1. Picchiatore fascista

That the phenomenon of journalistic “aggression” was a result of Camillo and Peppone politics was already a known fact. Last week it was the turn of the nationalist leaning side of the spectrum to fall victim of the theatrics of “aggression” in the by now notorious “handbag” incident. It is not the first time that the PLPN media farce produces such pearls of mediatic wisdom and Gouder’s film troupe deserve a Malta TV Award for their ludicrous efforts. Last week’s J’accuse column on the Indy referred to how the political chaos across the Maltese Channel is a remarkable reflection of what happens here. As if to prove our point we got the press conference event where an irritated Minister LaRussa personally intervened to invite a journalist/heckler to leave the building. The freelance journalist, Mr Carlomagno had attended the conference about the failed PdL electoral lists but chose to instead heckle Berlusconi about Abruzzo problems and the Bertolaso inquiry.

In a clear example of how bad journalistic manners and crass rudeness will undermine any valid political or investigative questions, Carlomagno attempted to outshout his colleagues with a series of questions directed at Italy’s premier who obviously responded with the usual charm and aplomb (including a “I understand why you are angry, it’s because you look at yourself in the mirror every morning” – my transcription, not verbatim). When Carlomagno showed no sign of stopping the great Minister La Russa did what PdL candidates best do: a “discesa in campo” (entry into the field) and proceeded to firmly and phsysically remove Carlomagno from the hall. You can see the video yourself – it is not exactly an aggression by a GRTU official of a GRTU official – and you can see the (in our not so humble opinion) exaggerated response of the freelance journalist. The last words we hear are: “Ti querelo per aggressione nei miei confronti… ti dovresti vergognare… non ti ho alzato le mani… picchiatore fascista“. There we go. Sound familiar? You may be tempted to take sides in the heat of the moment – but step back a second – and think of the valid contribution both sides are making to improving social discourse and intelligent political analysis.

2. Il Libero Picchiatore

Early afternoon yesterday I received a copy of the GRTU press release regarding the horrible beating of Vince Farrugia at the hands of businessman Sandro Chetcuti. My second reaction after the initial horror of witnessing these facts in 2010 was to make a quick wager – I called a friend and bet him that before the evening there would be a title on the Runs linking this beating to Magistrate Herrera. I did not win anything – not because I was not right but because nothing was wagered in this sporting bet. As I said later to the same friend, it was as predictable as the sun rising, still there was much to be said about the whole business.

If you go by the Runs it would seem that the fight began when Farrugia told off Chetcuti for acting as a middle-man for Joseph Muscat. Now let us remember that it is an undeniable fact that Mr Chetcuti has just been witnessed committing a heinous crime on the person of Mr Farrugia. What happens next in Run-land is the usual guilt by association trick. You read about Mr Chetcuti’s middle-man business for labour in the context of thuggery and assault (which are of course and without any trickle of doubt highly condemnable). The problem here is that the logical leap for the average reader is not that it is wrong – very wrong – for a party to consort and confabulate with people of such temperament but (and I’d love to see anyone deny that this is the intended spin) that being a middle man for Labour makes you a bad person. In case you had any doubts the next paragraphs in the Runs throw Marisa Micallef’s role into the discussion (“Labour Party employee Marisa Micallef is paid to do the same thing, but with members of Malta’s ’smart set’ (the inverted commas are essential)” – the Runs). There you have it. The aggression would have been a gift on a plate (sorry) for any political writing but it is not enough for this particular mindset – the spin has to be milked and milked till all you drink is sour cream.

What we write here is once again an appreciation of the news as it gets to you. The Times were cautiously reporting the salient facts. The Labour media were scrambling to “neutralise” the highly damaging news item as much as possible (it is after all a potential Labour candidate and also Business Forum personality [J'accuse Note: PL have since denied Mr Chetcuti's links with the Business forum] who is on the delivering end of the beating). It was inevitable and to some extent necessary (even in the context of duty to the public) that some political mileage be drawn out of the issue. The Runs likes to think that it goes where others fear to tread – hence the guilt by association extended play. There are many questions one can ask from this early summary of the facts occurring at GRTU HQ – and they are not all nice and victim friendly. One burning question is this: In a world where union dealings with parties is already highly sensitive as it is why should Chetcuti’s acting as a middle man for Muscat stand out more than Farrugia’s candidature for the nationalist party?

Stating that none of these questions should lead to anyone beating anyone up is obvious in a post-neanderthal world. Stating that the beating is not only deplorable but incomprehensible is also obvious. What is less obvious is the not so subtle way in which these hopeless cases are transformed into the twisted sort of political message. In our book Labour has still too far to go to even begin to be considered as a candidate for viable alternation. In the same book PN’s hypocrisy on issues is growing by the minute. That does not change anything from what is happening on the daily basis. Violence is resurfacing once again. Playing the blame game might serve the short term points system on which the sorry methodology of our political assessment is based but in the long term it lacks one basic, essential factor: ideas for the future change the country is thirsty for.

(J’accuse wishes Mr Vince Farrugia a speedy recovery).

3. Plategate

Plategate continued to enthuse and entertain and be generally unproductive toward the improvement of society. The charges in the genesis of the whole issue have been dropped. The Caruana Galizia family is, we are glad to see, at peace (no sarcasm there). The country is left with much more than broken crockery to clean up thanks to the reactions of a blogger who felt threatened. The spinoff of the original reaction is now beyond the control of the originator. The battlefields are multiple. There is of course the media circus with such jesters as a One TV crew and WE analysis teams. There is the court case which currently seems to provide a victory on points to the accused. There is the open jury online which continues to suffer from selective amnesia. One lies in court and the other recants (or reorders the claims) online – the truth remains the main sufferer.

What one would have hoped to see (and is still hoping to see) is a clear, categorical and unqualified list of substantiated (or that could be substantiated) allegations directed at the Magistrate in question. One clear list is all it would take. Remove the cobwebs. Remove the gripes and side-jibes at the entourage. It would be a list which can be taken far from the comedic parameters of libel and slander. If the Runs really wants to be the great service to society that speaks where others fear to speak then all it needs to do is write this list once. Clearly. And be prepared to substantiate whatever allegations are made in the appropriate forum – the courts of law where justice is equal for all.  Instead of bitchfighting about buses and parties and wheels within wheels, this person who seems to be so deserving of an automatic law degree simply needs to gather the evidence and use it -otherwise what we have on our hands is nothing better than a blogging version of Alfred Sant’s “moral convictions”. That would be an immense service and one would hope that the same service could be provided EVERY TIME a similar violation of the ethics and laws regulating public persons is brought to her (considerably wide) attention.

Such action (should the allegations if any be proven) would allow the machinery of the judicial system to get moving – and hopefully if our political masters are released from the mesmerising thrall of their monotonous bickering they might even consider a Constitutional Debate or Committee of Wise Men (my commie style caps) to suggest improvements in the system to avoid future glitches. It’s not a dare. It’s an appeal to common sense. If it is still so common of course.

