When Words Cause Confusion

 

I’m not a fan of political correctness. It is ridiculous how sometimes people go at lengths for finding the right word so that no one is offended. I remember when a couple of years ago, I was in a seminar and a speaker thought it offensive to say the word ‘black’ for a person who actually is black. After a lot of stammering he came out with ‘people with a dark complexion’. Ironically his argument was actually in favour of discriminating against the people he did not want to offend by calling them black.

Sometimes I went too far. I used to think that if a person in a minority group, such as a black person or a gay would not take offence if I used certain words such as ‘nigger’ or ‘pufta’ (faggot). I thought they would realise I was just taking the piss out of these labels and take it as a joke. Many times it was in fact like that. However, I had an experience with a black friend of mine with whom I joked a lot about his colour of the skin, as well as calling him a ‘nigger’. Once I realised he seemed distressed and asked him if he can realise I’m just joking. His answer way ‘I have no doubt you are joking, but that word (nigger) still hurts me. I was insulted by it so many times that even though I know you’re joking it still hurts’. From that day I always avoided such words. Not to appear ‘politically correct’, but because you never know what a person had been through, and an innocent word can hurt his feelings.

However, I find the word ‘illegal immigrants’ or worse still ‘illegals’, in the way they are being used as disgusting. Calling a person a ‘nigger’ is politically incorrect, however calling every person who comes from an African country as an illegal immigrant, no matter his legal status is both grammatically and more importantly legally incorrect.

There is no such thing as an illegal person. A person may enter a country’s territory illegally, but he could not come illegal himself. First of all because a person has the completely legal right to ask for protection from persecution in this county. If he had no option to escape towards protection except by crossing borders illegally, a person with a genuine need for protection has never committed an offence by crossing borders in the first place. About 50% of Africans entering Maltese borders ‘illegally’ are granted temporary humanitarian status (valid for 1 year unless renewed) while some 3% are granted refugee status (valid for 3 years unless renewed). This means that more than 50% of the people we refer to as ‘illegals’ (which unlike the word nigger, my word processor underlines with a red mark since it doesn’t even exist) in reality have all their documents completely in order.

Even so, the other 50% are not in the country illegally. Though they deserve no protection, the only reason they are still in Malta is an administrative one. Many argue things are taking too long to be processed, with which I fully agree. However, unless these people are hiding from the Maltese government they could not be considered as ‘illegal’.

What’s in a word? Here it makes a big difference. One cannot hold something that is illegal such as a dangerous drug or weapon. If I am caught with heroin in my house, I will have a criminal case open against me. On the other hand, unless he has escaped from an institution, if I have an African immigrant in my house (even if he has no protection status) I am committing absolutely no offence. And if take that person to a friend’s house, I am will never be accused of human trafficking. Doing the same thing with heroin would have been another story.

There are exceptions for this. If I shelter a migrant who has escaped from an institution, or who entered the country unnoticed and his presence is unknown to the Maltese government, I am in reality committing a criminal offence (as much as giving shelter to an escaped Maltese prisoner).

I prefer to call people by their name, not their legal status. However, if I have to use a catch all phrase for Africans who crossed borders illegally by a boat, I use the term irregular immigrant. The reason is not to be politically correct or not to offend anyone. The reason is to avoid confusion. Such confusion directly leads to racism and xenophobia, including violence and harassment. We are disgusted when a human being beats another, or an animal, say a dog. However it is quite acceptable that a person harms a drug or a weapon. By reducing a human being to the level of heroin or a gun we are clearly implying he could be treated like these dangerous objects.

How could have the brutality of the Holocaust have taken place? Hitler was a merciless murderer, you find people like him in every country. But how did he have so much support from his people while committing such crimes against humanity? Were the majority of Germans at the time all beasts? No, most were good people and wouldn’t harm a dog. However Hitler managed to dehumanise Jews and gypsies to the extent that people did not even view them like dogs. Not even like harmless objects such as tables and chairs, but as evil and dangerous objects like drugs and weapons.

 

The reply a Nazi officer to a German woman’s complaint towards him as he was beating a young child says it all. ‘He’s not a kid, he’s a Jew’.

 

Legalising Marihuana: The Stepping Stone Theory

 I believe that Marihuana is still illegal mainly due to one particular reason – misconception. There are many arguments against legalising Marihuana, I find them nearly all flawed. Here I will discuss one of the most common – that Marihuana though not very harmful in itself, leads to harder drugs. That it’s a stepping stone towards heroin or cocaine. I disagree.

