Someone has to take the rap

Isn’t it amazing, or is it? Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Tonio Borg did a Fawlty Towers’ Manuel and claimed, “I know nothing” about the goings on in the prison when he was the minister responsible.

This followed a grave indictment issued by a judge sentencing a 40-year-old woman, described as ruling the roost at Corradino, to 12 years in jail and fined €23,000 after a jury found her guilty of having trafficked hard drugs in prison between 2006 and 2008.

Josette Bickle, who ran a drug business for two years selling heroin inside the prison unhampered also had access to a cell where she kept the goods bartered for drugs. The booty included four television sets, DVDs and a sound surround system, among other items.

The high number of visits allowed to Bickle as compared to the other prisoners, and her easy access to drugs could not but indicate collusion with the authorities. Therefore, “she should not shoulder the blame for what had happened alone,” said Mr Justice Michael Mallia.

That is, he expected someone in authority to take responsibility. “This was a system which had failed and was not correctional”, he said. Tonio Borg, who was Home Affairs Minister at the time, immediately did a Pontius Pilate and washed his hands of the shambles by saying he knew nothing about it, which does not say much of his running of such an important ministry.

We have had other happenings, which have warranted resignations from Cabinet ministers this year, but this is by far the most serious. To refer to the prison as a “hot potato” would be the understatement of the year.

Every minister handling that portfolio past and present has had more than their work cut out, but it is no excuse for allowing events to get completely out of hand and reach the stage where a drug lucrative business was being run unhindered at the prison.

The harsh condemnation by the courts pushed the former, long standing chairman of the Prison Board, Mario Felice, to announce that he had warned the minister then responsible Dr Borg and then prison director Sandro Gatt of the prison situation at that time.

He had repeatedly asked the prison authorities to adopt a comprehensive drug policy for Corradino Correctional Facility but the request was “consistently denied”, he said.
Telling Mr Gatt and Dr Borg that the prison needed a comprehensive drug policy was putting it mildly. Yet, the authorities insisted, “there was no significant drug problem”.

Maybe, what they meant was that there was no problem obtaining drugs in prison. “It had become the norm and it was easier to get drugs in prison rather than outside,” Dr Jason Grima, for the prosecution told the court. Except that, according to witnesses the price paid for them inside was highly inflated.

“What’s emerged in the past days is just a snapshot of some of the contradictions in the prison system, which I had warned about some years ago,” Dr Felice said on Friday. He had resigned as Prison Board chairman on Good Friday of 2008 when things came to a head with Sandro Gatt. By which time, Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici had been given the poisoned chalice − the Home Affairs portfolio.

Mr Gatt had placed Melchior Spiteri in a maximum-security cell where he tried to take his own life. He was then confined to Mount Carmel Hospital for 48 hours. When he returned to prison, he was placed in a cell that “was manifestly unsafe and posed risks, both to his health and his life,” Dr Felice had said. When the board issued its recommendations, these were ignored for 30 hours.

This also raises the question of responsibility of the doctors assigned to the prison. Did s/he also make recommendations to the authorities? Dr Felice had also declared that certain prison inmates received preferential treatment with the blessing of Mr Gatt. One prisoner, Leli “Il-Bully” Camilleri, was said to “run the show in prison”, with other inmates going through him to access certain prison facilities such as prison leave.

“It’s pointless having a board that observes things, yet powerless to do anything about it. I have given this a lot of consideration, but there comes a time where you’re either complicit, or you have to call a spade a spade and let the authorities face the reality of things and assume some responsibility for it,” he said. Dr Felice had come to the conclusion that he did not share the same values on life and health as the prison’s administration.

I was on the Prison Board in the mid nineties for a couple of years but refused to stay on because of the hopelessness of the situation. I am just surprised that it took so long to implode and that it took the then Board chairman, Mario Felice, so long to resign since things had got a lot worse.

This was not the first time Dr Felice had resigned his post. Earlier that year (2008), the entire board stepped down en bloc over the lack of dialogue with the prison’s management, which it felt inhibited its functions. However, they were persuaded to stay on.
Dr Felice’s comments led to Mr Gatt resigning as prison director and returning to the police force. The government set up an inquiry into prison maladministration in August of that year.

The inquiry recommendations were published in March 2009 and Minister Mifsud Bonnici had forwarded the findings of the board to the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Police for further criminal investigations. He declined to make the report public, saying that to do so would prejudice police investigations.

“Unfortunately, prisons are breeding grounds for bullying (sometimes violent), and drugs and both are treated with a blind eye by the authorities. It is not easy to find the right kind of people to man prisons and drugs keep inmates subdued.” I wrote in my column “What are prisons for?” of 8 January this year.

It was in response to a Dutch prison inmate’s letter to Minister Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici, copied to the press claiming, “I am ill-treated every single day”. Perry Ignomar Toornstra had alleged that prison did nothing to reform him, but instead turned him into a “chain-smoking, heroin addict who has developed a total understanding of how to commit, and even enjoy, heinous unthinkable crimes”.

I had opined that although that kind of statement would not have done him any favours, (which society wants that kind of person on its streets?) it should have been a wakeup call to those people who have no understanding of what badly run prisons do to people.

Mario Felice, inmates and a prison guard had corroborated Mr Toornstra’s claims, insisting that il-Bully “runs the show in prison”. So even though Sandro Gatt had been replaced by this time, things had not changed.

I am not surprised that the judge in the Bickel case concluded that there was something seriously wrong at the prison and that he expressed the hope that this kind of situation was not being tolerated in order to control the prisoners without increasing the warders.
It is not enough for the government to say things are now being done to improve the situation; someone has to take the rap.