4. Dawramejt

Blogger Arcibald is back after a prolonged absence. I urge you to patronise his blog (as patrons) and interact justly with his insights. We’ve always been great fans and boy are we glad he’s back. You can find Arcibald at Dawramejt – he blogs in the vernacular. If you leave him a message tell him I sent you.

5. Jonathan Zebina

Is it Pele? Is it Wayne Rooney? Is it Ronaldinho?

I never thought I’d say this but… hell no…. it’s Jonathan Zebina.

Last week we spoke here about the upcoming rally organised by environmental NGOs in Valletta. The rally, due to be held tomorrow morning, is entitled Legality Now and we argued that it is yet another example of the loss of faith in institutions. We pointed out that the NGO’s are not mobilising in favour or against a particular policy but rather to draw attention to the lack of application of laws.

FAA representative Astrid Vella chimed in on the blog post to point out an additional poit  – the apparent/perceived misapplication of the structure plan because of the Piano plans for city gate and the opera house. The person who comments as Anon beat me to the question: How does this fit in with the rest of the rally? The issue of “sham consultation” highlighted primarily by the FAA jolts considerably with the rest of the declared aims of the protest. Worse still, it allows those whose interest it is to minimise the importance of the main message of the rally to focus on this gross incongruence.

Din l-Art Helwa have already taken a strong stance practically disassociating themselves from this rally and they have done so purely on the basis of the FAA backed point. Astrid Vella chose not to answer my and Anon’s queries but rather to reproduce the wording of the poster. The danger here is that what I percieve as a ridiculous usurpation of the main message threatens to overshadow the real effectiveness of a legitimate rally.

The interpretation of the structure plan or whatever other trick is brought out to oppose the Piano plans should not be allowed to get in the way of a clear, legitimate (and clean) message to the establishment. It would be a pity if the blinkered obtuseness of some is allowed to become the weak link that allows the usual brigade of apologistas to denigrate and belittle the aims of the rally.

From the original J’accuse post:

about me & this blog

Yep. My blog. Called J’accuse. Playing with words a bit… thanks to my forename. The idea is there too…. Zola and all. The truth if I lie (A lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on. – Terry Pratchett, The Truth). That’s another theme. Mark asked me… “What theme will it have?” then he said something in German meaning purpose (Oh!German… thought there was something wrong with you – Basil Fawlty). Themes many, themes none. Don’t know and couldn’t be bothered. Just wanted to hook and not miss the bus of the Kinnie Generation. Because we are out there.

Just a word of warning. Satyre, irony, black humour will be at home in this page. No rules. No holds barred. So people of a weak and gullible disposition should just f-off and vote labour. People of a pompous I know it all and saved the world yesterday disposition should also f-off and vote nationalist. Mark Vella should f-off anyway. I thank the readership of one who will read on… at its own risk of course.

This blog didn’t half come out as good as any of the 12 first attempts. But then it may be destiny. It is much more sombre. I hate sombre. I like anything that makes you laugh.

’nuff said. now let’s begin.

And begin we did.

previous blogiversary posts

Our 1st Anniversary Post

Our 2nd Anniversary Post (inaugurating the wordpress adress)

Our (low key) 3rd Anniversary Post (mid-election result frenzy)

 Our 4th Anniversay Moving Post (move to www.jacquesrenezammit.com)

and a 4th Anniversary Post on the new site (sickly even)

A few weeks ago we criticised Lou Bondi for not delving further behind the subject of Plategate. Lou’s allegiances were made somewhat clearer last Sunday when he stood behind the woman with the handbag (which we find to be oh so ironic). J’accuse has not had time to deal with the guerilla tactic farce of journalistic cameras thrown into your face. We wouldn’t so much “condemn” Charlon Gouder’s puerile camera tactics (and whinging follow up) as pour tons of scorn upon yet another manifestation of the puerile irrelevance of the local “partisan”  journalistic scene when it comes to investigation.

A journalist Charlon is not. Those cameras were not searching for news but for sensation and political clip. There is no reasonable explanation for a prying camera and microphone on a private conversation other than the intention to deliberately provoke. It’s not even worth discussing in the context of media ethics unless of course you subscribe to the voyeurist ethic that seems to be all pervading.

What we are more interested in is the evolution of the Plategate saga – in particular the accusations totalling to gross misconduct directed from the Runs platform to a member of the judiciary in her private capacity (with repercussions on her public persona if proven). For a woman who displays a profound dislike of anything legal and lawyerish while at the same time aspiring for a University of the Road Honoris Causa in dabbling in the law, Daphne Caruana Galizia has displayed an interesting capacity of tip-toeing the legal line.

The erstwhile columnist has “sacrificed” the Runs popularity in order to transform it into a paparazzo/investigative column to all things Herrera. For over a month it has become practically the only subject to be discussed on the blog in question (note to the Times – it’s a  blog). Before the usual spate of libel and slander actions that is as common in Malta as fireworks in August began, the Runs concentrated on ensuring that the excrement was hitting the rotors of the cooling machine by spreading aforementioned excrement as widely as possible. In order to show what we mean we will focus on the mention, early in the posts, of the presence of “talcum powder” in parties hosted by the subject of the blogs.

Any reasonable person reading the post that day would have understood the implication of “talcum powder” – it’s not so slang for a kind of drug that comes in the same form, shape and colour as the assuaging substance that is literally mentioned. This allegation was, at least in my books, a heavy allegation – very very dangerous for a person in the position of a magistrate — so like anyone else I was hooked to the site waiting for more details to surface that could substantiate this allegation. It was without any doubt one of the salient points that led to the blog being read, re-read and re-read ad nauseam.

Fast forward to when the lawsuits started to fly and what do we get? A semi-retraction. Daphne does not stand by what she clearly implied by innuendo to anyone having half a brain and living in this world. Nope. She claims first that “talcum powder” could be purchased from any pharmacy and even adds a softening “or deodorant” to the business. J’accuse is not privvy to information whether it was simply a case of the jitters (highly improbable) or a case of there never having been substantial proof in the first place (more likely-  though as I said, I cannot say for certain). What we do note is that by the time the matter is raised in court Daphne implies that if the Magistrate understood talcum powder to be a drug then that is her problem.

Now here is the point we would like to make today. We admire anyone who will take up the gauntlet to face a rotten system and expose the naked emperor. We will not only admire but we will back that person to the hilt. The problem here is that such crusades are against a settled system and must be airtight. We have no doubt that the allegations are serious enough to be investigated and followed through. What is worrying is that this kind of “retraction” gives the wrong impression that it was used simply to attract attention to the case. The truth is not ours to know because we were neither present at the parties in question nor in possession of any information Daphne might eventually come up with (actually that should be now, not eventually).

In any event we have had situations before where allegations based on an infamous “moral conviction” led to action for libel. A landmark case in this regard is that of the 23rd May 2002 (introduced in 1997) between Dr Louis Galea (then a member of opposition) and Prime Minister Alfred Sant. Those blessed with a good memory will remember that during a speech (on 24.07.96 – reported in Super 1, l-Orizzont, and the Times) PM Sant had alleged that drugs were being imported into Malta by Ministerial delegations. In that same speech, Dr Sant had invited Dr Louis Galea to categorically state that he had never been on a Ministerial Delegation outside Malta with someone who imported or could have imported drugs”.