First of all, let’s start by defining a drug. A drug is a substance that when inserted in a person’s body causes a change in how a person thinks and feels. Whether it is smoked, drank, swallowed, sniffed or injected doesn’t make a difference in what qualifies as a drug. Thus, not considering alcohol and prescribed pills that affect the Central Nervous System, such as tranquilisers, as non drugs because they are legal is a big mistake. After a particular dose of them, a person starts feeling changes such as relaxation, increased self-confidence, euphoria and many others. They are drugs, and how.

The stepping stone theory states that many people who end up hooked on hard drugs usually start with softer ones and then proceed to harder ones. There are many exceptions, however in general I agree with this theory.

Many scientific studies suggest that the first ‘drug’ a person who had proceeded to hard drugs had started with is Marihuana. However usually such research has one big flaw. The people filling in questionnaires or whatever method of data collection say their first drug was Marihuana because they don’t consider alcohol as a drug. Very few people have intoxicated themselves with Marihuana without having done so previously with alcohol at least once in their life.

 When a person takes his first drug, which is usually alcohol he learns a lesson. He learns that with a chemical outside of himself he can control his mood. That he can change a feeling he doesn’t like such as shyness to one he prefers such as self confidence. Due to our culture, where alcohol is socially accepted most people do thread on this stone.

Marihuana does exactly the same thing. The state of mind arrived to after its use is different, however the level of change is approximately the same, if not less drastic (in fact much more people do irresponsible things such as violence or unprotected sex if they are intoxicated by alcohol than Marihuana) than the effect of alcohol.

If Marihuana was legal, the second lesson the individual learns is that if he breaks the law, he can find new drugs with a much more severe alterations in his state of mind. This is a big step. One has to be willing to take a drug he knows is dangerous as well as break the law. With Marihuana criminalised, this step is broken in two. The man who ‘arrives’ to heroin or cocaine would have already got used to breaking the law in order to acquire Marihuana.

 Thus, it is its illegality that makes Marihuana a stepping stone.

This has many implications. That alcohol is sold from a legitimate pub, disco or supermarket means that the consumer doesn’t have to mingle with some criminal network to acquire it. On the other hand, the same networks that supply Marihuana, are more likely then not to be related to networks providing harder drugs.

Another problem is that if the individual considers Marihuana a drug, and alcohol a non-drug, after he smokes his first joint, he has already accepted the fact that he has already taken drugs. It is then a less big deal to take something that falls in the same category – illicit drug. It is tempting to think that after all drugs are not that much of a big deal. By legalising Marihuana, it is easier to spread the idea that alcohol is a drug, with a potential for harm, especially getting addicted to it. Not as devastating as heroin or cocaine, however neither Marihuana is.

This is one of the reasons I strongly believe it should be legalised. I’m not saying it’s harmless. However, even biting your own fingernails can cause appendicitis and thankfully no one is considering making such practice illegal.

 

A Fairytale Called Justice

The internal PN squabbles regarding Franco Debono’s abstinence in Parliament mean nothing for me. Neither do the attacks on the government by the opposition. Repeating the same old story ad nauseum. The PN says everything it’s fine, which obviously a lie, and the PL says this government is on the brink of collapse, also a lie.

However, one thing did arouse my interest. Dr Debono wanted to make a point. The point was that backbencers like him should also be given weight from the party. Quite a good point, though I don’t really bother. Yet Dr Debono went on to state his opinion on a law that had been on hold since 2002. The right for a suspect to have legal assistance while being interrogated. This did arouse my interest. Finally, I thought.

Strangely enough, in a couple of weeks the police had their time to do their homework, and the law will come into force on the 10th of next February. What homework? The way this law is drafted changes nothing. Absolutely nothing except the fact it shows that Dr Gonzi gave a little attention to Franco Debono. Hopefully they’ll live happy ever after.

The suspect (emphasise on suspect, the suspect in not only not a criminal proved guilty, but does not even have a charge in court against him) has a right to ask for consultation for half an hour before the interrogation begins. Consultaton before the suspect and his attorney do not even know what evidence will be used against the suspect. The half hour ends, the attorney leaves and the interrogation begins. There is little if any that the attorney can say to his client except that he has the right to remain silent, and that what he says can be used against him. Those same words that the police officer should tell you to make the arrest legitimate.