published in the Malta Sunday Independent on 18 December 2011 

Read More

Illegality − a moveable feast

This subject is one that makes me see red and makes me even more sceptical about politicians’ aims and objectives. It is not that long before we shall have to face the crucial decision on where this country is heading. Since politicians are in prepped-up mode, they should bear in mind all the misgivings (and there are many) the electorate is harbouring. On 6 January, the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (MEPA) will decide on an Enemalta application to build an electricity sub-station serving people who built ‘boathouses’ without permits in Marfa. I know that some will be thinking that surely the euro crisis is a more pressing topic. Of course it is, and I am sure other writers will address it as well as other vital issues that need tackling, but we still need to keep our fingers on the pulse on injustices and political wheeling and dealing. First of all, as the inverted comas suggest boathouses is a misnomer for the majority of these rooms. They are used as holiday homes. Public land is there for everyone and any illegal possession of such land by individuals should be immediately stopped. Instead, what we have seen is that those with the cheek to just avail themselves of prime sites, not only get away with it but are also aided and abetted by politicians to garner votes. NGOs are claiming that the squatters’ lobby made back-room agreements with the Labour Party (in Opposition) just before the last two national elections. If this is true, which seems likely, it would rather shatter Alfred Sant’s image of being whiter than white. On the eve of the 2003 election, an agreement was signed with the Nationalist government, which allowed the possible extension of the existing 67,000 square metres, with 800 illegal structures at Armier, to around 231,000 square metres, or 230 tumuli, of public land, against an annual rent of €350,000. Then just before the 2008 election, the Nationalist Party (PN) renewed that pledge. Furthermore, it said it would “consult with Mepa” on pending applications, said the NGOs. Since the PN won both those elections, we have and had a government that was and is accepting rent on illegal holiday homes, giving illegality legal status.  “One of the reasons brought forward by the illegal boathouse owners for the sanctioning of their illegal dwellings was that their premises had water and electricity supplied by government corporations (Enemalta and Water Services), hence government had acknowledged their position,” said a commentator on line. The government accepting rent further strengthens that argument. Basically, the government is renting out prime public land not only to legit developers, but also to those who just take possession of prime sites willy-nilly for use as holiday homes. It would be interesting to see what would happen if we all took advantage of such ‘perks’. Really, either way, the common garden, law-abiding citizens lose out on some of the best beaches. In 2004, the squatters, having been given grist to their mill, became highly organised and formed a limited company called Armier Developments, which should not even have been allowed to be registered, since if anything, the company should be called Armier Illegal Developments. It has a well designed website, which has a photo of a beautiful seafront view, no doubt one of the illegally occupied zones, minus the shantytown structures. Had it not been that the site’s only language is Maltese, it would no doubt have generated much interest among foreigners in search of caravan holiday homes. Anyway, Armier Developments submitted applications proposing the development of 1,589 rooms, five playgrounds and a bowling pitch, a mini-market, three restaurants, a two-storey garage, three community centres and a clinic in an area spanning Ramlet il-Qortin, Ta’ Macca u l-Armier, the Barriera tal-Ahrax quarry, Little Armier and the Torri l-Abjad zone. This sounds like a whole illegal town is being proposed. Besides, parts of these areas are supposedly protected as Areas of Ecological Importance (Habitat Directive), Special Protection Area (Birds Directive), Area of Ecological Importance/Site of Scientific Importance and Special Area of Conservation - International Importance, said the NGOs. I don’t know at what stage the applications are at, neither how the PN’s consultations with MEPA on the matter are faring. I just hope this issue will be a wake-up call to those who do not seriously question what MEPA is there for. The latter should not even be considering such an application and any submission to service an illegal entity should not even see the light of day. As for Enemalta, how on earth can such a body even think about applying to supply a service to illegal residencies? Nobody believes that they (the boathouses) are anything but holiday homes. “The existing squatters have in the past convinced Enemalta to supply electricity to their habitations,” said the NGOs. In a serious jurisdiction, there would have been an inquiry at that time, to establish how and why Enemalta was “convinced” to provide electricity to illegal structures? Illegality seems to be a moveable feast in this country. Had it not been for the seven environmental NGOs that are, luckily for us, insisting that the MEPA Board turn down the application, the subject might have flown under the radar. By their action the NGOs are not only fighting our battles but are also raising awareness on the despicable things that are sanctioned without the knowledge of the general public. The MEPA case officer has recommended refusal by the Board on the basis that this substation would benefit illegal development in the area. “There is no reason, from a planning point of view, as to why the substation should be permitted, considering how the proposed structure is aimed at providing services to beach rooms that are used as illegal holiday homes proposed to be demolished through the Structure Plan policies,” said his report. In line with that, the Planning Directorate is advising the MEPA board to turn down this application. But it is by no means a certainty that the Board will refuse the application. I therefore urge all right-minded people to voice their dismay and disapproval of the way the illegal squatters have already been given too much leeway and that it is time to stop the rot. Article published in the Malta Sunday Independent on 11 December 2011

Read More

“All change”, if we are to progress

Change is in the air. First we had the Nationalist Party (PN) conference where radical changes in a document, proposing a drastic shift in the party’s thinking, were presented. Then we had the Church also realising that change was essential for survival. How appropriate that this call for renewal in the Church is announced just before we celebrate the coming of Christ on earth. “We wish for the coming Christmas to serve as a powerful experience of this ‘light’ which stimulates us to make an effort to leave the dark womb of a closed mentality...”, said the bishop’s Pastoral Letter “The courage to renew oneself” for Advent 2011. The PN is changing to ensure it gets back into power and the Church is changing to retain it. As the Bishops put it so succinctly, “The one who does not renew himself will wither away”. Of course that applies to “herself” as well. Both institutions are realising that people are thinking for themselves more and more and will not follow blindly what politicians and priests tell them to do. The age of ‘talking down’ to parishioners and constituents is gone. Theologian Rene Camilleri recognised that fact. He told The (Malta) Times’ Claudia Calleja, “We [priests] exist to respect the people and to give them what they really need...” Politicians also need to respect the people they represent and not ride roughshod over them until an election is in the offing. The PN tried to influence people on divorce and failed, while the Church has realised that rather than being intimidated when threatened with fire and brimstone, people tend not to take it seriously. However, although the anti-divorce campaign fiasco for the Church and the PN brought the issue of change to a head, it was also other important issues, which have brought about this ‘rethink’ in these institutions. The distance between them and the grassroots has been increasing noticeably. They have seen the need to climb down from their ivory towers and not only mingle but understand what the community needs. It was interesting to note that Fr Camilleri thinks the Church should also be upfront about its tactics. Whereas, we are used to political parties using marketing to further their propaganda (except for the maverick priests who used billboards, banners and leaflets to promote their anti-divorce message) the Church is usually coy about “selling their product”. But Fr Camilleri is not bashful, “Speaking in commercial terms, the Church is a product. Until recently it took it for granted that people’s presence meant the product was being sold. But today, if the Church does not market itself well... there is a problem,” he said. And the problem is? Boring priests (well one of the difficulties). “The Church needs to update its structures to make Mass more appealing by, for example, not allowing a boring priest to celebrate the most well-attended Sunday Mass,” he told Ms Calleja. “We also need to have self-respect. If I realise I am boring people I need to do something about it,” he said. Unfortunately though, most boring people, not only priests, are blissfully unaware of the tedium they generate. Fr Camilleri believes that the boring priests are unlikely to change so, “It’s high time to review and update the structures.” So if the Church is also restructuring, it looks like it will be joining our national airline and it will be priests as well as pilots who will be made redundant. Of course priests cannot be fired unless they behave very badly. So the restructuring for the Church will mean moving the boring priests away from the congregation. If only it had thought of moving certain priests (not so much the boring) away from the congregation a lot earlier, it would have saved itself a lot of trouble. Now it is not just in marketing that the Church is following in political parties’ footsteps. It also called, last year, on the services of Church communications expert Jim McDonnell. He had advised that the Church had to vie with all the other institutions in a pluralistic society, since people were constantly bombarded with information and messages sent out by different media. The Church had “to compete” with that and make itself “relevant and interesting”. Religion would not be seen as boring if the information given out was relevant to people’s everyday lives. For example, subjects like “ethics and spirituality”, he had said. Now, the Church already has an excellent marketing tool in its radio station RTK, which broadcasts interesting and wide-ranging discussions. But, as the Bishops and Fr Camilleri mentioned, it is the ‘maverick’ priests who are doing a disservice by causing difficulties in communication. “Unless vigilant, the Church runs a risk of running dry with liturgy and becoming theatrical... In many cases, we are still speaking in yesterday’s language and using methods of the past, in spite of the fact that we are aware of the great risk we are taking by doing so,” said Archbishop Paul Cremona and Gozo Bishop Mario Grech’s letter. There were some very poignant points made in the letter, which if the Church had raised earlier would have lessened the need for divorce. While referring to the negativity of an existence lived by ‘habit’ the Bishops said, “In fact, we feel that habitualness is a condition which has infiltrated various aspects of human activity. “In marriage and the family, it is easy to become familiar with one another, with the result that we become careless in our relations.” Another relevant observation in the letter was, “Some people request the bestowal of the sacraments, for themselves, or for their children, as a social convention.” I have no doubt that there are people who go up to receive Holy Communion on Sundays, or at funerals and weddings, because they either feel peer pressure, or want to be seen as “good” in the eyes of their neighbours. “Habitualness leads to laxity, abuse and to mediocrity”, said the bishops recognising that change is essential if we are all to move forward. All this talk of change reminded me of travelling on the tube in London, when at certain stations an “All change” message was relayed for everyone to change trains. It is not enough for the Church and the PN to make radical changes; we still need to see more changes, especially in the political arena where it is sorely needed. Article published in the Malta Independent on Sunday on 04 December 2011