Dr Louis Galea sued for libel. The judgement by Hon. Justice Ray Pace makes an excellent reading of the applicable principles at law – including what constitutes a “fair comment”, the exposure of public persons to such comment, the limits of the freedom of expression and the criteria for assessing what is an “innuendo” and what was really meant in certain allegations.

You will find in the following section the court’s summary of the salient principles applicable in such circumstances. It is important to stress that this case dealt with libel under the Press Act (Chapter 248 of the Laws of Malta). The aim of J’accuse here is to make it clearer to the reader and follower of the current saga – from a jurisprudential point of view – as to what are the principles and guidelines both from a legal and (consequentially) and ethical point of view.

The informed reader is, we like to think, a more intelligent and discerning reader. Anything else hides behind handbags.

THE APPENDIX

Selections taken from the judgement of the First Hall Civil Court of the 23rd May 2002, Hon Dr Louis Galea vs Hon Prime Minister Alfred Sant. (any errors in reproduction – cut and paste from a pdf document – are my own). All underlining is my own.

Illi fost il-principji illum stabbiliti jinghad illi l-iktar wiehed mill-importanti huwa il-bilanc li jrid jinzamm bejn “il-bzonn li is-socjeta` demokratika jithalla spazju sufficjenti ghall liberta` li wiehed jikkritika u li jsemmi l-opinjoni u l-gudizzju tieghu, mal-bzonn l-iehor, xejn anqas mehtieg, tad-difiza tar-reputazzjoni, l-unur, l-isem tajjeb, li kull persuna f’socjeta` demokratika ghandu kull dritt li jgawdi” (“Vincent Borg vs Victor Camilleri et.” – A.C. 15 ta’ Novembru 1994. – LXXVIII.II.I.372.).

“Il-linja medjana fejn proprio id-dritt ta’ espressjoni libera taccedi dak ragonevoli u ghandha tigi punita, ghax issir minflok ksur tad-drittijiet ta’ haddiehor; huwa proprio … … fejn l-espressjoni tigi bbazata fuq fatti skorretti”. “Onor. Charles Buhagiar vs Ray Bugeja” (P.A. N.A. 19 ta’ Jannar 1996).

Illi ghalhekk ma tistax tirnexxi l-eccezzjoni tal-‘fair comment’, “jekk ma jigux ippruvati sodisfacentament, il-fatti addebitati lill-kwerelant, u ma tistax tirnexxi id-difiza tal- ‘justification’ u jekk il-fatti ma jkunux veri, lanqas jista’ jkun hemm ‘fair comment’ (“Anglu Camilleri vs Anthony Zammit” Vol.XI.IV.1195; “Dr. Joseph M. Ciappara vs Joseph Zammit” JSP. Citazz. Nru. 929/90/JSP – 3 ta’ Ottubru 1991).

Illi sabiex isir dan l-ezami wiehed irid jiehu l-kliem fis-sens normali w ordinarju taghhom, u dan ifisser “in the meaning which reasonable or ordinary men of ordinary intelligence, with the ordinary man’s general knowledge and experience of world affairs, would be likely to understand them”, dan jista’ jinkludi “any implication or inference which a reasonable reader guided not by any special but only general knowledge and not fettered by any strict legal rules of construction would draw from the word”.(“Jones vs Skelton” (1963) W.L.R. pg. 1371 (P.C.)).

Illi fil-fatt ricentement inghad ukoll li anke jekk l-allegazzjoni ma tkunx giet espressament miktuba, izda mill-assjem tal-artikolu johrog car x’ikun qed jigi manifestament implikat, hemm kawza ta’ libell, jekk tali allegazzjonijiet ma jigux ippruvati. (“Onor. Seg. Parlamentari Dr. Joseph Fenech vs Evarist Bartolo nomine” – A.C. (JSP) 8 ta’ Gunju 1999).

Illi dan jista’ jsir ukoll pero` permezz ta’ “innuendo” li fil kawza “G. Strickland vs Goffredo Chretien” (A.C. 12 ta’ Frar 1937, XXIX.I.859) giet imfissra hekk:-“Il-kelma ‘innuendo’ tfisser is-sens li l-persuna ingurjata tirrevoka mill-kitba nkriminata u li hija trid li tigi milqugh mill-gudikant”.

Illi fil-kawza “Il-Pulizija vs Joseph Olivieru Munroe”
(XXXIII.IV.824.) inghad illi:-

“F’materja ta’ ingurja permezz ta’ l-istampa l-ingurja tista’ tirrizulta permezz ta’ ‘innuendo’. L-‘innuendo’ jista’ jkun ta’ zewg xorta jigifieri:

(a) dak li permezz tieghu tigi identifikata l-persuna li ma tkunx issemmiet b’isimha, u

(b) dak li permezz tieghu jigi stabbilit is-sens tal-kliem ritenut ingurjuz mill-persuna li tippretendi li giet ingurjata”.

Illi inoltre sabiex wiehed jasal biex jaghmel dan l-ezami jekk artikolu huwiex libelluz jew le wiehed “ghandu jhares mhux biss il-bran denunzjat, imma l-artikolu kollu kemm hu li jikkontjeni tali bran. U f’din il-materja hu elementari li wiehed jikkonsidra mhux dak li seta’ talvolta kellu f’rasu min kiteb l-artikolu, imma dak li fil-fatt kiteb, ghaliex dak li jaqra il-qarrej” (“Domenic Mintoff vs Thomas Hedley et.” – P.A. (W.H.) 28 ta’ Novembru 1953).

Illi fil-kawza “Mons. Anton Gauci vs Michael Schiavone et” (A.C. 8 ta’ Novembru 1995) intqal illi meta l-ingurja hija diretta kontra persuna fizika, “il-margini ta’ tolleranza twessa’, u mhux kull kumment qawwi u anki azzardat jikkwalifika bhala ngurja”, “dan li l-Qorti ghandha tippermetti l-attitudini fil-kritika li tista’ tkun mhux biss iebsa izda wkoll azzardata entro l-limiti accettati tad-dicenza permessibbli f’socjeta’ demokratika”, u tali regoli ghandhom jigu applikati b’iktar wiesgha f’kazijiet li lejha hija ndirizzata tali kritika tkun ta’ certa notorjeta` pubblika, il-kritika tkun ta’ interess pubbliku, u fejn il-kritika tkun ibbazata fuq u mibnija madwar fatti li jkunu sostanzjalment veri.”

Illi ghal dak li jittratta dwar persuni pubblici tajjeb ukoll li wiehed izomm quddiem ghajnejh li fil-kuntest ta’ kritika tal-istess persuni u politici u ta’ l-operat taghhom, kienet u ghadha permessa l-attitudini wiesgha ta’ fehmiet u opinjonijiet horox anke jekk mhux misthoqqa, u kultant ingusti. Dik il-giurisprudenza giet elaborata f’diversi gjudikati f’dawn l-ahhar snin, fosthom is-sentenza fil-kawza fl-ismijiet “Vincent Borg vs Victor Camilleri et”, (A.C. 15 ta’ Novembru, 1994, (Vol. LXXVIII. ii.372)).