To add insult to injury, remaining silent on advice of your lawyer can also be used against you. It’s called ‘inference of guilt whatever that means. I can just imagine the prosecutor stating “Your Honour, this man must definitely be guilty since his lips didn’t move for 48 whole hours”

The 70’s and 80’s were horrible times. Ask someone who had been under arrest in those days, irrespective of political color. We have moved a lot forward since since. However it doesn’t mean we should take anything for granted.

If Commissioner Rizzo is reading this he must be fuming with anger. However, what I am saying is not that his administration (I’ve seen him only on the media and he seems a person of real integrity) is corrupt and disrespects human rights. What I would like to tell him is that bad apples are found everywhere, and in places of such importance checks on the potential bad apples should be mandatory. Neither he, nor his assistants can be present everywhere at the same time. It might be true that having an attorney during the whole interrogation, as well as having it videotaped, will make it harder to solve some cases. (Though the videotape can also be used against the attorney if he tries to decieve the police by suggesting rights that the suspect does not have). However if we want to make sure the abuses in 70’s and 80’s will not happen again what we need is not to vote a particular party, but put the necessary checks and balances. (I’ve been a fierce critic of both Dr Sant and Muscat many times, however I do commend them of getting rid of the violent factor in the Labour Party)

I will present two small examples (happened in Malta this last decade) to show how important these checks and balances are. As I will show, these measures will help mainly the innocent and the petty criminal. Most of the time the big guns of crime know their rights more than their attorneys.

An acquaintance of mine, a timid guy with mental health problems was arrested because he was found nearby a place where a robbery had taken place. On him a screwdriver was found, even though it was definitely not used in the robbery. I met this young man on the bus just after he had been released. He was traumatised, crying and shivering. He assured me the police did not beat him, but for a person in his vulnerable state of mind, the shouting as well as the ‘you are guilty’ attitude were too much he could handle.

The other case I’d like to mention, is one I had read about in a local newspaper. A 19 year old girl with a clean police conduct was caught with a single ecstasy pill. Definitely not a crime to be sent to prison for. An admonition maybe, or if one goes at length, a probation order?

However during arrest the girl made a confession – a confession that really shows she was just a naive occational drug user with not real criminal intent. She admitted that she had bought six pills of the drug, gave two to a friend and two others to another friend while keeping two for herself. She also stated that on the occasions she and her two friends take the pills before a party, who ever is available first will buy the drugs for all three of them.

Technically, since she handled the drugs to her friends, even if there was no intent of making profit, that was drug trafficking. In her situation, the law demanded a minimum of three months imprisonment. While giving the sentence, the judge himself admitted this was unfair, but also stated he had no other option.

Does anyone think a drug baron would be so stupid? Or that a thief with a minimum of experience would loiter around the area of the crime he had just committed with a screwdriver in his pocket?

It is these people the law should protect. People that might easily be you, I or a close friend or relative.

 

Not in my Name – A Message to the Pope

As an environmentalist, as well as a believer in civil liberties I’m very angered at the latest attack by Pope Razinger on homosexuals. Once again this Pope is using the environment as a lousy excuse to oppose something he disagrees with. In this case it’s the fact that the Portugese parliament has accepted homosexual marriages.

Mr Razinger stated he considers gay marriages as unnatrual and an ‘attack on creation’. What the Pope doesn’t seem to note is the fact that many animals including cats, do engage in same sex activities. He also seems not aware while there are species of animals where couples engage in long term, even life-long relationship, not a single one of them found the need to sign a contract for it.

Worse still, Mr Razinger considers this ‘blurring of gender’ as the road to the destruction of humankind, and compares it to the destruction of rainforests. May the Pope gently explain how? I don’t feel that I need to explain the consequences of destroying rainforests, most probably you already know them. But gay marriages? Does he think that by giving homosexuals the right to marry everyone will turn homosexual and no human male sperm will ever meet a female egg? Does the Pope still think that gays can be ‘cured’ or that heterosexuals can be ‘converted’.

While these comments have angered well meaning homosexuals as well as  environmentalists, his comments might flare more the fanatic homophobes. A law is being proposed by the Ugandan governement, a counry with a Christian majority, to introduce ‘aggravated homosexuality’. Homosexuality is already illegal in Uganda, punishable by long term imprisonment. The proposal states that ‘aggravated homosexuality’ such as homosexual activity involving an HIV+ person or that of a ‘repeated offender’ would be punishable by death. Worse still, knowing that a person is a homosexual and not reporting it to authorities is punishable by three years imprisonment, even if that person happens to be you own son. I’m sure the Ugandan government is appreciating the support of his new ally, the Pope.