Read More

Human rights not applicable to all

Am I the only one confused by the recent European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) judgement on fireworks let off near people’s homes?  Does its ruling mean that the granting of permits for firework displays close to people’s homes did not breach human rights? Or is it just in the particular Zammit Maempel case that human rights have not been violated? I would assume the latter. However, the ruling can still be cited in any future similar dispute. Besides, it also applies to anyone living in a zone with a hundred or less residents. OK, if the family knew about the proximity of the fireworks displays when they bought their home that might be a valid argument, but surely the other reasons given by the court for rejecting the complaint are not that reasonable. On the one hand, it claimed that the complaint was admissible because “their (the complainants) right to respect for their private lives and home had been disturbed sufficiently”, and there is not doubt that the latter was justified. It then underrated the damage done by the hoisting of petards near people’s homes, on the basis that only a few residents live in that particular zone. Although the court declared that “ the physical and psychological state of the applicants had been affected”, it added “even if only temporarily” since, it said, the noise produced by the fireworks had lasted only for “a limited time”. Here, in Malta, we live through a ‘blitz’ situation every summer. Even if the noise only lasts “for a limited time” (sometimes up to an hour or more) in one location, why should anyone have to endure “physical and psychological” negative effects? The truth is that the “limited time” argument does not wash in Malta. As soon as one bombardment stops another in a different locality kicks off. It is precisely our size (ECHR found that the distinction between inhabited and uninhabited areas had to keep in mind Malta’s small size and densely populated nature) that makes the noise unbearable. We just can’t get away from it wherever we live on this tiny rock. It must be absolute hell for the unfortunate people who live close to any hoisting. Yet, the ECHR agreed with the Maltese Law that defines an inhabited area as being a place where more than 100 people live. It ruled that the family’s claims of discrimination were manifestly ill founded. It said that given Malta’s geographical limitations, the distances under discussion and the government’s efforts to minimise inconvenience, any difference in treatment between those living in “inhabited” and “uninhabited” areas was objectively justified. Funny, I thought that “uninhabited” meant no one lived there, as per the dictionary “without human habitation”. Is the law being an ass here? The issue was over the interpretation of the law on the safe distance for the firing of petards from an inhabited area. Does the ECHR think it is dispensing justice when it confirms that the people who live in a zone that has 100, or less, residing there have not got the same right to human rights as those living in a 100+ zone? The latter is a thorny subject, which has been under dispute for years. After complaints to the Commissioner of Police in the mid nineties got no results, an appeal was made to the Ombudsman. In 1999, he concluded that the Commissioner of Police should seek expert advice on the subject. A group of experts entrusted with looking into the situation recommended that the fields used for the firework displays should be classified as a restricted area under the applicable regulations. That recommendation was not taken up. Interestingly, in its recent (2011) judgement the ECHR said that since the Commissioner of Police had not followed the experts’ advice, the Zammit Maempels could have challenged “his/her” (does a female police commissioner exist anywhere yet?) decision in ordinary civil court proceedings; therefore, an avenue for seeking redress at national level had been open to them. Since they had instead undertaken constitutional redress proceedings, it could not be said that they had not had an opportunity to make their views heard. The fact that the outcome of those proceedings had not been favourable to them was not sufficient to establish that they had not had access to the decision-making process, ruled the ECHR last week. In 2001, the Ombudsman had criticised the issuing of licences, in particular as regards the applicable distances and type of fireworks. Yet, the Commissioner of Police has continued to issue permits for two feasts a year in the disputed area ever since. Which raises another important issue, namely, is there a point to having an Ombudsman if everybody ignores his (it’s pointless having his/her) recommendations? Is that organisation just another pen pusher’s den? There are plans to make that office financially autonomous. But will that turn the poodle into a Doberman? Having got nowhere, in 2005, the applicants instituted constitutional redress proceedings against the Police Commissioner and the Attorney General in the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. In 2009, Mr Justice Raymond C Pace ruled that the definition of what constituted an inhabited area did not bring about a balance between interference by a public authority and what was necessary to protect the privacy of an individual. He found that the legal definition brought about discrimination between different groups of persons. He also noted that the Ombudsman had concluded that the Police Commissioner should not have issued the licenses, based on the findings of experts on the matter. He ruled that the definition of “inhabited area” in the law governing the granting of permits for the letting off of fireworks was in violation of a family’s fundamental human right to privacy and to freedom from discrimination. However, that decision was reversed on appeal. That court ruled that the inconvenience suffered by the family was self-inflicted, as it had moved to an area where fireworks had been let off for over 70 years. While the noise and peril from the fireworks had caused the applicants some “inconvenience”, the relevant regulations had been applied correctly and had struck a fair balance between the applicants’ rights and the interest of the community as a whole, said the Constitutional Court. The ECHR agreed with the latter. It noted that although “the noise levels could have impaired the hearing of at least one of the applicants, there had not been a real and immediate risk to the applicants’ life or personal integrity”. So the impaired hearing of at least one of the applicants was not a “real risk” to personal integrity? Firstly, it does not look like the ECHR was aware of the levels of noise, especially those produced by the petards. I don’t know whether any data was presented on that score. But I do know that they cause discomfort, and sometimes worse, to quite a chunk of the population who live miles away from where the fireworks are let off. So one can only imagine the level of noise endured by those living close by. So how does that explain “no immediate risk to personal integrity”? One of the reasons the ECHR gave was that it was accepted that firework displays are one of the highlights of village feasts, "which undeniably generated an amount of income and which, therefore, aided the general economy". So there we have it. It is all about the money. As for citing “religious heritage” to uphold their ruling, it is obvious that the ECHR was not aware that the Church in Malta set up an Environmental Commission, which strongly criticised the overuse and pique involved in the fireworks industry and published leaflets demonstrating the negative side of fireworks. The Court cited that the government had been aware of the dangers of fireworks and had put in place a system whereby people and properties were protected to “a certain degree”. Thus, the issuing of permits for firework displays, as well as for transportation and uploading of fireworks, had been provided for in specific regulations. Furthermore, police inspectors and fire fighters had monitored the letting off of fireworks. Insurance covering the activity had also been mandatory, it said. The fact that insurance cover is now mandatory is further proof of the risks involved. Of course the amount of deaths and injuries caused by explosions at fireworks shacks, one cannot really call them factories, was what made that move necessary. Lives of the people not involved in the making of fireworks may not be directly threatened, but a large chunk of the population’s lives are made unnecessarily stressful by the pervasive noise pollution the Maltese have to endure all through the summer months. But of course, unfortunately, this was not what the ECHR was presented with. The fireworks industry has an impressive and powerful lobby and challenging it requires much more than the endeavours of one family. Article published in the Malta independent on Sunday27 November 2011

