Push-back and Democracy

An online poll on Malta Today shows that some 67% of respondents agree with Joseph Muscat’s proposed push-back policy. It’s just a poll, not a scientific study, however it’s indicative of public sentiment. For the sake of this article, let’s assume that 67% of the Maltese agree with such policy.

One might argue that if the majority is behind Muscat, implementing push back (on which he himself is now backing off indicating he was only using it to threaten the EU) would be democratic.

Thankfully it doesn’t work that way. A majority, even confirmed by elections does not in itself make a democracy. For instance both Putin in Russia and Erdogan in Turkey, were elected with a majority yet both cannot claim to be democratic. The rampant breaches of human rights, especially the persecution of political opponents and journalists make any of these leaders’ claims to be democratic nothing more than a joke, even though they got a majority in the polls.

I remember reading a quote (unfortunately I forgot its author’s name) that depicts all this in a single sentence:

“Would it still be a democracy if 51% of the population voted for the right to kill the other 49% with impunity?”

I think the answer is pretty obvious.

This may sound extreme and hopefully no country will ever arrive in such a dire situation. However it makes a point very clear: Having the support of the majority is still undemocratic if the basic rights of minorities are not respected.

This argument holds true for push-back. For a simple reason. What Muscat proposed was not the deportation of failed asylum seekers (which is completely legitimate) but a deportation that would have been carried out before they even had a right to file for asylum. And asking for asylum is a fundamental human right.

And while I do find the majority on the issue as worrying, I also find them irrelevant. They could have been 90% and still, implementing push back before one even had the chance to ask for asylum would be not only illegal but undemocratic.

It would, among other things, have turned the Maltese government into a very serious human rights abuser that wouldn’t mind breaking my own rights if it’s politically convenient.

 

The Dealer’s Dealer

Most Maltese know one fact on drug traffickers in prison. The fact that these are, in nearly all cases the small fish in the drug business. Mostly couriers who take huge risk and long prison sentences for little financial profit or drug addicts peddling some drugs to finance their own habit. Most of us know that a kingpin, those getting rich from drug trafficking, rarely ever get caught, let alone convicted.

What most Maltese don’t know is the other fact which is, to put it mildly, much scarier. What many don’t know is that there are people in our prisons who never made a single Euro out of drugs serving a sentence for drug trafficking.

How could this be possible?

Simple. In Malta (contrary to practically all other EU countries and, above all, common sense), sharing is dealing. When two or more people share say, a joint or a stash of heroin they’re not only committing the offence of drug use but also of trafficking – with each other.

This is why, for instance, Daniel Holmes who was never convicted of selling a single milligram of cannabis or that he had the intention to do so, has drug trafficking among his convictions. A charge on which the prosecution had originally asked for life imprisonment.

Daniel Holmes did not cultivate cannabis plants on his own but with a friend. The other guy, called Barry Lee, committed suicide in custody as soon as he came to know what a long term prison sentence he was facing. The plants belonged to both.

When both Daniel Holmes and Barry Lee admitted that they were using the same plants, little did they know that they were admitting to drug trafficking. Daniel Holmes was charged with trafficking with Barry Lee while Barry Lee was charged with trafficking with Daniel Holmes.

The case of Daniel Holmes is one I’m very familiar with. But I’m completely sure there are other people in Maltese prisons serving a sentence on drug trafficking without having ever even considered making money out of drug dealing.

Our laws are so absurd that the following scenario is possible:

A is a drug dealer while B is simply a consumer. A buys the drugs, sells them to B and asks the latter to roll a joint, which he does. They share that joint and get caught red handed smoking it.

A, being a drug dealer thus more street-wise denies everything except for smoking a joint. B, who is greener on these things and gets terrified by the police barking in his face says the truth and admits he actually did roll a joint and give it to A.

With a confession being the most powerful evidence against you and A being street-savvy hiring a good, expensive lawyer, there is the possibility that B goes to jail for drug trafficking while A gets a conditional discharge or a suspended sentence for simple possession.

 

Drugs on the Agenda!

Alternattiva Demokratika is the only party that addresses the fact that the war on drugs has failed and needs to be re-thought.