Groups of Christian fanatics, mostly found in the U.S. take the law in their own hands and harass, assault and even murder homosexuals. To add insult to injury, they turn up at the victims funeral carrying slogans such as ‘GOD HATES GAYS’ or worse still ‘THANK GOD FOR AIDS’. These criminals must surely be rejoicing at Mr Razinger’s words. Most probably they take them as an approval for their cowardly acts.

 

Speaking for the majority of environmentalists, may I at least ask the Pope one thing? If you intend to continue fuelling hate crimes could you at least be decent enough and at least refrain for doing it in our name.

 

What Maroni isn’t Saying

Regarding the racially related violence that spread in Rosarno yesterday 8th January, all that Interior Minister Roberto Maroni did was condemn immigration, stating that violence by migrants had been ‘tolerated all these years’. Unfortunately Maroni is (partially) succeeding in fuelling hatred between the people of Rosarno and immigrants. Thanks to this, the attention is taken away from the real cause of the history of violence in Calabria – the N’drangheta – an organisation larger and more brutal than the Sicilian Mafia, that unlike the latter prefers to keep a low profile.

Once again a right-wing leader is using the tactic of divide and rule. Let the oppressed African workers fight with the oppressed, albeit less severely, people of Rosarno. Most of the people in Rosarno support the N’dangreta. What the immigrants do not know is that most of these people, otherwise honest men and women, do so out of fear of this deadly organisation.

Maroni’s words were condemned by the Italian left as xenophobic and racist. However what I find really worrying is not the words he said, but those he didn’t. If one relies on the Interior Minister’s condemnations, the N’drangeta barely exists. Unlike the violence of the immigrants, that of this criminal organisation is never mentioned.

The extreme violence of the N’drangheta is not mainly targeted at African immigrants, but rich Italians living in the North, ironically the core voters of Maroni’s party. In fact, the organisation got its financial boost to make itself on the same level or even better than the Sicilian Mafia and the Camorra, by kidnapping children and relatives of millionaires from the North for huge ransom sums of money. Most of these victims just ‘vanished’ either because their families failed to pay the ransom, or because they happened to see something they shouldn’t. A few were given back to their families after the ransom was paid. All of these had been severely physically abused and psychologically traumatised for life. In the last three decades only one person managed to escape. Unfortunately, probably out of fear, he was captured and sent back to the criminals by the people of Rosarno themselves.

The ransom money was in turn invested in massive drug trafficking where a kilogram of Cocaine is bought for €20 and sold more than douple that price for every single gramme. Most of these drugs were sold to rich adoloscents in the North, the same people Maroni claims to defend.

The ‘caccia al negro’ serves well for duping the people of Rosarno and let them vent their rage. A ‘caccia al Mafioso’ would not only be more horrible, but might also be the beginning of the fight against the N’drangheta.

In an intercepted conversation between two N’drangheta leaders one says “noi siamo il passato, il presente e il futuro” (we are the past, the present and the future). However, the other voice shows concern for the organisation “se la gente si ribella, noi siamo finiti” (if people revolt, it’s the end of us).

The words Maroni said show him as a racist. However, the words he failed to mention show an even more sinister side.

 

The Climate Change Reality

 

Climate change is happening, and without doubt it is caused by human activity. I’m a sceptic and before (if ever) I believe something of such magnitude I question and question again for fear of being lied to or manipulated. Yet I doubtlessly believe that the main reason for climate change is human activity.

I am no scientist and do not pretend to be one. My arguments are not scientific. Like many others I was explained the reasons for this phenomenon by scientists who made it simple for me to do so. Their reasons seem valid. I’ve also heard the point of view of those who believe this is a hoax, and their arguments seem too simplistic and crude for me to believe. For example these claim that temperature is not increasing in direct relationship with our Co2 emissions. From the little science I know, I never thought that change in human activity will have an immediate impact, positive or negative, on the whole world. Neither do I expect to see that when in a particular year Co2 emissions decreased the world will start cooling instantly.

However, being a sceptic and not being a scientist, this alone would not have convinced me. I also needed to take a look at the politics of the issue.

Conspiracy theories on anything are abundant. While many consider these theorists as crazy, they actually have serious impacts on world politics. A large number of people in the world believe in some conspiracy, refuse to reason with anyone who tries to show them they should at least question their beliefs and spend their life nibbling their nails and making video clips for Youtube. These vary from a New World Order or the Islamification of the world, to others which are less famous such as the re-unification of the Soviet Union or the European Union’s ‘plan’ to become a military superpower and invade the US.

