concubinage (cohabitation) as an offence to public morals such as <i>Elsie Demanuele </i>vs<i> Richard Faulkner </i>(First Hall Civil Court - 1988) where the Court said that '<span style="background-color: white; text-align: left;">Il-Qorti ma tistax taghti decizjoni li thalli sitwazzjoni ta' konkubinat, ghax din mhux biss tmur kontra l-morali pubblika imma wkoll kontra l-ligi'. The reason I cite these judgments is because they are the very same that the Attorney General used, in his appeal application in <i>Realta</i>, to show that the Court should make pure subjective analyses of obscenity and morals without any recourse to current realities. The prosecution, according to the AG, does not need to show 'the why'; 'the how'; and 'the manner' by which morals are offended. The AG also argued that literature can be deemed obscene even from mere 'purple passages' cited in isolation without any recourse to the dominant character of a story or novel taken as a whole (this is what he tried to do in open Court by reading the 'dirtiest' passages from <i>Li Tkisser Sewwi</i>) nor does he believe that obscene publications should be judged with regard to the likely readers, even if these are mature adults. He also contended that the Court should neither be guided by constitutional principles on free speech, nor should it have any regard to expert witnesses on the matter. </span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: left;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: left;">Until today (and perhaps next week - since we still await the appeal judgment from the Constitutional Court on the <i>Stitching </i>case) little importance was given to certain (limited) court declarations that the concept of morals vary in space and time (certain judgments given by Judge J R Micallef, the names of which I do not know off-handedly, come to mind). The AG tried to give the impression that that which was immoral in 1950 must necessarily remain so in 2012. This is unlike the erudite doctrine of the Italian Court of Cassation which held that '</span><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">...il
giudice non deve essere un fustigatore dei costume, un promotore di campagne
moralistiche, come la Corte di cassazione ha più volte affermato. Non è questo
il compito assegnatogli dalla legge. Come già ricordato, il fondamentale
parametro di riferimento per il giudice è il sentimento medio del popolo nel
momento storico dato. (Cass., Pen., Sez III 30-10-1996, n. 9685). </span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">This has changed with the </span><i style="line-height: 115%;">Realta</i><span style="line-height: 115%;"> appeal. In essence, the Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed the deliberations of the Court of Magistrates which held that a publication can only be deemed obscene and pornographic if it effectively 'corrupts and depraves' the reader (the English standard of obscenity) by inciting in him or her libidinous thoughts and sexual excitement. This is important for it destroys the concept of 'inherent obscenity': material must have a strong (extraneous) corruptive effect on the mind of the reader for it to be deemed obscene. It held that this effect must be proven, beyond reasonable doubt, by the Prosecution, in cases like these. It also took cognisance of defence counsel's contentions that the story </span><i style="line-height: 115%;">Li Tkisser Sewwi</i><span style="line-height: 115%;"> in no way attempted to incite </span><span style="line-height: 18px;">libidinous</span><span style="line-height: 115%;"> thoughts or corrupt the minds of ordinary readers; to the contrary the primary motive was to invoke a certain disgust - or anger - at the protagonist, who viewed women as sexual objects and nothing else (an unfortunate reality in the psyche of a fair number of Maltese men and indeed, the male species in general). A narration of such a reality, it said, although shocking, discomforting and not </span><span style="line-height: 18px;">aesthetically</span><span style="line-height: 115%;"> pleasing, is neither obscene nor devoid of artistic merit. It agreed with defence counsel's claims that '...l-ghan tal-letteratura m'huwiex biss li titfa dawl fuq dak li huwa sabih fl-umanita' izda huwa anki li tiddipingi u titkellem dwar l-elementi koroh u deplorevoli ta' l-istess socjeta`'. It also made the fundamentally important declaration that '...il-moralita` pubblika hija xi haga li tinbidel biz-zmien u dak li kien joffendi l-morali pubblika ghoxrin jew tletin sena ilu mhux neccessarjament joffendi l-morali pubblika llum u dan minhabba rejaltajiet tal-hajja differenti principalment ir-rejaltajiet li ghalihom giet esposta is-socjeta Maltija permezz tal-mezzi vasti ta' komunikazzjoni moderni.' </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">It is for such reasons that the </span><i style="line-height: 115%;">Realta </i><span style="line-height: 115%;">case, now confirmed in appeal, is a landmark judgment for it is a judicial affirmation that (1) art should not be regulated by a paternalist state that decides for adults what they should see, read and hear (in the sense that art must be aesthetically pleasing and inoffensive for it not to interfere); (2) that the artist has every right to shock, offend and challenge current contemporary reflections in society as avante-garde (a fundamental concept in free speech law); and (3) that the concept of morality is not a dogma (static and unchanging in space and time) but must be viewed in accordance with current standards of toleration in society without being </span><span style="line-height: 18px;">detached</span><span style="line-height: 115%;"> from emerging realities of the 21st Century. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 18px;">Despite the importance of this judgment, this issue should never have gone to Court. In my opinion the main culprit was not the AG (he was, after all, doing his job albeit in a very close-minded manner) but the Rector, Juanito Camilleri. One must recall that it was on his insistence that Mark Camilleri (and, consequently, Alex Vella Gera) be taken to Court. He based his reasoning primarily on two grounds: (1) one that he was not sure what he should do in cases like these and thus wanted guidance from the Court; and (2) because the short story was placed in a journal or newspaper, the reader could easily take it to be a factual account of the author's opinion on such matters (hence the insistence, by the prosecution, on the word 'artiklu' rather than 'storja') rather than a fictitious piece of literature. Since when is the Court a means to solicit legal advice (</span><i style="line-height: 18px;">uffiċju tal-pariri</i><span style="line-height: 18px;">) and since when can university students not distinguish between fact of fiction? Is this the level of intellect that the Rector perceives in students? And who on earth has ever heard of university officials and academics subjecting their own students to a criminal trial for the publication of literature which offends them? This absurdity reached epic proportions and I also call for the Rector's immediate resignation now that he has gotten his answer very clearly. One must also recall how the SDM-led KSU of 2009-2010 was four-square behind the Rector's actions, despite any declarations to the contrary, for reasons or motives upon which I shall not speculate. I can personally bear witness to this. Kemm għadkhom lura, jaħasra. Ma rrnexilkhomx. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></span></div>