Read More

U turns, best practice and transparency

Having a hard time to get my teeth into what to write about, despite the “Dog attacks baby” story and Mercaptan, not to mention the Budget, I found a nice morsel in yesterday’s events, which finally gave me something to really chew on. The Nationalist Party (PN) is holding its General Council meeting this weekend with the theme “We are proud of our country because we believe in our country”. Well, no one can dispute that sentiment. But wow, is the PN getting that desperate? It is telling us that it is planning to promote legislation to grant rights to non-married couples, including gay couples. Again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that line of thought, but it does rather stick in the gullet coming from a party that fought tooth and nail to keep divorce out of the country very recently. The PN has always been a Church ally, especially in the belief of the nuclear family. But, it seems that the party has seen the light and that the time has come for the two institutions to separate. It is stating that while it was proud to be inspired by Catholic values, it was also aware of the clear distinction between Church and State. A very big step for the PN. Their polls and the divorce debacle (for it and the Church) must have set the alarm bells off at Pieta. It can’t be to counterattack the Cyrus Engerer saga? Surely not. The announcement that the PN is to become progressive in its thinking demonstrated a lack of depth and had undertones of panic. It is covering as much lost ground as possible by stressing that civil liberties must be strengthened in areas of individual privacy, freedom of expression and censorship. It wants to win votes by telling us that it is accepting that society is not static and that it has to learn to accept changes to Malta’s ‘traditional’ way of life. That it is ‘listening’. Yet, it does not want to lose a large chunk of its voters – the reactionaries, who have always seen the PN as their champion. So it emphasised that the family remains at the core of society. It wants to reassure them that the PN remains committed to work to further strengthen the family, despite divorce. Which raises the question, which “family” exactly? This volte-face is also telling us that the closet progressives in the PN have been encouraged by Franco Debono and are coming out from within its enclaves. Despite some attempts to undermine Debono in the media, it seems that his party is having to acknowledge his input and influence. It will be seeking constitutional reform for financial autonomy to Parliament and other institutions, including the Ombudsman, the Auditor General, the Public Accounts Committee and the Permanent Commission Against Corruption. Hopefully, financial autonomy will result in complete autonomy. Now that the PN has laid its ‘new’ cards on the table, it will be interesting to see how the Labour Party (PL) will react and try to match it by tackling radical changes in its party. Best practice An eight-month investigation by the Auditor General into the way ministers gave themselves a substantial and secretive pay rise in 2008 has concluded that although no evidence of illegal misappropriation of public funds was found, the implementation of the Cabinet decision was “incorrect and a good example of bad practice”. It seems that an attempt was made to make the pay increases unnoticeable in the Budget votes. Documenting and charting procedures and practices is a complicated and time-consuming process often skipped by companies and institutions and is termed as “bad practice”. When it comes to how government spends public money it is crucial that best practice is adopted. Otherwise, the government puts itself in the position of trying to pull wool over the public’s eye. Transparency Have you noticed that when you click on “About us” on some websites you are not told who “us” are? I have come across this several times recently when trying to find out who Board members are, or whoever is running a company or institution. Yet, we are led to believe that transparency is the order of the day. This is not just about people not wanting to let us know who they are and what they are up to. At the beginning of this column, I mentioned “Mercaptan”. An inquiry board was set up by Finance Minister Tonio Fenech at the end of September to investigate allegations that Enemalta illegally disposed of the chemical by burning it in an open field in 2009. It “was to deliver results at the earliest possible,” although no deadline was established. On Friday, Minister Fenech said the investigation is at an advanced stage but its times frames were not determined. No rush. Enemalta is alleged to have instructed contractors to dispose of 10 barrels containing 450 gallons of the chemical by burning it in a field on the outskirts of Rabat. I had read that the Malta Environment and Planning Authority had confirmed it did not authorise any burning of hazardous chemicals in an open field and launched a separate investigation into the matter. I don’t know whether that inquiry has reached a verdict. This saga raises many questions on transparency and safety when it comes to the disposal of dangerous chemicals. Since we are encouraging more pharmaceutical companies to invest and grow here, we should really be establishing some ground rules and best practice on chemical waste, not to mention monitoring and enforcement. Lastly, and this has nothing to do with my heading, but I was just so incensed that Minister Fenech had the gall to invite the public to participate in the City Gate project funding. The €80m project includes the demolition of city gate, the rebuilding of city gate bridge, the building of a new parliament building and the conversion of the old theatre ruins into an open air theatre. Leaving aside my personal anger at not the demolition of the gate but the ensuing gap. But, hang on a minute, did I read “rebuilding of the bridge”? We need clarification here. Anyway, the public at large has directed harsh criticism at the new parliament building and the open-air theatre. Yet, now it is being invited to help pay for it. Article published in the Malta Independent on Sunday  20 November 2011

