A Q&A (and Behind-The-Scenes) Guide on the Legal Reforms Regarding Artistic Censorship

By | Published Thursday, July 9, 2015

Q. What shall the reform change and how?

The reform is essentially based on two documents

1.      Legal Notice entitled Criminal Code Amendment Act 2015; and
2.      Extreme Pornography Regulations 2015

The Criminal Code Amendment Act 2015 shall primarily amend the following:-

1.      Article 163 of the Criminal Code  (Vilification of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion) – REPEALED

2.      Article 164 of the Criminal Code (Vilification of other cults tolerated by law) – REPEALED

3.      Article 165 of the Criminal Code (Obstruction of religious services) – 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 (ammenda), save where the obstruction of religious functions are accompanied by violence;

4.      Article 208 of the Criminal Code (Offences relating to pornographic or obscene articles) – completely substituted by a new crime, largely modeled on the UK “Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981”. 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.

This article does not apply:

a.      To films and theatrical productions (because these are governed by their own specific laws and/or regulations);
b.      To displays in museums and art galleries (erotic art/sculpture, etc. exhibited in galleries and museums shall not constitute an offence under this article);
c.      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).

The new Article 208 shall be entitled Display of pornographic material in public places


5.      Pornography and Obscenity Regulations 1975 (Subsidiary Legislation 9.05) – REPEALED

6.      Sub-article (3) of Article 82 of the Customs Ordinance (Power to prohibit imports) – 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. 

Q. Will the reform be introducing new laws or regulations?

Yes, the reform is proposing to introduce two new articles in the Criminal Code and new regulations on extreme pornographic images:-

1.      Article 208D of the Criminal Code (Offences relating to extreme pornographic images)  - This law is modeled on the reforms introduced by the UK Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (Article 63 et seq 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 extreme pornographic images, so defined in specific regulations drawn up by the Minister for Justice.

The proposed law allows for certain defences 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.

2.      Article 208E of the Criminal Code (Non-consensual disclosure of private sexual photographs and films) – 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 revenge porn.

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.

This article also provides certain defences for the accused.

3.      Extreme Pornographic Images Regulations, 2015 – These regulations seek to replace the now obsolete Pornography and Obscenity Regulations, 1975 and is mostly modelled on the Scottish equivalent of the English Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, i.e. the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010. The regulations define what is meant by “extreme pornographic image”, and particular offers a coherent and realistic definition of pornography: -


Pornographic – 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 sexual arousal. 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.

Extreme – an image is extreme if it portrays in an explicit and realistic manner acts that threaten a person’s life, grievous injury, rape, necrophilia and bestiality

Image – 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

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).


Q. The proposed laws seem to revolve mainly around pornographic images and display of material. What about literature (words)? Will these be illegal?

Consider it this way. The law criminalizes certain images or the public 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 pornographic material. Always remember the context: “when taken as a whole”.

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 “obscene print, painting, photograph, film, book, card or writing, or any other pornographic or obscene article whatsoever”, arguably even the simple private possession thereof.


Q. What about the offence of obscene libel under the Press Act?

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.


Q. What is the rationale for the reform? How does it compare to the reforms in theatre and film enacted in 2012?

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 censorship a priori (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 Stitching judgment.

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:


  • ·        In 2010 a certain Alexander Baldacchino was was convicted under Article 208 for the exhibition of pornographic films in the City Lights Theatre (Valletta).
  • ·        A year prior, Mark Camilleri and Alex Vella Gera (the famous Li Tkisser Sewwi /Realta’ 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.
  • ·        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.

So it was felt, and strongly argued by us (Mark Camilleri and myself who worked on this reform) that 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 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: auto-censorship or censorship a posteriori (after the fact).

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):

1.      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;

2.      The simple idea that the State ought not to keep acting as the moral custodian (custos morum) of society. Reasonable consenting adults should be at liberty to see, read or listen to whatever they desire provided that no actual 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;

3.      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;

4.      That criminal law should seek to punish, as far as possible, actual harm, 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 sought to protect persons from actual psychological harm/distress caused by “revenge porn”: acts that may lead to depression and even suicide.

5.      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).

6.      That subjecting certain material to criminal trial is ultimately self-defeating. To quote Geoffrey Robertson Q.C. “‘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.’”

7.      The fundamental idea laid down by the European Court of Human Rights way back in 1976, namely that freedom of expression “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” (Handyside vs UK).

Q. How can one justify vilifying the Roman Catholic faith, the national majority religion, but punish hatred towards minorities?

To vilify and to incite hatred or violence are very different things. Vilify is generally defined as “to say or write very harsh and critical things about (someone or something)” (Merriam-Webster), whereas incite is defined as  “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).

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, religious beliefs, and so on. This has not been touched by the proposed reforms.

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).

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 paedophilia 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.

For further insight into this subject see Guardian opinion piece here. 