</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14901439816200339974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2356414034451307765.post-31158970561851180262012-01-26T21:36:00.000+01:002012-04-04T20:41:25.447+02:00Naivety<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fd1kKzGWiEE/TyG3bfEh0YI/AAAAAAAAAU0/ckVfYvLPDlg/s1600/naive_1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fd1kKzGWiEE/TyG3bfEh0YI/AAAAAAAAAU0/ckVfYvLPDlg/s320/naive_1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Franco Debono saga, culminating and anti-climaxing today, was a lesson in naivety from all parties concerned. It was naive to actually believe that Franco Debono would hold his ground and vote out the government. He has huffed and puffed before but never did he blow the house down. And he never will because there is, simply put, too much at stake for him. That was a lesson not learned by PL exponents and media, including independent media, who built up the tension or hype and planted the idea that elections are now inevitable. Having said that, I do not believe that Joseph Muscat was immature in calling for such a vote. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is also ludicrously naive to think that this was some victory for PN or government. This was a motion of no confidence in government. Constitutionally this motion has failed to pass. But only just. And to believe that a 34-34 tie means business as usual or that Labour lost is absolutely insane. That is like telling me that I should dump all reason, logic and intelligence in the toilet and pull the flush. The political ramifications of being saved by the Speaker of the House in a vote of no confidence are clear enough for those who are not blind and guided solely by partisan zeal and idolatry. Gonzi's government did not lose but it came out more bruised than it ever was. There is no stability or certainty in a government that is literally hanging by a thread. Therefore, I do not believe that PL (and also AD it seems) have been arrogant to state that the PM should call for early elections. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is also naive, and here is the crunch, for Franco Debono to believe that those who failed in the administration of government will now assume responsibility; that the infamous 'clique' will magically disappear; that transparency, accountability and individual or collective responsibility will become the order of the day; that all the hate will be supplanted by intelligent criticism. 4 days of constant rosy rhetoric and nauseating propaganda in Parliament by government ministers is proof enough of the mentality that everything (save for a few, isolated and half-hearted utterances of "we're not perfect") is just dashing. And hey, if it's not broke, why fix it? This is why I believe that, save for a few short-term cosmetic changes, there will be no deep-rooted and profound constitutional and democratic changes which Franco Debono has been harping about. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Just as it is naive to think that the Maltese do not want an election (that would actually be a historical cultural shift that should keep anthropologists and sociologists busy). Fact of the matter is that it is the Nationalist Party which does not want an election. And again, the reasons why, are clear for all to see. Nor is Labour fully ready for one. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The rest, as they say, is history. </div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14901439816200339974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2356414034451307765.post-2137092401859559692012-01-25T18:05:00.002+01:002012-04-04T20:41:37.550+02:00Hands off the ECtHR<div style="text-align: justify;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DxEmLp7V9Fs/TyA2nSvpMqI/AAAAAAAAAUs/DcE25cbtfMI/s1600/220px-Official-photo-cameron.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DxEmLp7V9Fs/TyA2nSvpMqI/AAAAAAAAAUs/DcE25cbtfMI/s320/220px-Official-photo-cameron.png" width="254" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;">Don't trust an Englishman. Never trust a Tory.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In typical Tory fashion, David Cameron advocates an isolationist and state sovereignty approach for the ECtHR. The ECtHR has already declared that it is not a Court of Fourth Instance and does, in fact, allow national courts a wide margin of discretion through the application of the (in)famous 'margin of appreciation' doctrine. This doctrine severely limits the power of the Court. The ECtHR states, even in cases concerning the most basic rights such as freedom of expression, that: </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"<span style="background-color: white; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18px;">By reason of their direct and continuous contact with the vital forces of their countries, State authorities are in principle in a better position than the international judge to give an opinion on the exact content of these requirements as well as on the "necessity" of a "restriction" or "penalty" intended to meet them...</span><span style="background-color: white; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18px;">Consequently, Article 10 para. 2 (art. 10-2) leaves to the Contracting States a margin of appreciation. This margin is given both to the domestic legislator ("prescribed by law") and to the bodies, judicial amongst others, that are called upon to interpret and apply the laws in force..." (Handyside v <span style="color: white;">.........,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...............</span>United Kingdom 1976, paragraph 48). </span></span></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-indent: 18px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; text-indent: 18px;">Cameron also suggests, albeit </span><span style="background-color: white; text-indent: 18px;">diplomatically</span><span style="background-color: white; text-indent: 18px;">, that the ECtHR should lay off the United Kingdom (as well as other countries such as France and Germany) and focus on other countries famed for their repudiation of human rights such as Russia and Ukraine. This is, of course, with the excuse to reduce its backlog. I ask Mr. Cameron whether the United Kingdom should be </span><span style="background-color: white; text-indent: 18px;">exonerated</span><span style="background-color: white; text-indent: 18px;"> from the most heinous violations of human rights, including it's </span><span style="background-color: white; text-indent: 18px;">inhumane</span><span style="background-color: white; text-indent: 18px;"> treatment and torture of Iraqi and/or Afghani prisoners of war. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18px;">The United Kingdom, for a very long time, did not have any written statute of human rights laws (today there is the Human Rights Act of 1998 which implements the Convention rights into English law). Because of this the only liberty that was permitted was that which was not illegal. This was the common law principle: human rights are residual rights; they were the exception, not the norm. Even from a cursory glance through most Human Rights law textbooks one will find a huge collection of judgements concerning the United Kingdom. In his perversion of the United Kingdom as some bastion of democracy, Mr. Cameron seems to have forgotten about this factual truth. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18px;">And how can one restore the ECtHR to it's 'original purpose' when the spirit of Convention is so dynamic (as opposed to dogmatic) and evolutive so as to incorporate an ever-greater species of rights with the passage of time? For instance, the ECtHR once agreed with respondent states that the legal discrimination between 'legitimate' and 'illegitimate' children was at the discretion of individual states. Later on, and due to the fact that the majority of European nations started to dismantle this ridiculous distinction, the ECtHR reformed its position. It evolved in its interpretation of the Convention. The same can be said of other rights concerning homosexual and transsexuals. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18px;">There is another method where one can reduce the backlog of the ECtHR. Rather than strip away, one should empower it. Give it the right to impose heavy sanctions on member states that are found to violate human rights and improve its power of enforcement at Grand Chamber level. This would discourage member state to remain in a state of violation and encourage them to update their laws in conformity with human rights. Of course, the drawback could be that member states might rescind and revoke their membership under the Convention or even from the Council of Europe altogether. But the diplomatic repercussions would be heavy. But hey, this is perhaps what Mr Cameron actually wants. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18px;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18px;">Reform the efficiency of the ECtHR, by all means. But never trust an Englishman to do so. Let alone a Tory. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18px;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: justify; text-indent: 18px;">God Save the Queen. </span></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14901439816200339974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2356414034451307765.post-85250330642987728172012-01-19T10:41:00.000+01:002012-04-04T20:41:53.851+02:00Democracy not for sale<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pAHCOxuPXRE/TxflWmLYgdI/AAAAAAAAAUU/-qoxpeM7Njg/s1600/li-620-guy-mask-occupy-rtr2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pAHCOxuPXRE/TxflWmLYgdI/AAAAAAAAAUU/-qoxpeM7Njg/s320/li-620-guy-mask-occupy-rtr2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In a time of political instability there has been talk of changes to the electoral law to the effect that "<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 18px; word-spacing: 2px;">the party winning a majority of votes at an election would be automatically given a three-seat majority to be able to form a stable government". The idea is that "</span><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18px; word-spacing: 2px;">in our system, there is the danger that a government will be held hostage by a single MP" and that there might be "too much power in single MPs hands" (see </span><a href="http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120119/local/Too-much-power-in-single-MP-s-hands-.402883" style="line-height: 18px; word-spacing: 2px;">here</a><span style="line-height: 18px; word-spacing: 2px;">). The automatic knee-jerk reaction is to (arbitrarily) tweak the electoral law to the advantage of the political parties (Nationalist and Labour).</span></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 18px; word-spacing: 2px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; word-spacing: 2px;">I claim that such amendments would continue to erode our democracy. Many have seemed to develop the atrocious idea that governmental stability is a cornerstone of democracy. It most certainly is not, for democracy is founded on the most basic of principles including, amongst others, free speech, equality and tolerance, universal suffrage and other fundamental liberties and duties of free citizens. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; word-spacing: 2px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; word-spacing: 2px;">First of all, if the electoral (constitutional) law were to be tweaked in this way it would not be truly representative of the electorate's wishes. The electorate, whilst willing to give one particular party the right to govern, might not want to give it a strong mandate simply because it might not trust it enough to govern unfettered and in a unilateral manner. We should recall that notions such as 'bipartisanship' and 'meritocracy' assumed greater public importance as a result of a mere 1,500 majority (or 750, rather) between the governing party and the opposition. The idea is that: "Yes, you are the governor, but only just. Do not forget that and do not discard the other 49% that did not vote for you". </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; word-spacing: 2px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; word-spacing: 2px;">Secondly, such amendment would almost nullify the idea that MPs can keep the government in check. It is a sacred constitutional principle that a well-functioning democracy is one where the institutions of the state 'balance and check' each other. This is a particularly strong weapon against arbitrariness and unfettered power. Just to prove my point: a government minister once said that the legislature simply need not meet for government has a five-seat majority in parliament (pre-2008). </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; word-spacing: 2px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; word-spacing: 2px;">Thirdly, it would effectively destroy the purpose of having third parties. Even if a third party manages to get one member elected in the House I would assume that the party with an absolute or relative majority would still be automatically given a three-seat majority. Although a major victory for the third party, the whole concept of coalition government would be redundant. That third party would not be able to influence the policies of its coalition partner. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; word-spacing: 2px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; word-spacing: 2px;">In a true democracy, government should be challenged and scrutinised consistently. It might win a comfortable majority and in that case other institutions (especially the press) would have to do an even better job of scrutinising the workings of government and public officers. But if it does not, we should not fear the influence or power a single MP might wield. MPs, after all, should not be gagged and demonised simply because they do not swear blind fealty and submission to government. </span></span></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14901439816200339974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2356414034451307765.post-82040536708416048262012-01-07T10:22:00.002+01:002012-04-04T20:42:07.363+02:00Crucify him!<div style="text-align: justify;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wyD0SeQiz68/Twgmf4w-BzI/AAAAAAAAAUM/nebUvzxcdik/s1600/franco-debono-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wyD0SeQiz68/Twgmf4w-BzI/AAAAAAAAAUM/nebUvzxcdik/s1600/franco-debono-2.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The 6th of January 2012 has proven to be a veritable <a href="http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120106/local/wind-warning-wall-in-zejtun-topples-over.401241">climactic</a> and <a href="http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120106/local/franco-debono-calls-for-gonzi-s-resignation.401257">political</a> mess for the otherwise serene and sturdy islands of Malta. It falls upon us then, as rational human beings who are not inclined to view everything through partisan lenses, to try to make some sense of it all - if such is indeed possible. After all, if the press is not willing to ask questions, somebody should. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Let me start with the Hon MP Franco Debono (Nationalist Party). Franco seems to me to be a politician of the highly ambitious species, yet childishly innocent in the manner in which he displays his ambition so publicly. A more skilled politician would certainly be shrewder, more cunning perhaps, willing to bide his time and plot subversion in the shadows ultimately to get what he or she wants without ruffling too many feathers. But Franco has openly defied and criticised the Prime Minister to a point where there seems to be no turning back. The parallels with Dom Mintoff under Sant's government are striking. Sant's fatal mistake was not to tie a simple vote to a vote of confidence. What Lawrence Gonzi and so many others declared as a 'mistake' is to me an act of gentlemanliness of the highest order, for Sant had the courage to sacrifice power for the sake of serenity and stability of the country when a backbench MP was defying him so openly and consistently in a one-seat majority scenario. No, just like Sant, Gonzi's mistake was indeed not to give Franco a portfolio that would truly satisfy him. Let's face it, a Prime Minister should not be held hostage by a backbench MP but this is precisely why he should also be cunning enough and have the foresight to ensure stability in his own party if he is to ensure stability in the nation. Such is the game that is politics. Of course, this is the case only insofar as we make the assumption that Franco Debono did what he did purely out of spite for not being given a ministerial portfolio - something that is not yet absolutely clear for this whole story has yet to be written. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now, Franco's rebellious streak has been characterised by Nationalist Party stalwarts and diehards alike as nought but folly, immaturity, disloyalty and even madness or mental lunacy. The established default position is one of absolute loyalty to leader and party. Obviously, for Labour Party diehards he is a veritable hero (further echoes of the Sant-Dom Mintoff saga of 1998). From a partisan perspective this seems to make <b>some</b> sense but it troubles me to see this default position advocated by most mainstream independent press and journalists, which, as the nation's 'fourth institution', has an utmost duty to ask questions and uncover the truth, especially from those that govern and seek to govern. Vicariously, it seems, the independent press also advocates absolute loyalty to leader and party and this, I must say, is highly disturbing in a democracy.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">For all his "lunacy" Franco Debono has advocated very reasonable and much needed changes or updating of our laws, such as for example, the right to legal counsel during police interrogation (which entered the statute books in 2002 but was not enforceable until 2010); a complete separation of powers between inquiring magistrates and magistrates that adjudicate; the splitting of the justice ministry from home affairs owing to a conflict of interest between the two and so on. In my opinion these are all positive steps tending to strengthen the administration of justice and, ultimately, democracy. Why hasn't the press questioned the hesitance to bring about such reforms I wonder? Yet, since time immemorial, it seems that the "gadfly" must make the apology and take the poison - and I am shocked to see that this is also endorsed by the press. In other democracies, such as the United Kingdom and Italy, <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082396/Ed-Miliband-savaged-Labour-guru-Lord-Glasman.html">open dissent and criticism</a> within political parties is run of the mill. British philosopher John Stuart Mill once said that people holding objectively true and just opinions "ought not to be moved by the consideration that, however true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth". It is a shame that such spirit and vigour is looked down upon and trodden; it is a stain on our democracy.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This is not to say that Franco Debono is flawless. He is indeed imperfect (as are we all) and, at times, highly volatile or perhaps stubborn and <b>politically</b> immature - traits which expose a certain weakness and do no justice to his cause in the end. Franco, publishing your Form 2 Mid-Yearly report to prove your sanity was utterly unnecessary and counter-productive.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now to Lawrence Gonzi. He says that we should all be proud that we have weathered the storm of financial trouble but we are not immune; that he was right to give a significant pay raise to himself and his Ministers behind even his own party's back but, even though we are faring perfectly fine economically (albeit not immune), it is somehow...not right any longer. He also says that what Malta needs now is stability but he is perfectly satisfied with the scenario where one MP (Franco Debono) has openly declared that he will not support his government any longer. In fact Lawrence Gonzi has said that he will do everything in his power to hold off elections until the last day of the current legislature. I wonder if this will translate into parliament not being reconvened for as long as possible and a complete lack of parliamentary debate for the next fourteen months. Perhaps laws will only be passed by means of legal notice (around 90% of them already are) without any debate whatsoever. How's that for democracy and stability? And I wonder, who is really desperate to cling onto power?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If the press continue to trod on so negligently and refuse to ask such questions by adopting a neutral position in reporting only what has been said and, to top it all off, crucifying rebel MPs for their lack of loyalty than I will lose what little hope I have left. </span></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14901439816200339974noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2356414034451307765.post-30273183834136170832011-12-23T21:21:00.001+01:002012-04-04T20:42:17.345+02:00Historical Facts and Freedom of Expression<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/--VRjP_sh6Ys/TvTjhN5SM_I/AAAAAAAAAUE/JsxkQ7KZuX4/s1600/HoloDenier.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="236" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/--VRjP_sh6Ys/TvTjhN5SM_I/AAAAAAAAAUE/JsxkQ7KZuX4/s320/HoloDenier.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A diplomatic crisis of sorts has erupted between Turkey and France over the latter's decision to proscribe criminal sanctions for the rejection or denial of genocide. The new French law, which has been passed through the assembly but not the Senate (as yet) imposes a potential €45,000 fine and/or 1 year imprisonment. The reason why Turkey is so furious is because Turkey rejects that the events that occurred way back in 1915, concerning the massacre of Armenians by the then Ottoman Empire in the Great War, are to be construed as 'genocide'. The Turkish prime minister argues that this is nothing but an electoral ploy by the French president to get the French-Armenian minority vote. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">These restrictions on freedom of speech which are not clear-cut, such as incitement to hatred and violence, are bound to open a can of worms both politically and especially legally. A similar example of dodgy restrictions are those concerning public morals - and rightfully so - because vague concepts such as 'morality' are relative: they change in time and space. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">All free-speech theorists agree that certain forms of speech can lead to some harm and justifications on restrictions in this sense are not controversial, even in a utopian liberal democracy. Yet there is also cause for disagreement on what constitutes 'harm'. Take the case of blasphemy for example. The debate rages on to this very day on whether blasphemy should be censored by the State merely for offending religious sentiment or whether the state should only 'penalise expressions about religious matters which intentionally and severely disturb public order and call for public violence'. (<span style="line-height: 115%;">Recommendation 1805(2007) on Blasphemy,