Read More

Politics can be fun, if also worrying

Article published in the Malta Independent on Sunday on 06 November 2011 Were we really waiting with bated breath to see the outcome on the debate in Parliament on Friday evening? I would have thought the outcome was predictable. Excepting for Franco Debono, the rest of the PN MPs would obey their Whip and the Speaker was certainly not going to go against his party by casting his crucial vote in favour of the LP motion asking for Austin Gatt’s resignation. However, there is no doubt that there were some anxieties harboured by Gatt’s hangers on. There are still a few loose components in the PN machine and although they stuck by their party last night, things are not running smoothly, hence the Prime Minister’s request for a motion for a vote of confidence in his government. The protest on the public transport flop would also have left its mark. Dr Gonzi needs to rein in his disgruntled MPs and a vote of confidence will mean that they will have to make a decision on whether they want to stay in his party and toe the line, or not. Not an easy decision to make. They obviously have political ambitions and crossing the floor is no guarantee that their objectives will be reached. Basically, they have nowhere to go. By yesterday morning, Dr Gonzi had still not decided on whether Franco Debono, who seems to be the only one as ballsy as Austin Gatt in the PN, will be asked to relinquish his post of Parliamentary Assistant at the Office of the Prime Minister. Dr Debono has said that he will favour the vote of confidence in his party’s government. He managed to get a 50-minute allocation for his speech instead of five in yesterday’s debate, which was a wise decision. We had to be shown that we at least have some democracy left. His main point was that Minister Gatt should shoulder his responsibility for the public transport fiasco. The Prime Minister had fielded that point earlier by issuing a statement saying that the buck stopped with him and that the whole Cabinet was responsible for the reform. Maybe, but the Prime Minister and the Cabinet were not responsible for the implementation and that is the crux of the matter. The reform took three years of planning, yet no one seemed to realise that the buses we would get were too cumbersome for our roads. I was driving behind three of them in Rudolph Street next to the Imperial Hotel, in Sliema, the other day and hoping an ambulance, or any other emergency service, would not need access. But I digress and anyway commuters are more concerned with the bad service then the size of the buses. Of course we needed the reform and yes we have got rid of the awful emissions, shabby buses and some really rude and aggressive drivers. But the alternative has proved a disaster in the very late arrivals, overlong journeys and complicated routes not to mention the ticketing letdown. Gatt now claims it is all Arriva’s fault, (even after that company’s CEO issued a statement earlier praising the minister) and has not accepted the resignations of the Transport Malta’s chairman and CEO. What a farce. An important point in Dr Debono’s speech ending, directed at the Prime Minister, was not related to Minister Gatt, well not directly, or to the public transport reform, but to our Public Broadcasting Service. He might not have used the right analogy by comparing it to the 1980s. But he does have a point; our national TV station is seen as anything but national. A lot was said about democracy at the commemoration of the 90th anniversary of the first sitting of the legislative assembly on Wednesday. However, despite all the speeches for strengthening democracy, I am sure I am not the only one to be anything but convinced that some of the parliamentarians mean it. The Speaker, Michael Frendo, proposed the reactivation of the select committee on the strengthening of democracy, which the Prime Minister said he had proposed to be set up three years ago. “The Select Committee was, and remained, the best forum for strengthening democracy,” he maintained. He said that although there had been unanimous approval in the House, the Opposition withdrew from this committee 18 months ago. Well, as far as I remember, the reason the Opposition withdrew was because it felt that democracy was not being upheld in the way the Public Accounts Committee was dealing with the Power Station saga. In fact, Joseph Muscat referred to the PAC in his speech: “The rules regulating the Public Accounts Committee should also be amended so that if a minister, responsible for a particular entity, presided over such committee would give up his place during such hearing.” The Power Station PAC debate, which has just resumed, had kept being postponed and I believe was last postponed sine die in October last year, after the Opposition had asked for a Speaker’s ruling on the calling of witnesses. The governments’ representatives on the Committee had voted against the calling of witnesses. “Whoever heard of an investigative committee not calling crucial witnesses? One might as well dissolve the PAC the way things are going. Do we need another useless ‘watchdog’? Why do I get the feeling we are being taken for a ride? Our watchdogs, not just the PAC, are either being kept on a leash too tight to function, or are slumbering in complacency. “Minister Austin Gatt, who was the one to object to the calling of witnesses, should not even have been sitting in on this debate, since the power station came under his portfolio at the time the contract was being worked on and finalised. If anything, he should be summoned to give evidence,” I had opined in a column in October 2010. It was certainly undemocratic for a minister involved to be part of an investigative committee of a contract, which a Times editorial (24 April 2010) had referred to as having been handled in an “unacceptably sloppy way” and that there was “sufficient evidence of bad public governance to send shivers down the spine of many hard working taxpayers who have to bear the cost of such laxness”. In my October article and another earlier one, “It will not go away”, of 2 May last year, I had mentioned that although our PAC structure is based on the UK’s Public Accounts Committee, Cabinet ministers in the UK are expressly excluded from sitting on the PAC. Here, Ministers Tonio Fenech and Austin Gatt were on the PAC and would be voting on the outcome. So it looks like a fait accompli, I had opined. The PAC is composed of four members from government and three members from the Opposition including the chairman who does not have a casting vote. How can the PAC effectively scrutinise the workings of government with two Cabinet ministers and two other government MPs on the committee and only three Opposition members, including the chairman who does not have a casting vote? Now the PAC is finally questioning the witnesses Minister Gatt had objected to and he is still a very active participant on the committee. But let’s get back to the Prime Minister’s speech, which rather baffled me because on the one hand he said: “Democratic institutions had to be strengthened to ensure they were responding to the peoples’ needs and dealing with the real priorities.” Yet, on the other he cited “populism, which was again rearing its ugly head,” as “the enemy”. Now maybe the Maltese version of populism has a different meaning to the English one. As far as I know, Populism is a political philosophy, which advocates the rights and interests of ordinary people. But according to the Prime Minister, it apparently means, “irresponsibly offered half truths and simplistic arguments which appealed to everyone’s negative sentiments”.

Read More

Trick or treat?

Will there be any children asking “trick or treat?” on Balzan doorsteps tomorrow? The one-day mini carnival, where children and young people dress up as witches, skeletons, or with just a white sheet with eye holes in order to appear scary and ‘trick’ people into giving them sweets (treat), is just a bit of harmless fun. Yet, parents in Balzan have been warned by its parish that allowing their children to take part in the Halloween fun tomorrow will “expose them to sadism, sexual violence, Satanism, torture, mutilation and strange killing”. Overkill, springs to mind. Has the parish priest been watching too many programmes on the telly, which have all the above horrid and chilling aspects and which might in fact expose children to violence and ghoulishness? Those are what glamorise violence, the occult and macabre rather than kids dressing up for “Trick or Treat”. Sensationalism is not something we used to associate with the Church. But it seems that ever since the divorce campaign got on the road, parish priests have gone Maverick and started using shock posters and notices posted in letterboxes to put their point across. Unfortunately for them though, the divorce over-alarmist messages had the opposite effect to what was desired by the Church. Yet, even after that grand fiasco, some have still not got the message that people are much more sophisticated these days and are not cowered by shocking, melodramatic and lurid warnings, especially when they are so obviously an exaggerated versions of events. The leaflet sent to households in Balzan, which warned against the “serious danger” of Halloween and said it celebrates a culture of death and attacks that which is holy, carried an illustration of a skull and pumpkin. What I found really amusing was that right next to the report in The Times, an advert depicting witches on broomsticks, bats and a full moon urged readers to buy “crazy, glowing, freaky contact lenses”. I wondered what wearing those might lead to. Now a message to partygoers to watch out for the risks involved in drug taking and overindulgence in alcohol would have been more sensible and apt. Parish priest Fr Kalcidon Vassallo “insisted his message was not overly alarmist” and he was just stating the facts. “References to sexual violence, torture and sadism were there as warnings on what dabbling in the occult could lead to,” he explained. “Children dressing up or trick-or-treating do so innocently. But it is good for parents to know that doing so might lead to these things,” Fr Vassallo said. What facts? How many cases of murder, sadism, Satanism, sexual violence and mutilation have been reported as result of children dressing up and trick-or-treating on Halloween night? As for “dabbling in the occult”, unless, whoever uses the term clearly defines what they mean by it, they can only confuse. Surely the parish priest of Balzan does not believe that children dressing up as witches will lead them to practising witchcraft and sorcery? Will he be sending a note asking parents to stop their children from reading any J. K. Rowling Harry Potter books, watching the film series, or Disney’s The Sorcerers Apprentice next? Meanwhile, the report stated that the Curia “avoided any direct reference to the note, but reiterated its central tenets”. Now is that ambiguous or what? Which “central tenets” exactly? That children dressing up can lead to Satanism, sexual violence, torture, mutilation and killing? Just like it did with the alarmist anti-divorce posters. It seems the Curia cannot make up its mind on whether alarmist tactics work or not. Fr Hector Scerri, president of the Church’s Theological Commission explained further that Halloween is focused on darkness and the occult, evil spirits and the macabre presentation of skeletons and bones, which he said contrasted with the Church’s theology, which was based on light, eternal life and the beauty and goodness of God. Well, does he really think that Halloween revellers here focus on the occult and evil spirits? It is true that the macabre such as skeletons are depicted, but it is in fun and the wearers of such costumes have no intention of partying with evil spirits or embracing the “culture of death”. Of course the Church sees it as its duty to make a statement on non-Christian festivals and which in its eyes might lead to evil. But it does itself no favours by exaggerating to the point of hilarity. Really, the only harm that can happen to children dressing up and trick-or-treating on Halloween night is to their teeth, through eating too many sweets. Article published in The Malta Independent on Sunday on 30 October 2011

Read More

What a hypocritical world we live in

How can countries that market arms to tyrannical regimes pretend that they do not support human rights violations?  What is even more two-faced is that they then get on their high horse and interfere militarily, or subtly, in other countries because of atrocities caused by weapons supplied by themselves?