Illi pero’ fl-istess sentenza (“Vincent Borg vs Victor Camilleri et”, (A.C. 15 ta’ Novembru, 1994, (Vol. LXXVIII. ii.372)) inghad li l-Qorti kienet “tissottoskrivi l-hsieb li r-restrizzjonijiet li taghmel il-ligi ta’ l-istampa (Kap 248) ghandhom jigu nterpretati fid-dawl ta’ l-artikolu 41 tal-Kostituzzjoni ta’ Malta, kif ukoll fl-isfond ta’ l-artikolu 10 tal-Konvenzjoni Ewropeja tad-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem, kif dan jigi nterpretat fil-gjurisprudenza tal-Qorti Ewropeja tad-Drittijiet Umani. “Dan l-izvilupp fis-sistema legali taghna huwa zvilupp sinifikanti hafna ghal pajjizna billi ma jistax ma jkollux l-effett li jwessa’ d-dritt ta’ l-espressjoni. Madankollu f’dan l-izvilupp essenzjali l-istampa ma nghatat ebda passaport ta’ immunita’ billi tibqa’ dejjem il-htiega li jinzamm sens ta’ proporzjon bejn il-liberta’ ta’ l-espressjoni u c-censura tal-malafama. Dejjem jehtieg li jinzamm bilanc bejn il-bzonn lif’socjeta’ demokratika jithalla spazju sufficjenti ghall-liberta’ li wiehed jikkritika u li jsemmi l-opinjoni u l-gudizzju tieghu, ma’ l-bzonn l-iehor, xejn anqas mehtieg, tad-difiza ta’ reputazzjoni, unur u l-isem tajjeb li kull persuna f’socjeta’ demokratika ghandha kull dritt li tgawdi”.

Illi wiehed irid f’dan il-kuntest ihares lejn il-gurisprudenza tal-Qorti Ewropeja kif qed tizviluppa wara s-sentenza awtorevoli u immorattiva fil-kaz “Lingens” u fil-kaz iehor “Oberschlick” fejn il-Qorti Ewropeja rriteniet li ma kienetx mehtiega f’socjeta’ demokratika, ligi li tirrikjedi l-prova talverita’ ta’ opinjonijiet rigward figuri politici. Kuncett dan zviluppat fis-sentenza fil-kawza “Thorgierson vs Iceland”, (1992) li bih l-applikant kien gie misjub hati ta’ malafama tal-Pulizija f’diversi artikoli kritici hafna tal-komportament u dixxiplina taghhom.

Illi fil-kawza “Schwabe vs. Austria” (1992) il-Kummissjoni Ewropeja rriteniet illi “Politicians must be prepared to accept criticism even if far fetched but that such criticism must be founded on correct factual statements. It somewhat mitigated what correctness required when it said “In a short contribution to a discussion and the behaviour of  politicians and the political morals not every word can be weighed to exclude any possibility of misunderstanding. The Court conflated the facts and opinion of Schwabe’s article – they amounted to a value judgment for which no proof of truth is possible”. (Harris, Boyle, Warbrick, Law of the European Convention of Human Rights, p.397 et seq). (J’accuse Note: In this ECHR case, Schwabe had been convicted for defamation for having referred to a politician’s criminal record. The Court concluded that this was within the remit of a value judgement of public morality and within the rights of the journalist – going so far as awarding non-pecuniary damages to the journalist in compensation for his earlier conviction of defamation).

“Il-kritika hi fondamentali f’socjeta’ demokratika, pero’ dejjem hemm il-limiti. Dawn il-limiti f’kazijiet bhal dan li jkunu ta’ interess pubbliku generali, ghandhom ikunu wesghin kemm jista’ jkun, b’mod partikolari meta hemm involuti persuni pubblici bhal ma huwa l-attur. F’dan irrigward il-Gately (op.cit.) jghid- In cases of comment on a matter of public interest the limits of comment are very wide indeed. This is especially so in the case of public men. Il-Gately jispecifika inoltre illi – Unless there is some clear evidence of malice or some mistatement of fact, no action should be commenced, however severe the terms of the criticism may be. Ghar-rigward ta’ x’jikkostitwixxi  misstatement of fact l-istess Gately ighid- It is one thing to comment upon or criticise, even with severity, the acknowledged or proved acts of a public man, and quite another to assert that he has been guilty of particular acts of misconduct”;

“Il-Qrati taghna segwew dawn l-insenjamenti u jista’ jinghad li fid-dawl tal-gurisprudenza ricenti d-dritt ta’ l-espressjoni permezz ta’ l-istampa ghandu jinghata nterpretazzjoni wiesgha, b’tali mod li, skond ic-cirkostanzi partikolari tal-kaz, kritika harxa u azzardata tista’ tigi wkoll permessa dejjem sakemm din tkun entro l-limiti ta’ dak li hu ragonevoli. (Vide Appelli Civili, “Fenech vs Callus et” – 4 ta’ Frar, 1994; “Sant vs Camilleri et” – 14 ta’ Frar, 1994; u “Mons A Gauci vs M. Schiavone et” – 8 ta’ Novembru, 1995).

Illi ghalhekk f’kazijiet li jkunu ggeneraw interess kbir fil-pubbliku u fejn ikunu nvoluti persuni pubblici l-limiti tal-kummenti huma wiesghin pero’ hemm dejjem limiti. Tali limiti huma dettati fuq kollox minn dak li hu ragjonevoli, minn dak li hu dicenti u minn dak li jista’ jkun accettat fis-socjeta’ in partikolari. Hemm ukoll id-dritt li kull persuna, pubblika o meno, li tigi tutelata kemm fil-persuna taghha kif ukoll fil-fama taghha. Implikazzjonijiet, minghajr fondament, maghmula ghal kwalunkwe raguni, anke possibilment ghal raguni politika, … …,ma jistghu qatt jigu accettati la fil kuntest ta’ fatti li qajjmu interess pubbliku u lanqas fejn
hemm involuti nies pubblici;”

Illi dan kollu gie ribadit mill-Onorabbli Qorti ta’ l-Appell Civili fil-kawza “Eddie Fenech Adami et vs. Joseph Vella et” deciza fl-1 ta’ Frar, 1998 meta gie ritenut: “Il-ligi taghna mhix njara tal-kuncett ta’ nteress pubbliku u l-fatt li persuni f’karigi pubblici w importanti necessarjament huma esposti ghal kritika. Infatti tammetti l-prova tal-verita’ tal-fatti f’diversi kazijiet ta’ personalitajiet pubblici. Pero’ altru timputa fatt li temmen li hu veru u fil-fatt hu veru, u altru bl-aktar mod irresponsabbli dak li jigik f’mohhok tiktbu u tippubblikah minghajr ma jkun hemm imqar bazi ta’ fondatezza f’dak li jigi asserit. Il-politika ta’ “publish and be damned” qatt ma sabet sostenn fil-Qrati taghna … …”.