religious insults and hate speech against persons on grounds of their religion,
the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe). </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">Back to the matter at hand. What harm does </span><span style="line-height: 18px;">revisionist</span><span style="line-height: 115%;"> speech (aka 'negationism') cause to a democratic community? The strongest argument against such a form of expression is one based on public order, namely that '[t]he denial or rewriting of...historical fact undermines the values on which the fight against racism and anti-Semitism are based and constitutes a serious threat to public order'. Consequently, such speech is seen as 'incompatible with democracy and human rights because they infringe the rights of others' (<i>Garaudy v France</i> - European Court of Human Rights - 2003-IX DA). Yet the reasoning quoted emerged from a case concerning an outright denial of the Holocaust and was <i>buttressed</i> by a 'proven racist aim'. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Nonetheless, I fail to see the harm that could possibly emerge from debating, perhaps even denying specific historical events. On the contrary, such punitive laws are only bound to open up legal black-holes. Firstly this would give rise to a situation where the courts have to assess history: something which they are not set up to do, for the task of the court, ultimately, is to dispense justice. [A similar controversy arises when the courts would have to assess the nebulous concept of 'morality']. Can the judge have a final say on what constitutes 'clearly established historical fact'; and how far should this discretion go? Should it also judge upon speculative debate regarding the denomination of the crime (i.e. on whether it constitutes genocide, crimes against humanity, etc)? In <i>Chauvy v France</i> (2004) the ECtHR rightfully argued that:</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;"> '...it is an integral part of freedom of expression to seek historical truth and it is not the Court's role to arbitrate the underlying historical issues, which are part of a continuing debate between historians that shapes opinion as to the events which took place and their interpretation'. </span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Legal perplexities aside, the political ramifications of such criminal sanctions are also a cause for concern. Driving such discourse underground would only make things worse - providing the unnecessary impetus for extremist ideologues to become more extreme. One of the main purposes of freedom of speech is to do away with state paternalism on issues such as morality and, in this case, what it considers to be historical fact or otherwise. Indeed, the Franco-Turkish diplomatic row is proof of this although I commend Sarkozy's statement that "France does not give lessons to anyone...". </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">My conclusion is that this bill was a highly unnecessary and disproportionate measure to curtail certain revisionist speech. Its ramifications on freedom of expression, should it go through, are yet to be determined by the European Court. Rather than proscribe a general criminal sanction on the denial of genocide I would argue that it would be more reasonable to assess, on a case-by-case basis, whether such revisionist speech is maliciously intended to cause racial prejudice or hatred. Otherwise, it would be conferring upon the state authorities a discretion that is arbitrary and wholly uncalled for. </span></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14901439816200339974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2356414034451307765.post-69693428055176487512011-12-14T16:54:00.004+01:002012-04-04T20:42:38.302+02:00The Brussels Failure<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CaxiXire8lU/TujFmiIJlHI/AAAAAAAAATw/uUr8Wk1RURM/s1600/merkel-sarkozy5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CaxiXire8lU/TujFmiIJlHI/AAAAAAAAATw/uUr8Wk1RURM/s320/merkel-sarkozy5.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Nobody seems to know exactly what the new "fiscal compact" is comprised of and what form it is going to take. Any hope for formal treaty change comprising all 27 EU Member States died with Cameron's "no" so it is most likely that we are going to end up with an intergovernmental agreement amongst the 17 eurozone States and, possibly, other non-eurozone states that may want to join. The legality of this agreement, compact, or whatever it turns out to be, is shaky to say the least.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The idea, however, is to move towards fiscal union, meaning that national budgets and fiscal policies would become 'Europeanised'. This is an odious step for advocates of national sovereignty and a misguided triumph for European federalists. I say misguided because it is a breed of federalism born from intergovernmentalism which, in my opinion, is bound to fail in the long run. This is one of the most basic flaws that emerged from the Brussels Summit on December 8th. The second is that it hasn't done much, it seems, to calm the markets and the credit rating agencies. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Thirdly, this compact is born from the premise that individual (mostly southern) European states are solely to blame for the crisis. Surely, Greece's fudging of numbers and projections contributed to the euro debt crisis but to say that this is solely Greece's fault (coupled with Spain, Italy, Portugal and Ireland - PIIGS) would also be misguided. It basically leaves out the banks and financial institutions (who also contributed to the crisis) which states like the United Kingdom and Malta shockingly want to protect in the "national interest". </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Fourthly, the idea that states can spend more than they earn and incur deep budget deficits has to end. To this end the compact places a cap on a budget deficit of 0.5% GDP and automatic consequences (penalties) for countries that exceed 3% GDP. Perhaps this would mean that a budget deficit below 0.5% GDP is fine whilst a budget deficit of between 0.5% and 3.0% incurs a warning or possible sanctions. Any budget deficit exceeding 3.0% of GDP would be automatically punished, presumably by the Commission. National budgets will no longer remain sovereign but would now be scrutinised by the Commission and the European Court of Justice. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This notion of fiscal discipline and budget surplus sounds great on the face of it. However, I fear that deep down such policies would effectively kill off any hope for fair wealth distribution (social democracy) within Europe. By legitimising (constitutionally - as member states are bound to do) the economics of austerity, discipline and punishment, this compact will criminalise expansionary fiscal policy and Keynesian economics. Basically the only outcome is for member states to tax more, slash wages, privatise everything and spend less, thus dismantling the social welfare safety net and with it, any hope for a decent living for those who are not well-off. It is beyond me how certain politicians, who should know better, advocate the protection of major financial institutions over the social protection of ordinary working citizens by opposing measures such as taxes on financial transactions. Perhaps they endorse the concept of "trickle-down" economics even though it is proven to have <a href="http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html">failed</a>? At least they should thoroughly explain their position and define, credibly and objectively, how a so-called Tobin tax would be detrimental to the economy.