A bit of leadership at last

Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi has shown political leadership by noting that the level of “racism, intolerance and animosity” in comments on immigration is "more than frightening".
Some Maltese have reached the critical treshhold when they stop seeing any humanity in other humans and political leaders are duty bound to provide leadership.
So had Minister John Dalli last Sunday during the party's council when he denounced the climate of hatred saying that "Maltese people were never xenophobic, never resented foreigners and always lived alongside foreigners. Maltese people have always helped in a very generous manner those in need, whether Maltese or foreigners. That is the culture that we need to strengthen."
Unfortunately the week was also dominated by a statement of the Imam in favour of Sharia law. Although he does not want this law imposed in Malta-thus making a distinction between religion and state which many in Malta cannot even understand- he still defends principles which violate human rights and which are instrinsically homophobic.
This shows the complexity of problems which cannot be solved with populist solutions. Some immigrants are here to stay. The number of these people will increase. They can contribute to our prosperity. What is important is to draw the lines on what sort of integration model we would like. Respect for human rights is one of the limits within which multiculturalism can flourish.

Save Joe Falzon

Auditor Joe Falzon is an honest and conscientious public servant who enjoys public trust. He did sterling work in the past years exposing MEPA's shortcomings within the parameters of the rule of law. All talk of MEPA reform would evaporate in thin air if he is forced to resign. Civil society should rally in his defence. For without him Malta would be a poorer country. Unfortunately insteed of heeding to his recommendation MEPA constantly over reacts with scorn to his reports. His last report denounced how a restuarant and an adjacent building belonging to the same owner ended up designiated as rural hamlet. Instead of investigating how on earth this happened, MEPA has reprimanded Falzon for investigating this case despite a pending appeal.

Water and other Commons

One of the common goods which has been spoiled and plundered is ground water. Politicians have found it convenient to forget that Malta is the ninth thirstiest country in the world.
Malta currently places 172nd among the 180 countries ranked by the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) on the basis of availability of renewable water sources.
With more than 8000 "registered" (but still illegal) boreholes drilled in to the ground, salinity in our water table is rising at alarming levels.
On the eve of the budget I reiterate the call on the government to protect the commons by limiting extraction to the Water Services Corporation (as the law already states) and to registered farmers whose extraction should be metered with the cost of irrigation being refunded until alternatives like treated sewage are made available to them free of charge.
It does not make sense to use ground water for irrigation of lawns or the production of table water or soft drinks. If General Soft Drinks need water to produce mineral water or soft drinks they should pay for it. Presently they are getting it for free.
We have to stop taking water for-granted.
On a political level we need a greater affirmation of the defense of the "commons". The defense of the commons from private "enclosures" fits perfectly with Green politics in a globalised world and the new challenges of global warming.
The commons do not belong to individuals. Neither do they belong to the state in its narrow definition. Neither do they belong to present generations as future generations have to be safeguarded. They belong to humanity i.e. to both present and future generations.
It is also a conceptual framework to govern process like information technology which creates the exciting possibility of a free and shared pool of knowledge.
Even things like the pension and health system should be regarded as part of the "commons". For we have the responsibility to ensure their sustainability to protect the rights of future generations.
Malta was also a pioneer in the field being the first to propose a law of the sea based on the concept of the "common heritage" of mankind. The same concept was proposed with regards to climate.
But when it comes to local matters politicians have shown immense disrespect to the "commons."

The battle for the cross

Ever since the battle of Milvian bridge in which Constantine fought under the banner of the cross to become Emperor, the cross never ceased to be a political symbol.
As i had predicted the decision of the European Human Right Court has galvanized a traditionalist conservative right both in Italy and in Malta. People in the street are already blaming this decision against "Europe"-(even if the European Union has nothing to do with this decision) We are entering very dangerous and unchartered waters.
With defenders like Berlusconi who has no qualms on sending immigrants back to Libya, the cross is once again a tool in the hand of aspiring emperors.
Even the arguments leveled against the court's decision by our Archbishop are gross. For nobody has censored the cross. The Court only found the exhibition of one particular religious symbol in public building discriminatory. The decision would have been the same if any other religious symbol was exposed in a public building. Neither is the court forcing any country to remove crosses. It is merely offering compensation to those who presented a case of discrimination.
At the same time I don't want to play ball with the conservatives who would like to pit secularists against religious symbols.
I trust that in this case governments will respect the rule of law and abide to the court's final decision. That is why we all take pride in the fact that in 1986 Malta accepted the jurisdiction of this court after long years of protests by the Nationalist opposition against human right violations.
This court offered us safeguards against a repetition of gross human rights abuses. All talk of disregarding the authority of this court is a threat to these safeguards.
That said, Maltese progressive should not be diverted in to a battle against the crucifix. This is exactly what the Maltese right wants.
The real battle is that against censorship and against the imposition of dominant lifestyles through the ban on divorce and other laws limiting people's choices.
I have no contention with religion or the church. I have deep respect for the cross which for me stands out as a symbol of liberation and compassion and an iconic representation of the cruelty of the death penalty.
My contention is against a confessional state. The ban on Realta has shown the willingness of the state to use the repressive state apparatus to clamp down on freedom of expression.
In Italy they still have the cross in class rooms (thanks to a law introduced by the Mussolini who was so Christian that he bombed Ethiopia with poison gas and allied his country with Hitler) BUT they there they have divorce, reproductive rights and the Catholic religion is no longer the state religion.
If we can have all that while still having a cross in the class room ...i might be willing to pay the price.