Among others we have three main proposals: That personal use is decriminalized, that there is a classification between soft and hard drugs and that cultivation for personal use is considered as personal use and not a separate crime that carries a minimum prison sentence.

Yet, the PNPL ended up talking about drugs anyway. For all the wrong reasons.

In an electoral campaign that is based mostly on scandals involving members of both parties, the PN attacked the PL for having Toni Abela in the knowledge of drugs being taken in a PL club and not reporting it.

The PL attacked back on their newspaper Maltastar.

http://www.maltastar.com/dart/20130226-alleged-drug-abuse-at-pn-club-unreported

From “your party is more corrupt than usour party” the talk of the campaign is changing into “your followers use more drugs than ours”.

2000 votes in one district can elect an AD deputy. A deputy focused on the issues that really affect the Maltese people rather than hiding the skeletons in his closet.

A deputy that will insist all drug users should not be arrested. Not only if they’re his party’s supporters snorting cocaine in the party club’s toilet.

 

This Election Is Becoming Surreal

The first election I followed closely was that of 2008. I had just joined AD and was much greener (pun not intended) back than. I couldn’t, for instance, understand the sceptic look my colleagues gave when electoral promises such as regulating party financing and investing in renewable energy were made.

I only understood later, when the promises failed to materialize.

By now I’ve got much more used to the way Maltese politics is done, the empty promises, the not-so-indirect vote buying and the superficial way issues are addressed by the PNPL in their attempts to please everyone.

Yet, this general election, the first one that I’m contesting has become even more surreal than that. The issues are barely being discussed, even superficially. They’ve literally been given secondary importance.

Instead, the PNPL just ended up competing on which side can unearth most skeletons from the other side’s closet. The PL attack on Austin Gatt and Zaren Vassallo while the PN retaliate on Anglu Farrugia and Toni Abela.

On a positive note, I strongly believe this will be the first election where AD elects at least one candidate in parliament. While the PNPL are playing “the other side is dirtier” game, we’re talking about issues. And more and more Maltese people, especially but definitely not exclusively they younger ones, are realizing this.

While the PNPL are busy throwing as much mud as possible on each other, we’re talking about increasing the minimum wage, equal rights regardless of sexual orientation, regulating party financing, the overdevelopment of our land and rape of our countryside, spring hunting, decriminalizing the personal use of drugs and a dozen other issues that directly affect the life of the Maltese people.

The choice is now yours. 2000 votes in one district can elect an AD candidate.

 

Consequences of Bazaar Politics

Apart from the usual individual favours granted to individuals by the PNPL in order to gain their vote, both factions of the duopoly have now immersed in a competition for who’s going to give the largest amount of freebies to the electorate, together with reducing taxes.

 

Well, who wouldn’t love a free tablet for his kids, a thousand Euros in his bank account, more sick leave, while having his electricity bill and his taxes reduced?

 

Some people are easily duped by this Father Christmas politics but others choose to use their mind and think. Needless to say I’m appealing to the latter who will definitely be asking the million dollar question: Where is the money coming from?

 

Those who love to think and analyse will immediately realise that the magic solutions such as “25,000 new jobs”, “the tablets will generate a lot of employability through education” and “your electricity bill will go down in a short time” are just pies in the sky.

 

There are, of course ways where we can significantly increase the country’s finances by cracking down tax evasion and benefit abuse (both measures which Alternattiva Demokratika supports wholeheartedly) as well as taxing land speculation which the PNPL choose to ignore.

 

But the truth is that quick-fix measures that will make our economy flourish in as short time, especially amid economic crisis, don’t exist.

 

In other words in the short and not-so-short run, this bazaar way of doing politics will only result in one or more of the following:

 

 

1. The promises are not delivered and people will be disappointed

 

2. New taxes which aren’t included in the PNPL’s electoral programmes

 

3. Bankrupting the country

 

 

I feel sure that no rational voter finds these option desirable.

 

Child’s Right to Parents

When the issue of having gays and lesbians *eligible to adopt children crops up one frequently finds people saying: “what about the child’s right to have a mother and father”?

This question is erroneous by nature.

First of all, there is no such right. Unfortunately, for various inevitable reasons such as parents who are deceased, imprisoned or not fit to raise their own children, some children are going to be deprived of living in a traditional family.