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The irony is that I endorse fiscal union and European oversight but not in the manner that is being proposed, largely because it is anti-democratic and completely removed from the general populace. If we are going to have fiscal union we should also demand more democratic institutions such as more powers for the European Parliament; an elected Commission and an elected EU Council President. I feel more and more dejected by Europe if it is going to be run by France, Germany, conservatives, eurosceptics, banks and unelected bureaucrats. The least Europe can do, to ensure its survival, is to give some measure of power to the people rather than simply deny and take away. </span></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14901439816200339974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2356414034451307765.post-51715876884593467732011-12-11T10:09:00.001+01:002012-04-04T20:42:53.746+02:00This is Madness<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-e4nspe3-yQs/TuSHz1aXDHI/AAAAAAAAATo/G4X0PH9-0FQ/s1600/broken-euro.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-e4nspe3-yQs/TuSHz1aXDHI/AAAAAAAAATo/G4X0PH9-0FQ/s320/broken-euro.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I believe in the European dream. I believe that it is absolutely essential towards achieving peace, prosperity and cooperation in a continent once ravaged by war and bloodshed. And yes, I also believe that it is beneficial for states like Malta not merely from an economic perspective (the single market) but also because less national sovereignty is likely to translate into enhanced social, consumer, and environmental protection; better access to justice and enforcement of justice; less clientelism, cronyism, nepotism and other such 'isms' - and, above all, a sense of openness towards basic civil liberties and human rights that some forces in this country still want to brand taboo. I believe that a day might come when we shall vote for a local governor and a local legislature to enact local laws and regulations but that this would be merely ancillary to voting for a European president and parliament. I do not fear that day should it ever dawn upon us. Perhaps it shall never come to pass.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Yet, I am not comfortable in the manner we are approaching (at a snail's pace, admittedly) that day. Federalism should not be created inter-governmentally. It is a paradox which makes no sense whatsoever. Federalism should be, above all, democratic and supranational. If countries like the United Kingdom fear Europe than so be it. In fact, it is better for countries such as the UK, that revel in traditionalist-nationalistic pride to leave the Union once and for all. Good riddance I'd say. However, although France and Germany represent (historically, culturally and ideologically) the very heart of the Continent, there is no democracy in giving them <i>carte-blanche</i> to decide what's best for the rest. It simply does not work that way for it reinforces the so-called 'democratic deficit' that has plagued Europe since its conception. As things stand, the purely intergovernmental Franco-German compact, leading to a 'two-speed' Europe, is simply the lesser of two evils. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I also have deep doubts about the workability of the new fiscal treaty that is being proposed. I agree that fiscal prudence and discipline should be key and especially endorse the notion that countries should not spend more than they have. The <i>constitutionalisation</i> of such measures can work and act as a good incentive for governments but only if it is couched in vague and flexible terms, to at least leave some room for manoeuvre in times of emergency. But I am not so sure whether the German concept of 'discipline' (which is extremely strict) can work everywhere. This would be a huge culture-shock to southern states like Malta where issues like public healthcare and stipends make or break governments. Surely, being restricted to a 0.5% deficit would translate to the erosion of social services, pensions, stipends and free healthcare. These would, at best, be replaced by a system of means-testing and, at worst, gradually abolished. Choosing Heavy-Fuel-Oil because it is cheaper would become the default rule of thumb thus casting aside any long-term scope for proper environmental protection. Basically, politicians would have to master the art of spending less and less in a country like Malta whose major source of income is tourism, financial services and betting. In a perfect world it could, perhaps, discourage flagrant spending in useless capital projects and dissuade the spend-spend-spend rush before general elections. But this is not a perfect world and not all economies are like Germany. It is also hypocritical that many in Europe ridicule, say, Republican presidential candidates for their economic follies (eg cutting spending in times of recession when governments should spend more to incentivise job-creation that lead to more overall wealth) but then pursue the same policy back home to rounds of applause. I believe that such measures would legitimise the austerity-culture that has taken root in Europe and which frankly did nothing to calm the markets and only to stoke the fury of ordinary workers.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Time will tell. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14901439816200339974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2356414034451307765.post-82513172812547583722011-09-18T15:41:00.003+02:002012-04-04T20:43:12.635+02:00Captain Hindsight<div style="text-align: justify;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bfbM15jQX_8/TnX0rT9BYWI/AAAAAAAAARw/TRYj_lhhbTA/s1600/captain_hindsight+%25281%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bfbM15jQX_8/TnX0rT9BYWI/AAAAAAAAARw/TRYj_lhhbTA/s320/captain_hindsight+%25281%2529.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Well it looks like my job here is done. Goodbye everyone!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If you're a South Park enthusiast I bet my last cent that you must be pretty familiar with Captain Hindsight. Just in case you do not know, Captain Hindsight is a fictional super-hero in the Trey Parker/Matt Stone mould who is fortunate enough to have, well, the power of...extraordinary hindsight. Thus, in one example, Captain Hindsight saves the day not by rescuing people trapped in a burning building but by suggesting ways the tragedy could have been averted by placing fire-escapes in the higher floors and by building a reinforced structure on the roof so that a helicopter could have landed on it. When the wisdom is spoken everyone is relieved - the day is saved and everyone can go home. The only catch is...the building is still burning.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Nobody other than Trey Parker and Matt Stone could come up with a more perfect analogy to "<a href="http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/updated-sciberras-trigona-represents-an-%E2%80%98embarrassing-period%E2%80%99-for-malta-says-pm">oh-what-a-shame-it-was-to-be-associated-with-Ghaddafi-in-the-seventies-and-eightees</a>". Oh yes, what a perfect harmonious country Malta would be if it had absolutely no ties with Libya back then and how the Labour Party would have prospered if it hadn't been so. Yes, I bet today it would have been perceived as a bastion of democracy. Thus did Lawrence Gonzi spake and saved the day.