Illi dan gie segwit ad litteram fis-sentenzi ricenti ta’ din il-Qorti kif presjeduta fil-kawza “Onor Dr Alfred Sant vs Dione Borg et” (P.A. (RCP) 30 ta’ April 2002) u “Onor Dr Alfred Sant vs Gordon Pisani et” (P.A. (RCP) 30 ta’ April 2002) fejn inghad: “Illi dan jinghad ghaliex l-istess generu ta’ persuni ghandhom l-istess drittijiet ghall-prezervazzjoni ta’ ntegrita`u l-fama taghhom daqs haddiehor, u f’certu sens malafama fil-konfront taghhom hija iktar serja, peress li l-operat taghhom huwa dejjem suggett ghall-iskrutinju tal-pubbliku, fuq liema appogg iddependi l-pozizzjoni u l-ezistenza taghhom, u ghalhekk tista’ ssir iktar hsara lill-stess persuni hekk suggetti ghall-opinjoni pubblika”.

Illi t-test li jigi applikat dwar is-sinifikat tal-istess diskors fiIkuntest
tal-kawza odjerna u f’kawzi simili huwa dak li gie applikat fis-sentenza “Onor. Dr. Joseph M. Fenech vs Louis Cauchi et” (A.C. (JSP) 16 ta’ Jannar 2002) u cjoe’ li l-ezami ghandu “jkun wiehed oggettiv biex tara jekk dak li nkiteb u gie prezentat bhala fatt lill-qarrejja kienx wiehed jew le malafamanti fil-konfront tal-persuna li lejha l-addebbitu kien dirett”.

Ma jistghux jigu attribwiti fatti mhux veri lill-persuna anke jekk din ghandha posizzjoni pubblika, u dak li jissejjah bhala “value judgement” ghandu wkoll jigi bbazat fuq fatti u mhux fuq invenzjonijiet, u dan in verita’ u fl-opinjoni ta’ din il-Qorti ma jistax ikun mod iehor, ghaliex ma jistax ikun hemm “value judgement” jekkalmenu dan ma jkunx ibbazat fuq il-verita’ u l-fatt rejali, ghaliex altrimenti kif jista’ jkun li tali “gudizzju” jkollu xi “valur”? (Obershlick vs Austria (1991)

Here’s the significant bits of the Times report of one of the extensions of Plategate:

“The incident happened after the Magistrate gave evidence in the case instituted by the police against Ms Caruana Galizia for allegedly slandering the magistrate in various blogs on her website. (…) During her evidence, Magistrate Scerri-Herrera read out the parts of the blogs which she considered as being offensive and denied all claims that had been made. (…) The court turned down a request to issue a protection order for the magistrate by ordering a ban on the publication of blogs mentioning the magistrate.”

The Times proves to be as informed as Lou Bondi on the subject matter of blogs. It is evident here that the reporter had absolutely no clue about the difference between a blog, a post on a blog and a comment on a blog. The “various blogs on her website” bit is the huge giveaway. The website is, incidentally, a blog. It’s a blog called “Running Commentary” (or as we affectionately call it at J’accuse: the runs). What the magistrate probably read out are posts on the blog – the equivalent of mini-articles: which is why there were “various”.

Also, the Times correspondent should note that the request by the prosection would probably have been to order a ban on the publication of posts mentioning the magistrate – or alternatively a ban on the blog being published as a whole (the blog being The Runs). I tried to leave a comment for the Times – a few other comments have been published later but mine seems to have been left out : I wonder why? they could have at least amended the article but I guess they have no clue on using the right terminology.

Here is my full comment (posted at 15.03 – as yet unpublished):

Another comment from the Unofficial Representative of the Non-Existent Guild of Bloggers in Malta.

The case deals with one (1) blog – Running Commentary by DCG.
What the Magistrate presumably read out in court were POSTS not BLOGS.
One can also presume that what the request before the presiding magistrate is to prohibit any POSTS on the BLOG mentioning the magistrate and not, as reported, “a ban on the publication of blogs mentioning the magistrate” – as the latter would mean that more than just the allegedly offending blog would be affected.

Times (and other) reporters please take note. It’s really not that complicated.

www.akkuza.com – blogging made easy

Meanwhile we thought it would only be right to dig out some of the first reactions on J’accuse to that election that was so close and yet so far in bringing out a change to our electoral system. Do you still remember the election that began with PN’s Par Idejn Sodi, Aldred Sant’s Hbieb tal-Hbieb, Harry’s Coalition and the new “third parties”? For us this was the election where J’accuse broke new ground as an open thinking ground away from the partisan controlled media – for our sins it provoked the birth of the Runs and a new shift in Maltese blogging.

Here’s the post entitled “The Real King Makers” from the 9th March 2008 – a day after the PN relative majority was confirmed. It would not be the first nor last post that would foretell the ills awaiting an abuse of the relative majority. I wonder if Lou will ask Tonio Borg what became of the plans for electoral reform?

The Real King Makers
As the Nationalist party breaks a day of suspense with the announcement of a Nationalist victory (and Labour is still reluctant to concede defeat although Maltastar has announced it), we have witnessed quite a few fingers being pointed to the voters for change during the last few hours. It was to be expected but sadly for the finger pointers they seem not to be aware that the biggest winner in this election is the argument in favour of a real change.

The indication given by Joe Saliba is that the relative majority enjoyed by the nationalist party is of 1,200 votes. Rent-a-pundits on Net TV have been quick to point out that this is not the first time that such a low margin has been registered – 1981 and 1950 being two other low margin wins. Which does not really mean that there is nothing to criticise about a very small majority but rather means that the system allows such an uncomfortable situation to happen very often.

In the light of the need for change movement that has been gathering during election time, the first, early analysis is that now more than ever it is evident that the need for a new politics is being felt. The people have spoken and it is understandable that the party that in the words of Lawrence Zammit won on penalties feels the need to relax and release the tension. When the beer drinking and back tapping is over we will see how well the greater of the two parties who garnered less than 50% of the votes can read the signs.

For the signs are now there : added on to the pre-electoral admission of a faulty system that disenfranchises voters and that never gives a clear picture of the real will of the electorate. We had the large number of voters who failed to pick up their vote which must also be factored into the equation when considering those who for some reason or another are not comfortable with voting in this system.

What are the signs? Well for a party that would not have been comfortable to govern in coaltion with another party that gathered at least 3,800 votes to merit a seat in parliament it is now sending some confused signs. So you are uncomfortable that the 3,800 top-up to form a government would be some sort of dictatorship of a minority but when you have 1,200 votes difference over the ones you consider as mortal enemies in opposition you feel like you represent the whole Maltese nation? Am I the only one to feel that there is something wrong in that equation?

Is not this weird sense of justice all the more compounded by the fact that we will have in all probability a government of a minority? Do not forget that the Nationalist party now officially represents less than 50% of the electorate and it is only thanks to a constitutional provision that it can form a government.

The only way for the Nationalists to sit comfortably in their parliamentary seats for the next four years will be for them to humbly accept that this election should be a lesson – that they are not the popular party that they claim to be and that its time for some spring cleaning. Flimkien kollox possibli sounds hollow when that Flimkien is made to represent less than half of the voting population.

I start yelling the warnings from now (and I call on all those who spoke about the time for such discussion being between elections).