However, climate change has an element that puts it on a completely different level than these bullshit theories. It is not being endorsed by some fringe groups but by nearly all leaders of the world. These include the US and other major countries who financially speaking have a lot to lose by accepting it. Even President George W. Bush, who tried to find as many loopholes as possible so that the US doesn’t embark on any major reform, didn’t deny it.

Let’s compare the climate change reality with what probably is the biggest conspiracy theory of our times: the creation of a New World Order. They have one similar thing – there is evidence for both. The climate is changing (even those who believe this is a hoax accept this, they just believe it’s not related to human activity), the glaciers are melting and anomalies in nature are taking place. Similarly the New World Order conspiracy too is based on realities – 9/11 did happen against all odds, people are greedy and want to control the world, and privacy is being eroded. What this lunatic fringe believes is that these realities are created by rogue activities from the Vatican, the former KGB, Bin Laden’s family and thousands of others (the most paranoid even include Jesus Christ). They are sure that all these entities are conspiring between them to take complete control of us; that 9/11 was an inside job done by Americans; and that we will soon be forced to wear a microchip in our right hand so that the NWO leaders could control us completely. (Oh and yes, the microchip is even mentioned in the Bible, in the Book of Revelations!)

And who is leading this conspiracy movement? I don’t know. Does anyone? Information is spread mostly through emails and internet sites from people who are either anonymous or have all the possibility to create a false profile. We can’t point our fingers or poke our questions to a particular individual because there is no individual.

With climate change it’s quite different, the opposite actually. Fingers were pointed at many politicians and scientists, but the latest personality who has to blame for all this is Al Gore. After losing an election he compiled a thorough documentary (An Inconvenient Truth). We are talking about Al Gore, US Presidential candidate who did not hide behind an Internet screen for exposing this reality. He is backed by practically every leader of the world, most notably President Nasheed of the Maldives. The latter is of vital importance because his country is the  most severely hit by this inconvenient truth. Ever seen those beautiful small islands on travel brochures, a holidaymaker’s dream? They are literally drowning and unless something is urgently done they will soon vanish.

 

For most of us climate change is a reality. Some want to deny it. There are billions of profit to be lost from reacting to it in a sane way. They have attempted to label Al Gore as a Communist and a lunatic. And we, Greens, socialists and all those who love the world we live in are the bad guys. We are either conspiring with him for personal power or we must be paranoid like the NWO crazies. They say the cause is just ‘the sun’.

They will never convince the majority of course. However they will partly attain what they want to – put doubt in the equation. Unfortunately, this is not an ego game of ‘we have more people believing in us than you’. This is an emergency

 

Whose Freedom?

A very controversial topic in Malta, at this very moment, is freedom of expression. I am all out in favour of people expressing what they believe in, and that includes people with whom I totally disagree on what they have to say. However, quite frequently I’m asked: ‘Does this freedom include hate speech?’ Treating this issue is very delicate. People’s freedoms are extremely important but so is the protection of those to whom the speech is directed. Where should one draw the line?

Let’s start with what in my opinion should not even be considered as controversial – shocking and vulgar language. I find it completely ridiculous to censor something (for example the play ‘Stitching’ and ‘Realta’s newspaper) just because it contains parts or articles considered as vulgar and shocking. Who defines what terms fall into this category? Some board of whatever authority?

More controversial is offensive language. Here we are not talking about ‘nasty’ words, but words deliberately used to offend others on the basis of religion, race, sexual orientation and others. Should a Maltese Imam who compared homosexuals getting married to marrying cats and dogs be censored or face legal sanction? What about right wing extremists who call black people niggers? I know many will disagree with me on this, but I don’t believe these people should be censored or face criminal repercussions. Definitely they should be condemned, and if they aren’t it means we’re in trouble. The offended parties have the right to file libel. However they should have all the right to say it without fearing the authorities.

The next category is however different. I’m talking about what is termed as ‘fighting words’. These are used to overtly or subtly incite violence on the victims. The injured party is not just offended but threatened and put in danger. Had the Imam called for individuals or groups to harass homosexuals, or right if rightwing extremists to make a call to harass ‘niggers’, the story would have been very different.

An email that had been circulating a while ago shows a group of extremist Muslims in the UK calling for violence against a Danish cartoonist. In my opinion it is unacceptable to let these people protest and call for such action, even getting police protection for it. They are not ‘offending back’ the person who offended them. They are instigating violence towards him and his country. Though their demands are futile, intention is clear and in my opinion the protest should not only have been halted, but the ring leaders should have been filed criminal charges.

