An ugly monument on a Luqa roundabout has suddenly become a symbol of enlightenment and a bulwark of secularism, thanks to Luqa (Labour) Mayor John Schembri.
If we had any doubt that some people live in the dark ages, here it is:
The Luqa local council has demanded the removal of the 'monument of shame' opposite the Lidl supermarket, before the Pope's visit.
In a statement issued today, Mayor John Schembri said that the council welcomed the fact that Pope Benedict would be going to Luqa.
However, he added, "in the opinion of the council, the Pope's first visit among us risks being a source of embarrassment to the people of Luqa and the Maltese in general, due to the obscene 'monument' which is still dominating the 'LIDL' roundabout on one's entry into the village."
"On this issue, the Council has already consulted and has the total backing of the ecclesiastical authorities of the village, who have in fact already written to complain about the absurd welcome immediately awaiting the Pope's arrival at Luqa and have asked for a quick redress of the situation. There can be no doubt that, among the people of Luqa, there is a widespread cross-party consensus that the object placed at the entrance of Luqa is not the most fitting way in which to greet the Pope, especially by what is considered to be the most Catholic country in the world.
Perhaps the best solution during the Pope's visit would be to cover this shameful monument with a condom...
Monday, April 12, 2010
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Father unknown
I completely disagree with the recommendation made by parliament's select comittee that the father unknown option should be removed. Do we really want the state to assume draconian powers to police the personal and sexual life of individuals? Are we going to have mandatory DNA tests? Are we going to force mothers to reveal the name of the father?
For the sake of argument, what will happen if a person had more than one sexual partner in the period of conception?
I am all for fathers assuming parental responsibilities but let's face it; i fully understand why some woman do not want to name the father.
They might have enjoyed a one night stand but they might not want that particular man to be the father of their child. I am sure that the life of many kids would be worse off if these fathers are involved in their life.
This issue has nothing to do with welfare, for women declaring their child to have an unknown father do not earn anything more than those who declare who the father is.
As a parent myself I feel offended by the notion that fatherhood is equated to sperm provision. One is a father because one loves a child and not because one was involved in its procreation.
One is not a father by some biological right. One becomes a father through love, care and affection.
Rather than policing the personal life of single parents, the state should guarantee full reproductive rights for women and assist those who still want to become mothers by providing them with the proverbial fishing rod... which means a greater investment in child care centres, education and training.
For the sake of argument, what will happen if a person had more than one sexual partner in the period of conception?
I am all for fathers assuming parental responsibilities but let's face it; i fully understand why some woman do not want to name the father.
They might have enjoyed a one night stand but they might not want that particular man to be the father of their child. I am sure that the life of many kids would be worse off if these fathers are involved in their life.
This issue has nothing to do with welfare, for women declaring their child to have an unknown father do not earn anything more than those who declare who the father is.
As a parent myself I feel offended by the notion that fatherhood is equated to sperm provision. One is a father because one loves a child and not because one was involved in its procreation.
One is not a father by some biological right. One becomes a father through love, care and affection.
Rather than policing the personal life of single parents, the state should guarantee full reproductive rights for women and assist those who still want to become mothers by providing them with the proverbial fishing rod... which means a greater investment in child care centres, education and training.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
A Hideous Monument
Let's face it the sette giugnio monument is hideous and essentially patriarchal as it glorifies mythical muscular men. It is down right ugly. Its removal from Palace Square is not bad news as far as am concerned.
Europe is full of such monuments mostly dating to the 19th century but this one dates back to 1986 when we should have known better.
I am not saying the Sette Gignio has no significance-mainly as an episode of popular rebellion triggered by economic rather than constitutional reasons.
I find the connection between the riots and Malta's constitutional development tenuous. Essentially what we had on that day was a bread riot by hungry unrepresented people which coincided with a parallel meeting of Maltese notables clamouring for a constitutional reform to suite their very limited conception of democracy.
I won't judge by the standards of today when mob rule and violence are abhorred. Probably a mass of uneducated and hungry people deprived of any real representation had no other option but violence to make their voice heard. Anger at merchants who were profiteering while people were hungry has triggered riots throughout European history.
The riots did coincide with the convocation of national assembly by a conservative elite but the target of popular anger were Maltese merchants and the Brits intervened to protect their property and life.
The fact that the Brits shot at the Maltese obviously had a symbolic effect.
The National assembly did not have universal suffrage in mind. What they wanted is a greater share of power for the elites.
Real self government only came after the war when universal suffrage was introduced mainly thanks to the labour party.
Europe is full of such monuments mostly dating to the 19th century but this one dates back to 1986 when we should have known better.
I am not saying the Sette Gignio has no significance-mainly as an episode of popular rebellion triggered by economic rather than constitutional reasons.
I find the connection between the riots and Malta's constitutional development tenuous. Essentially what we had on that day was a bread riot by hungry unrepresented people which coincided with a parallel meeting of Maltese notables clamouring for a constitutional reform to suite their very limited conception of democracy.
I won't judge by the standards of today when mob rule and violence are abhorred. Probably a mass of uneducated and hungry people deprived of any real representation had no other option but violence to make their voice heard. Anger at merchants who were profiteering while people were hungry has triggered riots throughout European history.
The riots did coincide with the convocation of national assembly by a conservative elite but the target of popular anger were Maltese merchants and the Brits intervened to protect their property and life.
The fact that the Brits shot at the Maltese obviously had a symbolic effect.
The National assembly did not have universal suffrage in mind. What they wanted is a greater share of power for the elites.
Real self government only came after the war when universal suffrage was introduced mainly thanks to the labour party.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
in the name of the cross
The recent attacks on Cardinal Tettamanzi by the traditionalist Lega Nord-which condemned the cleric for speaking for the inclusion of immigrants instead of defending the cross threatened by a European court decree- proves my earlier point that in the hands of the far right the cross might well become a 21st century swastika.
If the Church has to save the cross from anyone, it is not from left wing secularists, who share with christians so many moral values (probably everything except matters related to sexuality with which the church is unfortunately obsessed), but from right wing "traditionalists" who deny important universal values accepted by the four great European traditions: liberalism, socialism, green politics and christian democracy, all of which helped in making post war Europe the most democratic space on the planet.
The greatest risk facing the cross is not the ruling of an international court but its exploitation by the usual dirty bunch of climate change deniers, immigrant bashers and simple minded populists .
If the Church has to save the cross from anyone, it is not from left wing secularists, who share with christians so many moral values (probably everything except matters related to sexuality with which the church is unfortunately obsessed), but from right wing "traditionalists" who deny important universal values accepted by the four great European traditions: liberalism, socialism, green politics and christian democracy, all of which helped in making post war Europe the most democratic space on the planet.
The greatest risk facing the cross is not the ruling of an international court but its exploitation by the usual dirty bunch of climate change deniers, immigrant bashers and simple minded populists .
Friday, November 6, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)