- Ignore this need for change at your own risk. -

In the meantime Labour and AD have a lot of soul searching to do. AD risked the nightmare situation for a couple of hours this afternoon. They would never have been forgiven by an already blinkered crowd had they managed to get Labour into government by electing Harry. Labour will need to really dig deep and have the perfect chance for a start. If they effect a radical change fast enough and build a party around policies they could even be in time to take up the banner of reform.

From party funding to party media ownership to electoral reform. It is now that the forces of the movement of change can start working and create the right environment for a new beginning. The result does not spell doom for an opposition because a rational nationalist government will surely not toy with provoking more people out of arrogance or the insulting tomfoolerey which almost risked it its new mandate this time round.

Le Roi est mort! Vive le Roi!

As I walked out of the cinema this evening I could only think of Wonderland and how fantastically fabricated it all is with its nonsensical cutting-edge reality. Yes, it is a nonsensical paradox that flummoxes and zooms straight into the grey matter of the brain through the bothersome 3D glasses you are obliged to carry throughout the fantasmagorical performance. Nonsensical cutting-edge reality can only be experienced in two places – the first is that portrayed wonderfully by Tim Burton and the second is the one we have (dis)affectionately come to refer to as “Only In Malta”.

Pray do reserve a bit of patience for me, your bearer of phantsy stuff this week, particularly when you encounter the odd pseudo-word that immediately evokes the red underline-ings of a word/processing document. You see it is hard to shed the influence of Lewis Carroll once you get infected with the bug. The author was brilliant (or should I say brillig?) at coining new words in such a way that they would still make sense because of the context in which he masterly entwined them. Anyhoo. Let’s see what happened in our corner of underland.

’Twas Brillig

’Twas only in this wonderland of ours that the provocations launched last week from this platform could be ignored with such audacious abandon. You will remember the little matter of my analysis of the Death of Journalism and how I argued that Malta’s Award Winning Talk Show Programme and its host abdicated from their investigative responsibility in cunning collaboration with Malta’s foremost media expert. I almost believed that my time would have been better spent organising tea parties in the company of the Mad Hatter and the March Hare were it not for the fact that the article did get feedback though not, understandably, from the parties that were, so to speak, in the dock.

Mr Lou Bondi and Fr Joe Borg preferred to ignore my questions (unless of course there is a letter in today’s paper*) and concentrate on whatever they felt should attract their precious attention. Meanwhile, those who, like me, tend to buy the whole panoply of available English literature on a Sunday, would have discovered (surely to their unbounded joy) that J’accuse had been twice served for the discerning palate. The geezers over at MaltaToday had availed themselves of the very legal right under the Creative Commons licence to reproduce whole chunks of my blogging analysis. Well, so long as they do not do it regularly I’m sure we can deal with all the publicity.

Cheek apart, we were vindicated within 24 hours of our articles appearing in print in spite of the fact that Bondi & Borg would not deign to reply to our queries. Last Monday the Bondiplus investigative consortium settled down for another nail-biting episode that was meant to include the presence of Malta’s proof that vampires do exist and our own version of Hugo Chavez Wannabeism. For some reason or other, the mass rallying presence of John Bencini and Tony Zarb (MUT and GWU respectively) was forfeited at the last moment.

Only a week before Bondi had sheepishly accepted the absence of both Caruana Galizia and Musumeci without so much as a sneeze. Last Monday though, the Bondiplus machine went on the warpath. Rachel was despatched to Valletta to harass and harangue the poor stirrers of mass hysteria into submission. The tactic Rachel used was basically to stun them with a barrage of complicated questions such as “Why are you not coming on Bondiplus? Why are you not coming on Bondiplus?” And for good measure, “Why are you not coming on Bondiplus?” Bencini attempted to dodge Rachel like he probably would a ray of sunshine or a silver bullet. Tony Zarb seemed to be flummoxed by the questions only to regain his composure (so to speak) towards the end and give Lou Bondi the answer he had been looking for “We have said all we had to say”.

Was Lou happy with the answer? He was happy to accept all of Daphne’s doings in the blog without the slightest hint of any further questions just the week before. Was he happy this week? Of course not. Hell hath no fury like a Bondi scorned. Suddenly he was issuing press releases claiming discrimination of sorts before leading to what was – at least for J’accuse – the sublime cherry on the cake.

Bencini and Zarb had requested a preview of the questions by email. Nyet said Bondi. Not only that, but he continued to protest, first on Facebook and then in what has now become a customary epistle to the press: “follow up questions are necessary in such an interview”. At which point you expected to see the Cheshire Cat apparate right in front of you while Absalom would be puffing away on some hallucinogenic substance filling the air with smoke. Follow up questions? On Bondiplus? Well I never. Curiouser and curiouser.

The Slithy Toves

What was all that ruckus in Valletta anyway? We had a double-whammy of a protest against the rising cost of bills and water services. Like a cheap Hollywood sequel nothing much was expected to come out of it unless of course you are the crazy sort who thinks in a Carollian sort of way. Tweedledum and Tweedledee assembled the massed cohorts in palace square and proceeded to remind us all why Malta is so desperately in need of real politicians. Meanwhile, in the hallowed hall of representative power the movers and shakers of progressive Malta were submitting a motion to repeal the utilities bill.

The inevitable result of this motion was a defeat of the Opposition and a reason for Messrs Zarb and Bencini to declare that “the people had been betrayed”. In Wonderland, the concept of a working democracy had once again gone haywire. A couple of unions had just discovered that the people do not like being heavily taxed (or in this case having subsidies removed in an aggressive manner) and that they could still perform the nonsensical show of force if they wanted to. The flexible bandwagon that is the progressive and moderate Opposition fancied its chances to seem like the bulwark of the people’s rights without having to perform the ginormous effort of effectively planning a clear economic programme out of this mess. And the rest is history.

What the Opposition and unions failed to see was that this is a legitimate action by a legitimately elected government. Unpopular as these measures are they are also necessary and, unless some genius in Hamrun comes up with a better idea of how to alleviate the utility bill paying misery without bankrupting the state, then all this hullabaloo must be seen as the farce that it was – an excuse to be seen stirring up the faeces without a clear idea of what to do next. What’s new anyway?

The Manxome Foe

For its part, the party in government has managed to create a semblance of an idea of a reunited group. Top J’accuse marks this week go to Gonzi’s cunning plan of keeping his team together via the system of reponsibilisation. The Franco Debonos of this world are being twinned with ministries in a sort of apprenticeship. It is not yet clear how the workings of this arrangement will actually come about (and whether they will cost anything more) but it is evident that whatever is at the helm of the PN has been scrambling for ideas on how to appease the broken pieces.

Which does not mean that all is fine and dandy. It means that the existence of a problem has been recognised (internally) and that something is being done about it. Will GonziPN manage to meld again? Is flimkien really possibbli? We’ll have to wait and assess the deliverables to see how this GonziPN mark II fares, but in the meantime we will remind Honourable Member Debono that his original crusade was not for a twinning project but for such things as the regulation of party financing. Anything new about that project?