None of these is the fault of the state or some public institution thus, unlike when real human rights (such as freedom of speech, or arbitrary arrest) are breached, an orphan or a child that for some reason cannot live with his biological parent, could not seek compensation.

Secondly, it is these kind of children that get adopted. If LGBT people become eligible to adopt, no one is going to snatch children from happily married heterosexual couples to give them to homosexual couple to bring up.

All things being equal, if I had to be born again, I would like to be brought up by a heterosexual couple. The reason for this is that stigma on homosexuality still exists in much of the world and this is likely to have some effect on me (such as bullying at school).

But if my choice was between being brought up in say, an orphanage, without the individual attention a child desperately needs, or by a loving same-sex couple I would choose the second without a moment hesitation.

In a nutshell a child adopted by a homosexual couple is not going to be deprived from living with a mother and father any more than he already is.

*Contrary to popular belief, adoption is not a right. The prospective adoptive parents are assessed (thoroughly, one must say) and if it is deemed in the best interest of the child, they will be allowed to adopt. At present, homosexual couples are not eligible to adopt. In other words, for some children living in an orphanage, there are homosexual couple that have the potential of giving them a better life, that can’t even file the application.

 

Where are the regulations when you need them?

One of the issues Alternattiva Demokratika has been harping on for a long time is the complete lack of regulation and transparency on party financing. Needless to say, we were completely ignored by both sides of the PNPL. It doesn’t suit any side to disclose who the contractors financing their party (thus pulling the strings) are and how much they are paying them. Or to have any law that regulated these payments.

 

There have been contractors who have even admitted in the open that they finance both parties – equally!

 

Which is why I had to put my glasses on and take a second look when I read this on the times:

 

“Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi this morning again asked where Labour is getting its electoral campaign funds from, saying it must have already spent €1m in the campaign”

 

He’s right, mind you. But you really need to have a cheek to ask this question when you lead a party that has consistently avoided any kind of law on transparency and regulation!

 

Dear Pete

Dear Pete

This blogpost is an answer to a comment by a certain “pete” on another blogpost of mine https://robertcallus.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/beautiful-memories-anda-bitter-reality/ that couldn’t remain unanswered.

This is the comment:

 “I am an African, who have been to most part of the world, I arrived Malta in 2010 for a 2yr master’s programme. I personally chose Malta against England because most of my family and friends were studying in England, and i wanted something different, and when i saw that Malta was an English speaking country, and a strong Catholic society, i decided to come to Malta to study.

If you know about the Maltese educational system, you will know that foreign students pay a very high amount for studying in that university, for my master’s programme..i payed like 15,000 euros, not including my feeding and accommodation for that 2yrs. But during that 2yrs of my study in Malta, it was the worst time of my life. I witnessed all sorts of racist behaviors in the bus, on the street in the club, every were. One of such incident that got me mad, and tired of Malta, was one evening when my friend, also a black, who just graduated from IMLI ( International marine time institute), and we decide to celebrate in paceville. In one of the clubs (Bar Native), after checking our documents by the first security guard at the door, who happen to be a non-Maltese, to make sure we are not “illegal”, he allowed us in and at the next door we meet another security guard who happens to be a Maltese, without any reason or asking for identification asked us to go back, after we have been asked by the other security guard to go in, and when my friend tried to ask why we were been sent back after security check at the entrance, he said because you are not wanted here…and when my friend tried to ask why, he pushed him so hard that he lost balance i fail to the ground. In order to avoid any further problem i stepped in and held my friend, who was still recovering from the push. My friend being a lawyer, deiced that he wanted to take the case up, i tried discouraging him because i have heard of lot of stories regarding black people in Malta, even how some were killed without justice, but he insisted that he wanted to speak to the authority. So we went to meet some police standing close to McDonald in Pc, after explaining to them, they were very reluctant to take any action, and one of them finally said that “if some body does not want you in his house do you have to force your self inside”, and that was when i and my friend new that Malta is not a place for “black” people.

I have a lot of bad experiences in Malta,even on arrive from abroad, at the airport, i was subjected to unnecessary security search, all because i was black.