Q. Is there a difference between blasphemy and vilification of religion?

The difference, if any, is very subtle. Blasphemy is typically defined, as “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 in vain (in Maltese: dagħa).

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 amenda of €11.65 and the maximum is imprisonment for three months.

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.

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.

Q. Will these reforms permit live nudity or sex and/or sex shops?

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 ad hoc regulation, which – I am informed – the Government is looking into.

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.

DISCLAIMER: THE ABOVE Q&A SOLELY REPRESENTS THE UNDERSIGNED’S PERSONAL INTERPRETATION, VIEWS AND OPINIONS AND NOT OF ANY PUBLIC OR GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY.





Dr. Andrew Sciberras

Posted in , , , , | Leave a comment

Post-Vote

By | Published Tuesday, March 12, 2013

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). 

The Victor

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 sine qua non. 

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.  

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. 

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. 

The Loser

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. 

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.  

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 (who has laughably taken credit for PL's victory) and the WE crew. 

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.  

The Minnow

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. 

However those 5,500 AD votes should not be forsaken. These votes exceed the national quota. I am delighted that Evarist Bartolo has already spoken up 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. 

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. 


*** Fin ***


Posted in | Leave a comment

Vote 2013 Explained

By | Published Wednesday, March 6, 2013

The primary concern


The first thing that comes to mind is change from the status quo. 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. 

Secondary but (pretty much) equally important concerns


A - Social Equality and Liberties


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. 

B - Social Justice 


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. 

C - Social Corporatism 


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. 

D - Transparency and Accountability in Governance


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). 

E - Justice (Law & Order)


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 here (paras 18 to 24) and here. 

F - Other issues


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. 

The Choice


AD


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 sine-qua-non in politics) but to lump all the country's faults as "PLPN" is misleading.

PN


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.

PL


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.

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.

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.

Decision


Sorry to disappoint, but my "very limited cognitive faculties-cum-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. 

Posted in | Leave a comment

Criminal Defamation: Just Plain Evil or Necessary Evil?

By | Published Tuesday, February 26, 2013

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:

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). 

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. 

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. 

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? 

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.  

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. 

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. 

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.

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.  

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. 

Posted in | Leave a comment

Judicial Reform

By | Published Friday, December 14, 2012

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. 

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 stings. 

So here's my two-cents about judicial reform. 

A Universal and Objective Truth 


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. 

The Current System 


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 seen 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. 

Democratisation of the Judiciary?


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.

The Academic Judge


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. 

The Representative Judge


Another way round to reforming the judiciary is one which I have previously advocated here. 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. 

Thorough Reform


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.


Posted in | 1 Comment

[Minimum] Discrepancies

By | Published Friday, September 28, 2012

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. 

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 timesofmalta.com article dated 18 November 2010 reports Musact telling employers [on the living wage]: 

"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."

But alas, it is very convenient to twist facts and to spin isn't it? 

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.

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? None of the nordic countries have a statutory minimum wage. 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 here. 

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. 

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 took Muscat to task for not suing Maltatoday for libel 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? 

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. 

Posted in | 1 Comment

A Fair Society

By | Published Friday, June 1, 2012

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.

  1. 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. 
  2. 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.
  3. 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). 
  4. 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.
  5. 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. 
  6. 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. 
  7. Reconsider the notion of civil partnership and opt instead for gay marriage with full rights (including adoption).
  8. 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). 
  9. Abolish all remaining discrimination with respect to the inheritance rights of children born out of wedlock. 
  10. Ensure access to IVF treatment without exception or obstruction. 
  11. 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. 
  12. 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. 
  13. 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). 
  14. 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. 
  15. 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. 
  16. 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. 
  17. Ensure that all children of settled migrants are accorded full citizenship rights as another concrete step towards integration in the community. 
  18. 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. 
  19. 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. 
  20. Desist from transferring or terminating Court staff periodically. Sacrificing experience would reduce the efficiency of justice. 
  21. Empower Magistrates to conduct inquiries independently of the executive authorities such as the Minister for Justice/Home Affairs or the AG.
  22. 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. 
  23. 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. 
  24. 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. 
  25. 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. 
  26. 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. 
  27. Consider amending the electoral law to ensure representation of political parties that reach an established quota (e.g. 5% of the national vote). 
  28. 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. 
  29. 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). 
  30. 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.

Posted in | 2 Comments

There is always a 'but'

By | Published Thursday, May 10, 2012

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:

  1. I am not racist....but these people should be sent back immediately from where they came. 
  2. I do not condone poaching and illegal hunting...but those Germans had no right to film such illegalities and give Malta a bad name.
  3. 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 (???)
  4. I am not against gay marriage...but I do not believe that gay couples should have the right to adopt children
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? 

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.

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. 

Posted in | Leave a comment

Blogger templates

Search

Swedish Greys - a WordPress theme from Nordic Themepark. Converted by LiteThemes.com.