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There seems to be some incy-wincy problems with all of this though. Just to mention a few:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<b><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Geographical Proximity</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The most obvious link to Ghaddafi is that Valletta, unfortunately for all of us, happens to be a mere 221 miles (356 km) away from Tripoli. That's like, a half-hour flight on a Boeing 747. In fact, it's faster to get to Tripoli than to get to Mellieha from Valletta these days. This leads to an entire mish-mash of perks and goodies such enhanced trade links, market access, migration and migration control, consular relations, etc, etc. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<b><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Political Current (Zeitgeist)</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Linked to the above point, it would be pretty naive to assume that Malta would be absolutely uninspired with the political movement that spread across the Maghreb and the Arab World in general - the one that ousted monarchs and gave rise to Peoples' Presidents and Brother Leaders instead. The Arab-socialism that peaked in the 60s must have been more in tune with the ideologies of people like Mintoff and KMB who are nationalists at heart (and by nationalists I do not mean PN-Gonzi-Eddie-etc - I mean simply and purely 'nationalism', i.e. <i>Malta l-Ewwel u Qabel Kollox</i>). At the time, this framework of pan-arabism was a better ideological tool in the struggle against colonial rule and becoming an independent and sovereign nation with no-strings-attached than acceding to the Treaty of Rome surely. With hindsight, we now realise that these new Arab Leaders actually turned out to be full-fledged dictators and we wouldn't have known it if Gonzi did not point it out to us.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<b><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Cash Cow (Mooo)</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Mintoff is renowned for being a manipulative son of a gun and getting his way even with the more esteemed statesmen. I am told that at one point, if it weren't for the millions of dollars (or Liri) poured into Malta's coffers courtesy of Ghaddafi, the entire post-independent civil service of Malta would have collapsed because at the time there just wasn't enough money to go round.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">***</span></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The downside to all this is that perks and favours have to be returned. As the saying goes "it takes two to tango". Another one is "nothing comes for free". Thus the Arabic Language became compulsory in all state schools and Ghaddafi's infamous Green Book a relic of the "IN-YOUR-FACE-REAGAN" enthusiasts of the day. This is Realpolitik and if you come and tell me that the current administration, indeed any administration in the world, bases its entire diplomacy on purely-ethical premises and considerations than you must really be naive. Of course, the once beloved neighbour next door has now become enemy number one. That's the way the cookie crumbles.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The more disturbing aspect of this entire debauchery of historical revisionism is in using a brutal dictator such as Ghaddafi against your political adversary to score political points. It's just as absurd, if not a whiff more revolting, as exploiting a revolution for economic gain (tourism in our case). But then again, that's political realism served on a platter right there.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Ultimately nobody can tell what the future will hold. Do we know, with absolute certainty that the Jibril and Jalil of today will not become the Ghaddafi of tomorrow? Did we know with absolute certainty that the liberating army in Egypt would <a href="http://www.ir-realta.org/articles/item.aspx?id=136">hijack an entire revolution</a> as Mark Camilleri so aptly put it? No, we did not. But do not fret. Captain Hindsight will set us right.</span><br />
<br />
<br /></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14901439816200339974noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2356414034451307765.post-66944920466741697362011-05-29T18:16:00.005+02:002012-04-04T20:43:35.021+02:00A Victory Against All Odds<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zLGiZiGPiEE/TeJypvglSdI/AAAAAAAAARo/j-0Q3Jg-3_c/s1600/caravaggio-david-goliath.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5612174147110390226" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zLGiZiGPiEE/TeJypvglSdI/AAAAAAAAARo/j-0Q3Jg-3_c/s320/caravaggio-david-goliath.jpg" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: left; height: 320px; margin: 0 10px 10px 0; width: 265px;" /></a><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It is truly liberating that the myth of the "staunchly-98%-Catholic-nation" has been dispelled once and for all and put in the dustbin of history where it belongs. Christianity is founded on strong principles, which I deeply respect. But these have been utterly corrupted by those few men of the cloth who want nothing else than to cling on to power: the power to control and the power to impose their own values on everybody else. I hope they realise now, that the tyranny of fear serves no purpose nor any good. The Christ that I respect is the Christ who preached compassion, even for one's own enemies, and not the Christ who built his entire Church on the fear and wrath of God. The Christ that I respect was the Christ that got angry; the Christ that wasn't afraid and not the Christ who preached docility and told people to shut up and do what they were told. I will be ready to forgive these few men for the shame, division, ignorance, hypocrisy and bigotry that they have sowed in the foundations of our country for so long if, and only if, they are ready to reform and move on with the times. If this is not possible, because some scripture of Canon says so, they can stuff their apology and if that makes me "anti-clerical", than so be it. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">To our politicians I say shame on you all for not having the guts to legislate on a basic civil right. This issue should never have gone to a referendum in the first place but I am realistic enough to accept and admit that, as things stood before the 29th of May 2011, this could not have been possible especially because of the divisions in both political parties on the matter and because of its unfortunate controversial nature. It is sad that before today divorce was a controversial matter, despite the fact that lone figures openly spoke about its introduction - even in the mid-90's. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">My deepest respect to <i>Alternattiva Demokratika</i> for being on the right side of history, ever since their conception in '89, on matters that concern civil rights and civil liberties. Now is your chance to push for a third party in parliament. Do not let it go to waste. But do not tread the path of arrogance and isolation. Love him or hate him, do not forget that Joseph Muscat himself put this issue in the limelight ever since he contested for the Labour leadership in 2008. Neither should you forget that if it weren't for him Labourties "<a href="http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/blogs/saviour-balzan/the-beginning-of-the-end">who would have otherwise voted NO instead opted to stay at home</a>"; that, in a sense, this was a cross-party campaign; and that several thousand Labour supporters voted overwhelmingly in favour of divorce legislation. The numbers speak for themselves. The denial of these truths would destroy the respect that you have built by the conviction of your principles. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">To the Hon. Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi and his coterie I have only one thing to say: your belief in the nanny-state has rubbished your pro-European convictions. Not for a moment have I felt that you represent a modern, secular and European Malta. You are nought but the purveyors of isolation, intolerance and close-mindedness. On the other hand, I congratulate all those Nationalist Party supporters who believe in a modern and European Christian Democracy, who weren't and aren't afraid to disagree against their own party, where disagreement is merited. I hope that work will begin for reformation (a complete overhaul I would say) within the Nationalist Party. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But the biggest victory and the greatest thank you goes to the Maltese people: the David that beat Goliath and the social movements that represented "David" in this battle for civil rights. I admit that I was wrong about the Maltese people. I was certain that fear and intimidation would win. But the Maltese people proved that they are strong - that they are not ignorant. Thank you, all of you, for doing your part in this victory against all odds. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14901439816200339974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2356414034451307765.post-42436149388922968622011-04-11T13:08:00.002+02:002011-04-11T13:28:35.877+02:00Rights & Interests: The Distorted Progressivism of Joseph Muscat<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WWz_wCiPtG4/TaLlCyrxP6I/AAAAAAAAAQY/CgPWvp1cQ6o/s1600/asylum.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 216px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WWz_wCiPtG4/TaLlCyrxP6I/AAAAAAAAAQY/CgPWvp1cQ6o/s320/asylum.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5594285523275431842" /></a><div style="text-align: justify;">Article 14 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution". This should be read in conjunction with Article 33 (1) of the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of the Refugee which holds: "No Contracting State shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion."</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">These two principles, i.e. the right to seek asylum and the principle of <i>non-refoulement</i> are inextricably linked and together they form the very cornerstone of refugee law. Because one cannot exist without the other, the principle of <i>non-refoulement </i>applies not only to established refugees but also to <a href="http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain?docid=438c6d972">those claiming asylum</a>. This is so, because in order to protect refugees "asylum applicants must be treated on the assumption that they may be refugees until their status has been determined." Therefore, to say that Malta or any other nation should, in principle, <i>reject</i> asylum seekers entry into its territory simply because other States did so, or because solidarity is lacking at a European level in this regard, would be to tacitly accept such a gross violation of international law and basic human rights. To <a href="http://maltatoday.com.mt/news/labour-leader-thinks-lampedusa-blockade-was-%E2%80%98right-decision%E2%80%99-by-italy">laud</a> such acts and justify them on national interest grounds is, to put it mildly, a revolting act. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I said it <a href="http://andrew-sciberras.blogspot.com/2009/10/muscat-continues-to-negotiate-on-human.html">once</a> and I'll say it again: human rights are non-negotiable. If we are to presume, for the sake of presumption, that human rights are indeed malleable legal institutions than there would be no harm done in prosecuting writers and publishers for their work as this could easily be justified in the 'national interest' or the 'common good'. Even more so with civil and political rights such as divorce and the right to vote, unfettered, upon attaining the age of majority. And if it is indeed true that in order to change things you need to win and be in power, nothing would justify stooping so miserably low for the sake of achieving that power. They say that power corrupts. It seems to me that the quest for power tends to corrupt even more. For there is a serious moral corruption in denying men, women and children protection from degrading treatment, torture or death to score political points. Truth be told, such policies led me to <a href="http://andrew-sciberras.blogspot.com/2009/05/letterbox.html">resign in anger</a> from the Labour Party in the past, not support it. Neither, in my opinion, do such policies deserve justification to keep the extreme-right at bay. It is good to know and respect one's enemies but an altogether different story to think, believe and act like them. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">To be truly progressive you must confront both <i>religio</i> and <i>patria</i> - the cultural hegemony that has thwarted true liberty and sense of being in Malta after decades of Nationalist one-party rule. You cannot merely <u>seem</u> to be acting on one pillar but defending the other because that only makes one <i>slightly</i> different, if at all. Defending and exalting the <i>patria</i> made sense decades ago in colonial times but not so today and if one were to make the claim that we are a colony under Brussels or the <i>northern</i> nations that, to me, smacks of defeatism and close-mindedness not progressivism. Progressivism is to confront Brussels and Italy and France and Germany and confessional right-wing nationalists and not to act like them. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Muscat has on several occasions made the claim that he overrode the zealously cautious wisdom of his advisors, for "it would have been easy not to act or speak" on controversial issues that are in conflict the opinion or belief of the substantial majority - but why not so on immigration? Is it because the numbers and percentages on this one are too one-sided? I seriously thought that this ingrained mentality would start to seep away after the events in Libya unmasked the true face of Ghaddafi and the Libyan regime on the presumption that there would be a greater sense of compassion for those migrants seeking to flee from the hell-hole that is Ghadaffi's Libya. The same Ghadaffi that uses migrants as mercenaries under pain of death. But it seems that the more things change the more they stay the same. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">What is it to be progressive on immigration? It is to embrace people's rights to seek asylum from persecution without distinction yet to acknowledge that Malta, a small island state with scarce resources and manpower, has its limits. It is to scrap the entire detention regime with one that is more justiciable, efficient and humane. It is to recognize that people come before nations and religions and vested interests. It is to end the hypocrisy and the bigotry in a nation where divorce and obscene writing seem to be a greater evil than the death of persons by persecution or at sea. It is to flex one's muscles with politicians unwilling to give a helping hand and with tyrants willing to use people as blackmail and bargaining chips as opposed to scratching their backs. It is to recognise that migrants are not always a 'burden' but also an asset. It is to end the exploitation of migrants in the labour market and give them equal rights such that they are on an equal footing with Maltese workers. It is to educate Maltese society, especially the working class, that it has nothing to fear but much to gain. It is to recognise that some migrants are here to stay and to actively facilitate their integration even by giving them voting rights in council and European elections. It is all these things and many more. Until then, with all due respect, do not call yourself progressive because it just doesn't work. </div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14901439816200339974noreply@blogger.com0