Don’t get me wrong, there is racism everywhere, but the difference between countries like Germany and Malta, is that the law is no respecter of nobody in the former, while in the later, the racism is more pronounce among the people who are suppose to protect the victims of such acts.
But thank God, today, all those bad experience are behind me now, and they did not stop me from achieving my goals of coming to that country, although i almost quieted, but finally i graduated as one of the best in my master’s programme and i have moved on with my life, but will never advice my enemy to visit Malta for anything.”

Dear Pete,

I refuse to believe that the Maltese (or most of them) are racist. Sure we have our racists and in certain areas they are more represented than in others. One of these areas is online, another is in the profession of bouncers (I hate to generalize and I’m sure there are non-racist bouncers but that does seem an area where racists are hugely represented. I also noticed that quite a few of the online racists happen to be bouncers, some of whom flaunt their own racist violence in public)

Obviously this doesn’t mean racists aren’t found in all segments of society. But what makes us look so different from the Germans for people like you? While you may be partly right in that the Germans are less overt in their racism I think the main reason is not that. I think the main reason is that until very recently we were a very insular society and when this changed, many people were shocked. (Change, even if it’s for the better always causes an amount of stress, especially when it’s quick).

In the past 15 years many things happened that changed this country from a dot in the Mediterranean where most were blissful of their ignorance to a more cosmopolitan and secular society.

In these 15 years, we joined the EU, while more ideas as well as people flooded in thanks to the Internet, cheaper and faster communications and travel, student exchanges, so on and so forth. Coupled with an increasing number of Maltese who emigrated, looking for better opportunities abroad.

And………

15 years ago you would barely see a black guy walk the streets of Valletta except for the occasional tourist or student!

This changed for the reasons mentioned above, but even more so due to the fact that we started having the first black African refugees.

Keeping in mind that our politicians only think up to the following election, the PN government backe then tried to defuse the shock this would have on the Maltese but putting the refugees in detention (which was indefinite back then which changed only due to a court sentence). It worked in the short run, in the same way alcohol helps you deal with difficult emotions – until it gets out of control.

Government tried to sweeten this with kind talk and flaunting Christian values about helping these poor people while the Maltese public only saw them behind bars or handcuffed jumping the queue at hospital so as not to waste the time of the officers.

We also saw the emergence of a far right movement. (Once again this exists in Germany too and is lately embroiled in controversy after it’s alleged links with the NSU terrorist cell). But unlike in Germany, in Malta this was a novelty. And when the mainstream politicians saw a firebrand leader’s ideas on exterminating Jews, hanging traitors and deporting all non-whites from Europe gaining ground around a relatively small but extremely fanatical and loud crowd, they panicked even more. And insisted even more on detention while calling the refugees a burden!

A vicious cycle.

The good news? Unlike racism, insularity is less ingrained. It changes both in individuals and even more across generations. Today, racism is far from gone, but I already see a big difference than say, 8 years ago where some people didn’t even sit beside a black guy on the bus.

And I strongly believe this will continue to change.

 

You Call It Liberal, I Call It Humane

In politics, the word liberal has various meanings and is used to tag various groups, some of whose beliefs are nearly opposite each other (for instance some “liberals” in terms of economic policy happen to be very “conservative” in terms of civil rights issues).

I won’t get into the various definitions of the term. For the purposes of this article, by liberal I refer on issue related to civil liberties such as divorce, same-sex marriage, decriminalizing drugs, euthanasia and prostitution – and why I support each one of them.

Yes, one of the reasons is that I’m a “liberal”, in that I believe that people should have every right to choose how they live, unless it involved harming others. That is a fundamental principle, but I go beyond that.

The other reason is that I believe that human suffering should be reduced as much as possible. I believe that by being conservative or illiberal the law is creating unnecessary hardships on people whose actions are either completely harmless or at most, only harmful to themselves.

Decriminalizing drug use: Some people are able to use drugs (especially the soft ones) only for recreational purposes. They may or may not be harming themselves (this mostly depends on the kind of drug, the quantity used and how frequently it is used). These people are also breaking the law, they are criminals. Why? Why should a person be arrested, prosecuted and possibly imprisoned when he didn’t harm anyone else other than himself? Isn’t this an unnecessary cruelty?

