Forget about murders and other dramatic happenings. The most talked about subject in Malta right now is Julian Galea’s bowing out of the Sliema local council. I am not someone who enjoys rubbing it in, but reading some of the reactions to the news that Mr Galea has stood down has pushed me to it.
First of all, I was shocked that despite the allegations, of overt discrimination on the grounds of political partisanship, Sliema people voted Mr Galea back in. What does that tell me? Either that the right-minded did not bother to vote; that those who did were unaware of the implications, or are as bigoted as Mr Galea.
I was also surprised that despite the precarious position of the PN (Nationalist party), it allowed him to stand under its banner to begin with. Then again, maybe it was precisely because of its wobbly situation and it was a desperate attempt to avoid the LP (Labour Party) gaining another seat. Or, perhaps, the people the PN grandees are listening to are the bigoted ones.
From what I have seen of Simon Busuttil (who has been called in for the PN rescue operation) in action at the European Parliament and from private conversations, he is certainly not prejudiced or intolerant. I believe it was down to him that the PN belatedly realised the damage done and got Mr Galea to rethink and give up his seat.
Now I am not naive and I know what goes on in all political caucuses. However, some of us were deeply disturbed by the “business as usual” ethos when discrimination was overtly displayed. It is a trait in politics everywhere that supporters are rewarded when it comes to filling jobs, especially sensitive ones and also lucrative ones.
But when it comes to excluding people and paying people less for the same work on the grounds of political affiliation, democracies have created watchdogs like Equal Opportunity Commissions to guard against such injustice.
We cannot have someone in public office that publicly declares s/he applies discriminatory practices. The LP’s Jason Micallef had come unstuck five years ago with his, “I tell you we will also be a government for Labourites and we will carry out justice with Labourites in the first few months".
He also had to step down from his General Secretary post later. His statement, “We will be a government for all Maltese and Gozitans, but here we are Labourites among Labourites qeghdin bejnietna,” had not done the LP any favours with regard to floaters.
Undecided voters, whose numbers are increasing daily, do not like to be left out and both parties have to consider that.
As I wrote in my Sunday Times column “Bejnietna Jason,
you screwed up”, in August 2007, “It is not that it is wrong that injustices should be addressed and rectified. What is wrong is that it is not just Labourites that have suffered injustices and would like to see them rectified.
“Besides, people who are neither Nationalist nor Labour do exist and vote. The problem with this country is that neither of the two major political parties seems to recognise this... “Austin Gatt has proclaimed the same philosophy the PN is so outraged about. Even worse, he wanted the partisanship extended to the civil service. So what is the PN bleating about?”
Five years later Julian Galea has screwed up more blatantly than Jason by admitting he pays his employees affiliated with the Labour Party less. Galea’s was not a statement saying it will redress injustice, it was perpetuating injustice.
The Employment and Industrial Relations director is investigating his comments that he paid Nationalist employees more than their Labourite colleagues. In his apology the day after his comments, which included that if a girl had to tell him she was a Labourite, he would discard her, were made public, Mr Galea said his remarks were wrong and did not reflect his or his party's beliefs.
Apologising does not erase intent. If his words did not reflect his beliefs why say them? A particular nonsensical comment on the Timesonline started off, “Nobody is arguing what Mr Galea said was right.”
Then went on, “But surely we can all admit many of us have said similar things in a jocular manner at some point in our lives - which if taken out of context would sound equally bad... a conversation which he himself (Galea) acknowledges was inappropriate - albeit not to be taken literally by any reasonable person.”
I responded to that comment yesterday, by saying, No, many of us have not made similar comments as those made by Mr Galea and prejudice is no joking matter. The comment was obviously not taken out of context because Mr Galea admitted to his remarks and the commentator himself said it was "a conversation which he himself (Galea) acknowledges was inappropriate".
I asked this particular commentator to explain why such bigoted remarks should not be taken literally? And how one should gauge a reasonable person?
Article published in the Malta Independent on Sunday on 18 March 2012
0 comments:
Post a Comment