Gyving and Grimbling

One problem GonziPN will really need to solve is the rapid loss of trust in all things institutional. On Saturday, for example, a number of environmental NGOs will join forces in a rally to highlight their concerns about “the environmental abuses that are taking place in every part of Malta and Gozo. This does not just include planning abuse but air pollution, lack of water conservation measures, illegal hunting and trapping, illegal occupation of the countryside, destruction of habitats and species, as well as encroachment of the countryside due to the Rationalisation scheme.”

The rally is called “Legality Now” and the name reflects the fact that the NGOs are not lobbying for the introduction of new environmental friendly laws but rather will be protesting at the lack of application and enforcement of laws that already exist. These citizens are not rallying behind a cry to back a policy or another – to give an example, it is not a “for or against hunting” kind of rally where one could take a political side on a political issue. The declared intention of the rally goes deeper – it is a manifestation of discontent with the state of enforcement of current laws.

This may seem like a tiny nuance to the casual observer but the express aims of this rally have much in common with one of the corollaries that have been drawn from Plategate. It is the lack of faith and trust in public institutions. It is one thing for political rallies to gather the masses in an effort to lobby in favour of the adoption of one policy or another – or to force the government to change its utility bill policy. It would be amiss to ignore the message this kind of rally is sending. They may not be the grievances leading to the serment du jeu de paume but these particular grievances are worth considering.

All three branches of the state are currently under heavy attack and the levels of trust that “the people” seem to have in the administrative, executive and the judiciary appear to be alarmingly low. This is not healthy for our democracy – it’s a rot that is setting in. The rot must be exposed, not in a partisan, self-interested kind of way but rather in an objective attempt at rediscovering what we want for the future of our nation.

Oh Frabjous Day!

Meanwhile in another corner of Wonderland, since our very own Inhobbkom Joseph has embarked on an illusory trip of his own – meeting bureaucrats on an educational programme described by his bumbling entourage as a State visit (Lord Help Us all) we might begin to despair on the shape of things to come. When the Leader of the Opposition goes to France on a trip intended for foreign visitors of all types (Iva, Tista’ tkun Int) and his press office attempt to disguise it as some form of state visit (We discussed the Lisbon Treaty – and the Future EU Presidency) you really have to begin to wonder whether you have fallen in some hole while following the waistcoat-clad rabbit.

Across the channel, the Italian political system is in a huge farcical mess. You’d love to poke fun at them only until you notice that it’s like peeping through the looking glass. It’s impossible… but only if you believe it is.

www.akkuza.com is now also a Facebook page that you can join. Come along and carry our facebook slogan with pride: Cut me, paste me, bite me.

This article and accompanying Bertoon were published on today’s edition of The Malta Independent on Sunday.

(*)No letter appeared in The Malta Independent, instead, Mr Lou Bondi preferred to tackle the extremely complicated question of the apparent bias of the Institute of Maltese Journalists (IGM). It’ like playing FIFA with Brasil but chosing to tackle Botswana rather than Argentina or Spain. Then again I guess Bondi was in a very good position to assess bias. Funny how the question of “aggression” being bloated up by partisan media is suddenly fashionable – would Bondi care to learn how it is another result of the school of bipartisan thought that produces mediocrity by the ton? Guess not. Prosit tal-programm Lou.

I am posting a plug for a rally that will take place on Saturday morning (J’accuse note: next Saturday 13th March @ 10 am) in Republic Street Valletta. The rally, that is being organised by a number of environmental NGOs is called “Legality Now” and concerns “the environmental abuses that are taking place in every part of Malta and Gozo. This does not just include planning abuse but air pollution, lack of water conservation measures, illegal hunting and trapping, illegal occupation of the countryside, destruction of habitats and species as well as encroachment of the countryside due to the Rationalisation scheme.” I am not often prone to promoting rallies on this blog – particularly because I find that rallies and general agglomerations of bodies yelling behind a poster or other a rather ineffective weapon nowadays – one that has been rendered powerless through overuse and abuse.

What interests me is the stated intention of the Environmental NGOs vis-a-vis the institutions they are targeting:

The Environmental NGOs appeal to the competent authorities and institutions in order to ensure law enforcement with regard to citizens’ rights in accordance with the Environmental standards operative in the European Union. (…) The environmental NGOs have been calling on the Prime Minister and MEPA for effective enforcement of the nature conservation laws. The Prime Minister has chosen to ignore these pleas for legality, hiding behind the plea of non-interference. Yet the authorities have in many cases considered themselves above the law, interpreting their own rules and policies to favour private interests at the expense of the rights of the Maltese society. The situation has become intolerable, strongly undermining democratic principles.

Citizens are not rallying behind a cry to back a policy or another – to give an example it is not a “for or against hunting” kind of rally where one could take a political side on a political issue. The declared intention of the rally goes deeper – it is a manifestation of discontent with the state of enforcement of laws that already exist.  This may seem like a tiny nuance to the casual observer but the express aims of this rally have much in common with one of the corollaries that have been drawn from Plategate. It is the lack of faith and trust in public institutions. It is one thing for political rallies to gather the masses in an effort to lobby in favour of the adoption of one policy or another. It would be amiss to ignore the message this kind of rally is sending. They may not be the grievances leading to the serment du jeu de paume but these particular grievances are worth considering – if not for their content for what they imply:

Encroachment of urban areas:
The encroachment of urban areas into the Maltese countryside has been an issue longing for solution but enforcements are few and far between. Lately, a number of permissions have been granted for major projects which are detrimental to the natural environment and also the quality of life of the residents in the vicinities. These unsustainable projects in many cases violate the Structure Plan and MEPA regulations.

Illegal hunting and trapping:
Widespread killing and trapping of protected species have long been well documented. Yet, the authorities to date have not taken the necessary actions to clamp down on these illegal activities. The Administrative Law Enforcement Unit with around 25 officers and a few vehicles remains understaffed, MEPA Enforcement Unit to deal with these crimes has one staff member and there are no policies in place to monitor the activities of thousands of hunters in the countryside.

Illegal Occupation of Public land:
There are thousands of illegally built hunting and trapping hides, tool rooms, so called boat houses and shanties occupying public land including EU protected Natura 2000 sites. Apart from a couple of odd cases, to date, the authorities have failed to remove these illegal structures and protect the Maltese countryside in the interest of public.

Loss of Biodiversity:
Being the International Year for Biodiversity, the enforcement of laws safeguarding this natural heritage should be on the forefront more than ever. Instead, Malta has no clear strategy of enforcing policies preventing the introduction and dispersal of alien species or the preventing of some of the most important drivers of biodiversity and habitat loss and desertification.

Air Pollution:
Air pollution from traffic and power plants and various forms of industrial activities is at an all-time high. EU limits on traffic pollution are being repeatedly breached, yet emission testing is still at a very low level. Marsa power station, the subject of the never-ending black dust saga, is not being properly maintained as it is due for closure. Smoke from the stacks is present at ground level in Kordin and Fgura. The choice of Heavy Fuel Oil for the Delimara Power Station extension involves use of a high-risk pollution removal system.