Some, unfortunately become drug addicts. A few of these finance their addiction through a regular legal job or just happen to be rich. Others, especially (but not exclusively) women finance their addiction through prostitution which though not illegal in itself is still very likely to send you on the wrong side of the law (read below). Others resort to the crime of theft or drug dealing. Except for the latter, who are drug addicts harming? Why should these people be punished further for their own illness (I strongly believe drug addiction is an illness, I plan to dwell on this in another post) Do you imagine a cigarette smoker prosecuted for smoking and being addicted to tobacco? Why should a heroin addict (unless he commits crimes with victims) be treated any differently? Once again – unnecessary hardship, cruelty.

Prostitution: The simple act of having sex for money is not illegal. They couldn’t make that illegal, such a law would be completely unenforceable. However anything else from loitering to organized prostitution is. In other words a prostitute can – and does – get arrested from lingering in a dark alley with not many clothes on and cannot regularize her job. Which, I should believe should be a job like any other. She couldn’t have the legal protection entitled to other workers resulting in being many times the victim of abuse from either her employers and her clients.

Why? Just because someone decided it’s not immoral to sell shoes or pastizzi but lending your body is. And since they couldn’t make that illegal they made practically everything else that surrounds it. To make it hard, deliberately inducing unnecessary hardship and cruelty.

Same sex marriage: Once again who are the victims of married homosexuals? (That it can affect a happy heterosexual marriage is absurdly beyond imagination). Why is society giving a message to these people that they should be treated as second class citizens and that they should be satisfied with some half baked “civil union” law that gives them some rights but not as much as heterosexual couples? Why the unnecessary cruelty?

Euthanasia and suicide: Working in a home for the elderly I’v seen people in unbelievable pain that no amount of morphine can control or extremely sad situations such as losing all your loved ones, your privacy, your eyesight and both legs who still want to live. People who for various reasons – religion being the most common – believe that still, life is there to be lived until natural death. This is what they wish and this is what they’ll do. So far so fine.

However I’ve also seen people who think different. People who want to die. Including a person who literally pleaded with me to give him something that can make it all end. Yet, in our society, because people with a superior morality decided that “life utill natural death” should not only be a value but also a law, any kind of euthanasia and assisted suicide is strictly prohibited. You have to suffer until the end because we said so. Unnecessary hardship, cruelty. Why?

Is it too “liberal” to believe in a society where reducing unnecessary human suffering is also a fundamental value? Where people are only punished if they harm others, and not get whipped further because they have harmed themselves, or offended the strict moral code of some holier than though?

 

Do They Know What Intolerant Means?

All has been said and done and Tonio Borg is the new Health Commissioner. He was elected by a democratic vote from MEPs themselves elected by EU citizens. I disagree with his political values especially on immigration and LGBT issues and if I was an MEP I would have voted against him taking the post. I’ll make no secret out it. (That doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate the good things in Dr Borg, such as the fact that during his entire political career he’s never been tainted with any hint of corruption and his good handling of the Libya crisis)

Some Maltese cheered, not necessarily because they agree with Tonio Borg’s values but due to coming from the backwards insular mentality the PNPL kept this country in. I win you lose. Alee-oo Alee-oo. Nivvota lejber halli nghajjru lil ta Gonzi wara l-elezzjoni! I think you got the dripth.

Pathetic, but it’s not these kind of people that bothered me.

The ones that bothered, I dare say even offended, me are the ones who called us Greens as well as the Liberals and some Socialists “intolerant” for opposing Tonio Borg.

Intolerant?

Commissioners such as Tonio Borg are not elected by EU citizens. They are nominated by a Prime Minister while the MEPs have to decide whether they approve them or not. Yet, like the MEPs and sometimes even more, the Commissioners are going to take political decisions on behalf of the European Union’s citizens.

In other words when they vote for a Commissioner, the MEPs have a duty to represent those who voted for them. Otherwise we can throw EU democracy out of the window – and prove the Eurosceptics right.

And this is exactly what we’ve done. The European Green Party (EGP), in complete agreement with Alternattiva Demokratika, felt that Tonio Borg could never represent the “Green voter”. Thus they voted against his nomination.

And lost. Tonio was voted in by a majority of the MEP’s. And like every democratic party we accepted the defeat. Like every democratic party, the EGP will work with the elected Dr Borg to what they believe is the best for the citizens of the European Union.

What’s intolerant about that?