I am so nauseated by politicians supporting and selling arms to dictators then turning all shocked and appalled when those weapons are used to ensure the tyrants retain their power.

UK anti arms campaigners have expressed dismay that Bahrain, which has killed scores of mainly Shias (who are treated as second-class citizens) since protests broke out in February, has been invited to one of the World’s largest arms fairs being hosted in London’s docklands.

When, in the early hours of 17 February, Bahrain security police stormed the roundabout where a protest was being held, doctors, nurses and paramedics went to the aid of people who had been shot, beaten and tear-gassed.

The security forces were not well pleased and according to reports at least one doctor was attacked by baton-wielding officers while tending to an injured demonstrator.

Doctors staged a protest after word spread that security forces were preventing the wounded from being taken to hospital. They blocked the entrance to the hospital, demanding the resignation of the health minister.

Other hospital workers, including nurses, joined in the protests. This led to 47 medics held under arrest in March. In early June, those doctors and nurses who had treated injured protesters in Bahrain appeared in a special military court in Manama charged with attempting to topple the monarchy.

The list of invitees to the Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) exhibition, which also included included Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, the UAE and Kazakhstan, had been held back from the campaigners until the press started asking for it last week.

More than 1,300 companies, around half of which are British are participating in the exhibition. Sixty-five countries have been invited.

In February, we saw the embarrassment of the US government in the early days of the revolution in Egypt, when the media was ever so careful not to call it that. Tear gas used against the regime protestors, obviously supplied by the US, flashed on our TV screens and we discovered that countries, notably the US, had subsidised Mubarak’s military to the tune of 1.3 billion dollars a year.

Although President Barak Obama applied pressure on the Egyptian military for it not to attack the protestors, had the Egyptian people not been so resolute to overthrow Mubarak, the so-called democratic countries would still be propping him up.

He would no doubt have been invited to the current UK arms fair as well as Gadaffi.

And all is not over in Egypt, last week the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), (whose representatives have no doubt visited the arms fair) widened the scope of the emergency law – restricted in 2010 by Mr Mubarak to narcotics and terrorism – to include strikes, traffic disruption and the spreading of rumours.

Hundreds are again gathering in Cairo’s Tahrir Square to protest against the recent expansion of the emergency law. The Egyptians are now protesting at the military’s handling of transition from autocratic rule.

When the price of oppression was being counted in Egypt in February, UK prime minister David Cameron told reporters “If we see on the streets of Cairo today state-sponsored violence by thugs hired to beat up protesters, the regime will lose any remaining credibility it has in the eyes of the watching world, including Britain.”

My question to Mr Cameron is how can Britain pretend to hold the high ground over “state sponsored violence” while defending the arms industry as a vibrant and lucrative part of the UK economy and inviting authoritarian regimes to buy its weapons?

No doubt there will also be loads of information relating to the use of weapons and companies marketing arms training and more at such fairs.

What is the point of inviting Bahrain, where political parties are banned, when earlier this year the British Government revoked a number of export licences after it emerged that in 2010 the Department of Business approved the export of a host of crowd-control weapons.

The Foreign Office is defending the invitation adding that export licences are under review following the Arab Spring. And in true double-speak a spokesman said, “An invitation does not mean that licences will be automatically issued for the goods exhibited. We will not issue licences where we judge there is a clear risk that the proposed export might provoke or prolong regional or internal conflicts, or, which might be used to facilitate internal repression,”

I see, the invitations are sent just to tempt tyrants and other unsavoury heads of State and to let them know what is on the market. After all they can always find a way to procure the goods as long as they have loads of money.

In 2009 Britain’s future defence secretary, Liam Fox, future development secretary Alan Duncan and former Tory leader Michael Howard all had stays in Bahrain for “security conferences” or meetings with the sheikhs paid for by Bahrain.

In December 2010 foreign secretary William Hague, US secretary of state Hillary Clinton and other world leaders attended the International Institute for Strategic Studies Conference (IISS) in Bahrain. All heaped praise on Bahrain’s royal family. The conference agenda had five headings under “Security”; however, “Democracy” did not feature.

Bahrain is a vital US ally because it is home to the US Navy's Fifth Fleet and the US has been far more supportive of the ruling al-Khalifa family than it was of President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt or President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia.

The UK anti arms campaigners are right in insisting that Britain's determination to sell arms abroad is ethically unacceptable. But, since when have ethics stopped governments doing what they please.

Read More

Calling a spade a spade

The Church has apologised and is even discussing compensation with the victim’s lawyers, now that so much has been exposed on the child abuse cases, despite its attempts to suppress the state of affairs. But rather than keeping schtum and quietly taking the deserved flak it is now blaming the media.

Of course, there are some in the media that thrive on sensationalism, but the Church representatives, like all those striving to retain power, have used that very same media to the hilt when it suits. If the media, not just here but internationally, had not exposed what was going on what would the state of play be today I wonder?

Not taking responsibility is an unfortunate trait shared by many. It is never virtuous for people to shirk their obligations, but when it is a religious or State body that evades facing up to their moral or legal duty it is more serious than just the lack of doing the honourable thing.

In the case of institutions like the Church or government, it is not just a matter of doing the right thing. It goes beyond that. As the ones who lead, they have an obligation to put things right and stop passing the buck.

In the child abuse cases involving the Church for example, we have seen evasive action being spun and spun in the attempt to minimise the damage to that institution. We have seen a global

shirking of responsibility on a long-term span.

As I remarked a couple of weeks ago, the onus goes further than the priests who committed the abuse. As in country by country child abuse by priests was being exposed, the Church was very slow in taking global action. It dealt with the problem individually as the worst was uncovered. We had bishops resigning, but containment was the order of the day.

Nevertheless, it was getting more difficult to suppress what was going on in places where children were meant to be protected, especially from evil. Documentaries were being released exposing how abusive priests in North America, Ireland and elsewhere were moved on to other parishes.

We heard about child abuse by priests that had gone undetected for years. There were cases where rather than keeping the priests suspected of abusing children away from them, they were sent to remote countries where communities were even more trusting.

The awful saga, which had been building up internationally for a while, was bound to affect us here as well. Despite that, there are still people who believe we live in a bubble, the awful revelation that child abuse in religious institutions was happening here too hit the fan, and the Curia had to tentatively pull its head out of the sand.

One of its evasive action ploys had been launching a “Response team”. The man who heads it Judge Caruana Colombo wrote in The Times on Thursday, “the Response Team does not decide whether an alleged perpetrator is guilty or otherwise of the alleged abuse.”

So, what is the point of having such an investigative body in the first place? Surely not to stretch things out interminably. Even the Vatican's chief prosecutor, Mgr Charles Scicluna, was critical of the way the Response Team handled the sex abuse cases and accused it of dragging its feet.