Water conservation:
Malta is facing crippling shortages of ground water due to unregulated extraction from the water table. However no steps are being taken to stop the use of illegal boreholes. Malta could even incur heavy EU fines due to the lack of a water management plan and adequate water conservation measures.

Now we could dedicate tons of comments to dismissing this as a usual protest of tree-hugging, ramble-loving greenies but I do believe that the underlying issue – the emergent dissatisfaction with the institutions that are meant to be enforcers and guardians of civil society merits attention of its own. That too is part of the rot that afflicts our society.

The facebook page for the event.

Tetris

Last night I chanced upon a programme called Tetris on La7. It was making quite a mockery of the latest ridiculous regulations afflicting Italian broadcasting in the run-up to the regional elections. The subject of last night’s programme was La censura and the guests on the programme were asked to investigate whether the media are being gagged (imbavagliati). As is usual in these situations, much of the programme centered around Silvio Berlusconi – or as they had to refer to him on the programme in order to circumvent the censorship edicts – il presidente del Milan.

Italy is passing through a hard time democratically speaking. Of course depending on whether you stand behind Berlusconi or behind the ever-hopeful left you will have a different concept of what levels of rot have corrupted democracy. be that as it may, the recent cases indicating the surfacing of a new Tangentopoli have demonstrated that the first waves of Tangentopoli in the early nineties only served to change the face of the political elite but not the substance and modus operandi. Watching the panelists discuss Tangentopoli I that brought about the fall of the historical parties in Italy (Democrazia Cristiana anyone?) I was shocked by the realisation of how much time has been wasted in Malta. We still have not had Tangentopoli I because about the same time a still healthy nationalist party had taken the obvious path out of Cro-Magnon land and led us belatedly into the twentieth century.

One point that was raised in the programme was that even at the height of political scandals that uncover the extreme rot in a democratic system – and the dangerous lack of accountability of institutions – the people are only attracted to the information when it is sensational. Carlo Freccero (Rai4 director) pointed out that the peak of attention during Tangentopoli was reached with the famous telephonic interceptions. Once the Reality Show of the politicians had set in the attention of the masses was (temporarily) won over. Once the main waves of the scandal had passed and the marketing make over of the parties was completed (remember “Scendo in campo” by a young(ish) Berluska?) the masses returned to being numbed by the usual weekly dose of pink scandal and football matches (until even football got its reality show with Calciopoli).

Although there were many more themes to dwell upon in this programme (I’ll be damned but notwithstanding all this technology I still am unable to record something off the TV) including the inevitable blog vs MSM debate (check out generazioneblog for interesting ways of using blogs in politics). What got me thinking most though was this “Reality Show” aspect. Considering the mechanisms of democracy, the demos is an important part of the equation. For any change short of the revolutionary or military coup, the demos must be convinced that something is wrong in the State of X (insert state of choice). Without their attention and their vote nothing can happen. A programme panelist (Barbara Serra) pointed out the advantages of the English system of accountability with politicians directly dependent on the electors (unlike Italy where people choose the list not the candidate).

How to get their attention though? it seems more and more likely that sensationalism will become a much more valuable weapon than rhetoric and argumentation. Scandals and delving into the private lives of the altruistic saints that run our institutions might become the inevitable key to solving the institutional problems of the state and its representatives. This does not only extend to the directly elected politicians but also to administrators, the judiciary and the ties that bind the system to the private interests that oil the machinery of corruption. We might joke that it is inevitable in an Italian talk show but the conclusion was that corruption is universally pervasive and very difficult to eradicate. Corruption takes different levels – from the backhander to the “fettering of discretion” in order to give favours (as explained by Garner in his Administrative Law opus). Once the rot sets in it gets much more difficult to distinguish normal practice from the legitimate practice.

What are the tools to challenge this rot? Has the fourth estate become sufficiently corrupt to be unable to challenge it? Are the new modes of communication a possible solution? Are they enough? More importantly – is the resort to scandal a legitimate weapon in order to catch the attention of the people? Like Father Borg I am asking questions. Unlike him, I’m very interested in what you have to say.

***

Desigual

As an aside, I was intrigued by a little rant on the Runs about the plebs lack of fashion knowledge. What intrigued me was the use of Desigual as a demarcation line between the fashionistas and the fashionmanistax (I hope Charles Cauchi gets that one). A few months ago – May 2009 – to be exact in an article called Taste I had used Desigual and their slogan as an example of how politics and fashion appeal to different crowds. Desigual’s wonderful ad campaigns centered on the idea of “it’s not the same” – dare to be different. The PN campaign at the time featured the infamous Taste ad which reminded us that “Taste is such a personal thing” while heavily kneading the “guilt by association” tactic into the mind of sensation-seeking voters. Taste could be personal but would you really dare to be different and vote for Louis Grech and Marlene Mizzi if they are in the same party as Jason Micallef?

Really. Some people should wear what they preach. And Desigual might not be happy with their latest personalised campaign should they find out about it. I’m sure they’d hate to be found guilty by association (of sending contradictory messages of course).

A word from the wise of old. The issue of the behaviour of public persons is not exactly one that started to be discussed today. The internet might deceive us into believing that this kind of questioning kicked off shortly after Tim Berners Lee’s “invention”. Wrong.

As of antiquity, the current issue that has burnt through the pages of printed and online journalism alike (and which merits a better more profound and objective analysis) was already being discussed. Take that great man from the family of the chickpeas – Marcus Tullius Cicero – who dedicated an essay called De Officiis to the best way to live, behave and observe moral obligations (Wikipedia). In Book I of the essay he even gets to discuss an item that is very topical in 2010:

At this point it is not at all irrelevant to discuss the duties of magistrates, of private individuals, [of native citizens,] and of foreigners. It is, then, peculiarly the place of a magistrate to bear in mind that he represents the state and that it is his duty to uphold its honour and its dignity, to enforce the law, to dispense to all their constitutional rights, and to remember that all this has been committed to him as a sacred trust.

Cicero’s reference of the sacrality of the magisterial role is not metaphorical in this case. De Officiis was the second book of all time to be printed after Gutenberg’s bible. Quite a feat but judging by its influence on mores through the ages, this record is more than fitting. The objective analysis of the issue that affects the judicial system in Malta has been sidetracked by the petty wars on all sides – each to their own interests.

Independently of the facts and allegations in particular circumstances, it is evident to any objective observer that a period of reflection, informed analysis and legislated reform is not only required from the proper fora but is essential to avoid the collapse of a system on which depends the very essence of the rule of law. The first faults that are apparent are in the eyes of the beholders – the very subjects of the law (who are subjects in order to be free). More action is required. It can no longer come from the bleating quarters of the fourth estate (misused or otherwise).

There is an interesting corollary to the maxim that states that “justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done.” It’s time to rebuild the people’s trust in the judiciary. Cicero, wherefore art thou? 

Iustitiae partes sunt non violare homines, verecundiae non offendere, in quo maxime vis perspicitur decori.

(Transl: Justice consists in doing no injury to men; decency in giving them no offense. It is the function of justice not to do wrong to one’s fellow-men; of considerateness, not to wound their feelings; and in this the essence of propriety is best seen.)