The power of the cross

I can understand the logic behind the decision of the European Court to ban the crucifix from class rooms. Legalistically speaking the exhibition of one set of religious symbols in schools discriminates against non believers and other religions.
But looking at this issue from a deeper sociological level, attacking symbols intimitally tied with deeply rooted identities only serves to strengthen neo conservative and racist movements.
We should not forget that we all need symbols. But symbols take time to develop. Perhaps one day society will create new symbols representing the ethical values of truly inclusive civilisation. But when Russian or French revolutionaries tried to invent new symbols or cults of reason they failed miserably. Ultimately the cross managed to outlive them.
It is surprising that the crucifix as a symbol has been retained in a country where Catholicism is no longer the state religion and where both abortion and divorce are legal. Is this simply a hang up of the past or a demonstration of the power of the cross? I think it is a mix of both.
The cross itself also represents many of the universal values embodied in our civilisation. But like all symbols its meaning is subject to negotiations.
For me at least at face value it stands out as one of the most iconic depiction of the cruelty of the death penalty and human rights violations.
On a deeper level it represents universal values like compassion and sacrifice for others as well as defiance against power.
Surely it was also a symbol used to rape, pillage, torture and victimise heretics, witches, indegenous populations and whoever deviated from the norm.
And some today are using the cross simply to exclude others and affirm a white european christian identity.
Symbols tend to have a life of their own.
Ironically to keep the cross in class rooms the Italian government will have to prove that the crucifix is a cultural and not a religious symbol. Would that not amount to the secularisation of the cross?
The danger is that in so doing it will the cross even less inclusive as symbol. For by taking the cross away from its religious context,it will be easier to manipulate it.

The new medievalism

Universities are meant to be at the forefront of intellectual and literary freedom. Even in repressive states universities are expected to be the last bastion of resistance against censorship.News that the University of Malta has banned newspaper Ir-Realta presumably because of an article which breached the laws of Malta is proof that something is rotten at Tal-Qroqq.Unfortunately student politics has been hijacked by corporate sponsorships and the administration is blinded by a technocratic and utilitarian ideology (disguised as devotion for information technology) which ultimately serves capitalism rather than the pursuit of knowledge and critical thinking.The new careerist class which dominates the KSU and the University's administration seems bent on cleansing the university from uncomfortable ideas. The KSU decision to evict Graffitti and the rector's decision to ban ir-realta are a symptom of the Smart City syndrome.Dubai is a feudal despotic monarchy which co-exists with a consumerist religion promoted by a state run incestuous form of capitalism which even permits slavery.Dubai is corporate but not democratic. So is the University of Malta.For by banning a piece of literature the University of Malta risks opening a precedent. If Alex Vella Gera's writing is in breach of the law...what about equally "obscene" literary works of Charles Bukowski? What about Garcia Marquez's Memoria de mis putas tristes, a love story that follows the romance of a 90-year old man and a pubescent concubine? In the meantime Malta's top talk show-once regarded by myself as some experiment in popular democracy- spent two weeks discussing inconsequential survey driven devils and witchdoctors... As my good fried says we are still living in 1493.

authoritarian

The decision to evict Graffitti from their room in univeristy despite a report showing them to be the most active organisation on campus is highly disconcerting. It is a definitive sign of the degeneration of a careerist and intolerant right wing which seems to have lost its own sense of historical memory. For SDM was the victim of the authoritarian state apparatus in the 1980s. Ironically at that time SDM was led by people who took pride in being called leftists. Even in the late 1990s when led by people like Jacques Zammit, SDM was a decent independent organisation which had the guts to expose the financial mess left by PN friendly KSU. Ironically at that time Graffitti was closer to SDM than to Pulse. But since than many things have changed. The university has been corporatised thanks to the petty minds of those running student organisations. And within PN orbits a right wing intolerant element is slowly taking roots. And these people are not searching their roots in liberation theology as was fashionable in the 1980s.