Besides, hang on a minute. Did the Response Team not send Charles Pulis, the now defrocked priest, back to carry on with his ‘good work’ following their first investigation, which in an unusually speedy process  (the Response Team investigations usually took up to seven years for it to reach a decision) concluded that he was ‘not guilty’ as charged.

And please let us call a spade a spade. I have just about had my fill of people trying to mystify by using sophistry. If an investigative body finds allegations unfounded, it means it found the alleged perpetrator not guilty since the allegations were not supported by evidence.

It took no more than a couple of months to reach the decision that the accusations of abuse against Pulis were unfounded. He was caught lying on his bed in his underwear with a boy on top of him.

The court, however, decided otherwise, “In circumstances where Carmelo Pulis allows minors in his room at about 11.45 p.m., while wearing a vest and boxer shorts, with a boy lying down on him and ending up with an erection, while saying that he never had homosexual tendencies and was allergic to homosexuals, to say the least, is contradictory,” it said in its judgement.

The Response Team had initiated a second investigation in October 2003, which this time took up nearly a decade to conclude that the accusations were “founded” after all.

Not only did the Response Team take nearly a decade to come to a different decision, but also, we were told, no decision on guilt or innocence would be reached after all those lengthy deliberations.

That was not the team’s function said the learned judge. Its raison d’être was to  “conduct a preliminary inquiry into allegations of sexual abuse by pastoral functionaries. The purpose of such an inquiry is to obtain information determining whether or not there are reasonable, or probable grounds to believe that there has been a situation of child sexual abuse.  

So, the Response Team is an enquiring body that establishes whether there should be an enquiry! However, it had established that there was no need for an enquiry in their first quick deliberation.

It took no more than a couple of months to reach the decision that Pulis was not guilty of abuse.

In some cases, even before concluding an investigation and without implying guilt or innocence, the Response Team may advise the Church to remove the accused from a position of access to minors, said Judge Caruana Colombo.

Nevertheless, the Team advised the Church that Pulis need not be removed from such a position in their first assessment, despite clear indications that he was totally unsuitable to carry on with that work.

In his article explaining the workings of the Response Team Judge Caruana Colombo said “The acts of the investigation ... are to be kept in the secret Curial archives...” (Can. 1719). This rule of Canon Law binds to confidentiality all who are officially concerned in the conduct or review of such investigations, whether they are members of the Response Team or otherwise.

“Even the fact that a person is being, or has been, investigated is confidential. In this regard, the right of the victims of abuse to maximum privacy is a very important factor.”

However, the judge might want to follow up on recent events at the Vatican. Confidential files about an abuse case in the United States are to be released in an attempt to defend itself against accusations of a cover-up.

I cannot understand how despite its manifest mishandling of the child abuse cases the Response Team, which should have been renamed the Slow Reaction Team, has not been disbanded.

Read More

The ‘must-have’ generation

Phew, what a relief, local ‘experts’ do not predict riots in Malta.

I know that news here is mild compared to what is happening everywhere else, but still! “There will never be the necessary passion for riot frenzy” was the quote in The Times that summed it up for me. What an indictment on Maltese youth.

So much is being said about what spurred the violence and looting in the UK and the media is having a field day. Everyone has a theory and quite a bit of fascism and worse has risen to the surface.

Of course, many of us say we believe in the right to oppose. It is when opposition is manifested in thuggery that some people overreact. I know that some of you would already be raising an eyebrow at my using the word “overreact”.

“Surely she is not condoning the violence”, I can hear some people say. I do not condone the criminal behaviour of those who committed arson, damaged property and helped themselves to Plasma TVs and other ‘must-have’ items.

Nevertheless, society has to accept that we are bombarded through our letterboxes and especially on television, which sits in every living room of even the poorest amongst us, with items that are expensive but that we ‘really should have’!

The young are the most susceptible to the constant marketing and since they are subjected to the regular mantra that they simply must have a Plasma TV, a Smart phone or Ipad and they cannot afford to buy them, the straw finally broke and they reacted in the way they did.

Of course, what they did was wrong and the fracas was appalling, but I will not join the “send them to Afghanistan” brigade.  Or, much worse, agree with atrocious vengeance like: “The cops should use Maltese fireworks (the serious rockets) at ground level and take out as many legs and kneecaps as possible and then leave the looters, arsonists, etc laying, bleeding in the gutters.”

The latter appeared in the comments section of the Malta Times online. The man proposing such extreme revenge also believes that thieves should have their hands cut off and liars their tongues cut out! Wow, the latter should leave some politicians, not to mention many others speechless.

The writer who must belong to the Maltese version of the Taliban said, “I received the cane in school with my pants down in front of the whole morning assembly.Very minor offences, I should mention. Did this make me a respectful and considerate adult? You bet it did!”

Well, that explains how the humiliation he was exposed to as a child has damaged his outlook on how to deal with wrongdoers. I am not sure how “considerate” fits in with his sadistic intentions, but I am no expert.

Interestingly, there was no trace of vengeance in the reactions of a father whose son was killed in the riots and whose words were praised by the police for doing more to quieten things down than the police could. Nor were any venomous words forthcoming from the young man whose possessions were stolen by rioters, who pretended to come to his aid as he bled from a broken jaw.

Another commentator’s advice was to reduce our streets to a war zone “The police had better gear up. A good stock of tear gas and 50, 000 volt Tasers to start with. And loaded guns are always a good idea. I personally believe the UK should be using tanks and snipers against them.” Now if you ask me, this person is a good candidate to volunteer to fight in Afghanistan where he could put his ideas into action.

The issue of the riots in the UK is complex. Sure, the fact that black youths are more likely to be targeted in ‘stop and search’ by the police is a factor. Besides, the current financial crisis and unemployment is another reason for discontent. Especially, since the current young generation have been brought up to believe that we can all live in the lap of luxury, surrounded by the latest in technology, driving fast cars and wearing designer garb.

But, the dynamic that sparked the UK riots goes deeper. The make up of the rioters cut across race, class and financial bracket. Why would employed young people, some professionals, 11-year-olds, the 19-year-old daughter of a company director who is currently at Exeter University and a 17-year-old ballerina want to pillage, as though their country was at war?

These people are not part of ‘gang culture’. So why did they do it? Is it the role models they see on music television stations?

The barely clad, foul mouthed youth who have made it despite their backgrounds and who seem to spread the message that “you can have everything you want, baby”.

Is it the lack of good parenting? Is it the violence they are exposed to daily on their television screens?

It is probably, a mix of all those things. Nevertheless, they cannot shift all the blame away from themselves.

(Apologies to those who already read this on my Facebook wall post on Friday, but I had to include the following). They could do with some straight talking, like that doled out by Michael A. Nutter (don’t be deceived by his surname) the Mayor of Philadelphia in the US, who after a recent spate of “flash mob” attacks by African-American youths had this to say, which applies across the board and not just to Afro-American youth:

“Take those God-darn hoodies down, especially in the summer. Pull your pants up and buy a belt ’cause no one wants to see your underwear or the crack of your butt.

“If you walk into somebody’s office with your hair uncombed and a pick in the back, and your shoes untied, and your pants half down, tattoos up and down your arms and on your neck, and you wonder why somebody won’t hire you? They don’t hire you ’cause you look like you’re crazy.”

Absentee fathers, (this also applies widely) got a lash of Nutter’s wit as well, “The Immaculate Conception of our Lord Jesus Christ took place a long time ago, and it didn’t happen here in Philadelphia. So every one of these kids has two parents who were around and participating at the time. They need to be around now.

“If you’re just hanging out, out there, maybe you’re sending them a check or bringing some cash by. That’s not being a father. You’re just a human ATM… And if you’re not providing the guidance and you’re not sending any money, you’re just a sperm donor.”

However, besides the misguided youth, possibly with absentee fathers, who went on the rampage, there were the usual opportunists - hardened criminals, violent thugs and mindless anarchists - who took advantage of the situation. And who, unfortunately, will be the ones most likely to slip through the net of the police backlash. Anyway, that is my reading of the situation. But, I am no expert.

Read More

From spliffs to right wing extremists

"I don’t think the police usually raid an establishment or a residence on the grounds of someone smoking a joint, or being a known pothead"

 

A couple of weeks ago, I could not understand why everyone here (in Malta) was getting so excited about Cyrus Engerer, a teeny, tiny tadpole in our puddle, when the rest of the world was being rocked by Rupert Murdoch’s News of the World (now defunct) phone tapping scandal.

Britain is still reeling over the deplorable issue, with more incriminating evidence being revealed day by day. Besides,  Cameron’s government is under pressure due to its weak economic growth. Of course, the EU is fraught with financial concerns.

Even the US, the major capitalist country, is in crisis with its politicians playing a precarious game with regard to their country’s debt crisis. In simple terms, it does not have enough money in the kitty to pay all of its bills and if the Republicans and the Democrats don’t resolve the stalemate over raising the debt ceiling their country faces default.

While here, we are all agog over a gay couple’s shenanigans, which let loose abundant homophobic sentiment.  And why? Because one of them, Cyrus Engerer, was a Nationalist Party (PN) local councillor and Sliema’s deputy mayor who defected to the Opposition. 

However, one must concede that the amateur dramatics have now thrown up some serious concerns, which have been simmering under the surface for a while now. One of them being, where the lines are drawn between the police and the government, another is nepotism and yet another is manipulative leaks to the media.

In the UK , the cosiness of the ties between politicians and the news media - particularly the relationship between lawmakers and editors and executives at News International - is one of the issues Justice Leveson (Prime Minister David Cameron’s appointee to chair the panel that will investigate the phone tapping scandal) will be considering.

While here, an enquiry chaired by Judge Albert Manche (appointed by the government) - in response to a call by the Police Commissioner John Rizzo, at a press conference about two criminal cases involving Cyrus Engerer and his father Christopher - is to look into allegations of abuse of power, negligence or undue pressure. However, it does not look like the media’s connections are to come under scrutiny.

The Opposition leader Joseph Muscat said he had no confidence in Judge Manche, who also heads the Permanent Commission Against Corruption, which he said “never found a case of corruption in 12 years”. He also said that an enquiry should look into how charges issued against Cyrus Engerer were leaked to the press the same morning they were filed in court.

Cyrus’s lawyer Franco Debono is also questioning the retired judge’s appointment claiming, “I cannot understand how the minister objects to raising the retirement age for judges to 70 and then appoints a judge who has been retired for the past 10 years to lead an inquiry into such an important matter”.

He has also presented a judicial protest against the Police Commissioner and the Registrar of the Courts in connection with The Times report on the charges filed by the police against his client. The Times reported the charges against Cyrus Engerer, before he was officially notified about them.

That had followed a news report on Sunday in Malta Today about his father’s arrest. There is no doubt that both reports were due to leaks. The first probably came from the Engerers, or their friends and the second possibly from PN quarters, or the police in retaliation to the first report. Everyone is denying any involvement to the Times leak. The document surfacing in the Times newsroom must be down to magic.

The Police press conference was called after the Opposition alleged that the arrests were politically motivated. The charges against Cyrus are of keeping and/or circulating pornography and computer misuse and of vilifying Marvic Camilleri, a former employee of the (PN) and a former member of the its youth movement. He is also his former boyfriend.

Now for the ex-boyfriend, the instigator of the case against Cyrus. He had filed a police report in January 2010 after nude images of him were stolen from his computer and circulated via e-mail to his employers and friends, and he suspected this was the vindictive work of his former boyfriend, Mr Engerer.

It transpires that Cyrus was aware of those charges in June this year, before his hara-kiri gesture with regard to his political ambitions within the PN.

Mr Camilleri has reportedly forgiven his former lover, but still wants “justice to be done”. After telling the Times, together with  his lawyers Andy Ellul and Vince Micallef  that he was willing to drop the charges, he has since changed his mind and sacked his lawyers, because of their political affiliation (Labour). Although they had informed him that they were active members of the party.

He confirmed what Commissioner Rizzo said at the press conference, i.e. that he never formally told the police to drop the charges. After a police investigation involving the Cyber Crime Unit, the police filed charges against Mr Engerer on Monday.

It is no wonder that speculation was rife about the political implications to the charges being brought now, the leak and his father’s arrest.  It was just a spliff  Christopher Engerer was arrested for, on July 21, six days after his son’s defection to the Labour Party.

He “was arrested after being found in possession of marijuana following a raid by the police”, the Police Commissioner told a press conference. Adding “there is also a possibility that Christopher Engerer will be charged with trafficking rather than personal use, although this had yet to be established.”

Now that is a bit odd isn’t it?  Surely, the more serious trafficking charge should have been established before the arrest. I don’t think the police usually raid an establishment or a residence on the grounds of  someone smoking a joint, or being a known pothead.

He was approached by the police outside his home where he was smoking a joint. Five grams of cannabis were found in his possession. The foray at his house revealed rolling paper and a cannabis crusher, but no other drugs were found in his home, or at his bar.

After interrogating him throughout the day, the police had still not decided whether he would be charged with trafficking or possessing the drug. Commissioner Rizzo went to great lengths to try to explain the details to the press.

He insisted that the timing of the arrest had nothing to do with Cyrus Engerer’s defection to Labour and categorically denied any political motivations in the investigations. It was the result of a tip-off , on July 6, by a known informant, he said.

I would have thought the police have far more serious investigations to be getting on with. For example, the kind of people who are settling and visiting here. One of whom, Paul Ray, is to be questioned by the Norwegian police in connection with the awful butchery of innocents that took place in their country.

A report in The Times on Friday claimed that a YouTube video posted on Ray’s blog shows him at the Marsa Immigrants Open Centre accompanied by former Northern Ireland Ulster terrorist Johnny Adair and a violent German convicted neo-Nazi, Nick Greger.

“Mr Ray insisted he had no problem being associated with Mr Adair and Mr Greger, despite their violent past for which they both served prison terms,” said the report.

The British press is claiming that in his 1,500-page manifesto, Breivik (the man responsible for the massacre) stated that his mentor was Richard (the Lionhearted) Mr Ray’s pseudonym.

Mr Ray is denying any connection with Breivik.

Meanwhile, Euronews reported that any activity involving extreme right-wingers is currently causing much attention across Europe and that the Police in Stuttgart have seized rifles and ammunition from the homes of far-right extremists.

The report said that Interior minister Hans-Peter Friedrich has warned that Germany’s homegrown far-right scene has a dangerous fringe, potentially capable of mounting deadly attacks.

His warning came as a police union suggested that an alarm be set up for the internet allowing web users to report extremist content such as that propagated by Norway’s terror suspect.

Read More