Right wing extremists sometimes also jump the line when it comes to freedom of speech. An example is the BNP who are not only allowed to voice their words, but two of them have been elected to the European Parliament. They don’t like a multicultural England, they deny the Holocaust, and even minimise what Hitler did: ‘Adolf just went a bit too far’. Disgusting as it is, I believe they have a right to say it. What they don’t have a right to is, for example, making an alliance with the Ku Klux Klan, an organisation responsible for thousands of deaths during the last hundred years, all based on racial prejudice. Asking these people their vote, telling them ‘they have the same objective but will have to use sweeter words’ is legitimising the Klan’s violence. On that basis, yes definitely the BNP should have faced criminal sanctions, even been prohibited from contesting elections.

Something that fascinates me is the comments sent daily to the online version of the Times of Malta. Some people repeatedly voice their opinion on African migrants, not only condemning illegal border crossing, but exposing their hatred towards these people. None of them is censored and as much as I despise (or sometimes laugh at) what they say I agree they should be allowed to voice their opinion. However occasionally they do cross the line. I remember a particular comment going something like this (referring to migrants in Britain and Malta): ‘The BNP will in the end take control because they have the support of the Army. Same should be done here’. The threat here is not so subtle. The author is definitely not talking about just the Army officials’ vote.

This topic is extremely delicate, and the line between what is acceptable or not is extremely thin. Thus I would like to make some things clear:

1) Though one may think in what s/he reads here and in most of the media that the issue of censorship is related mainly to race, religion and political correctness, this is not the case. These cases are the most controversial, thus newsworthy. In reality censorship is more often used in the form of trying to silence people like Mr Joe Falzon, MEPA’s auditor who want to expose serious illegalities at the expense of the Maltese taxpayer.

2) What I wrote here is my personal opinion. It does not necessarily reflect what Maltese or EU legislation states.

3) There are a lot of gray areas. For example what about psychological harassment? A recent case of a homosexual who had his house intruded by someone who sprayed the words ‘No Gays’ is not, in my opinion just a case of vandalism and trespassing but a hate crime. There was a deliberate (and successful) attempt at causing fear in the victim, even if there was no overt reference to violence. Once again, the million dollar question is, ‘Where does one cross the line?’

 

Rather the Crucifix than the Swastika

 Being agnostic one might easily believe I’m glad about the decision by the EU to ban Crucifix from public places in Italy on grounds of human rights. This couldn’t be further than the truth.

The Crucifix never bothered me at all. For many in my country it symbolises Christianity. For me it symbolises a revolutionary who was tortured and murdered fighting injustice. Having said that, rather than a symbol it would have been better if those who hail it in my country (the majority) would actually follow his admirable steps, something only practiced by a minority.

Had the circumstances been different I wouldn’t have bothered it was removed either. But as things stands this decision was taken at the worst time in the worst country – fascist Italy.

I can already imagine Berlusconi’s face, together with those of his accomplices in the Northern League, beam at this decision. After offending the Catholic church by their explicit sexist and racist attitudes, Silvio Berlusconi now has the opportunity to appear as the ultimate saviour of Christianity. Forget the sex scandals, the corruption charges. One may easily also forget the criminal offences committed by people in his government, worst of which having an MP convicted of arson attacks on Romanian communities. Now these criminals are enraged against pagans (secularists) and are determined to save Christianity (its symbols actually, quite a different thing).

To add insult to injury an organisation responsible for more than a thousand murders in hundred years in the U.S, the Ku Klux Klan is taking a tangible form in Italy. Ironically this is an organisation that discriminated against Catholics in the past, especially Italian migrants in the U.S.

But the Italian Clansmen, targeting mainly migrants, Jews and homosexuals, are promising they will be good boys and obey the law. Yet, like the mother organisation, they want to keep their masks and hoods. Ironically the reason for this is because they fear to be discriminated against. Being the patriots they claim to be I find no reason they should fear discrimination, unless obviously they were lying when they stated they will be law abiding, just like the mother organisation in the U.S did.

 The European Human Rights Commission has committed a grave mistake in banning crucifixes in Italy. It only makes it easier for these elected and non electing criminals dupe well meaning Catholic citizens towards them, to the extent of apologising them because of fear that atheists, secularist, Jews an Muslims would take their crosses away.

Apart from that, the EHRC has also shown it has no sense of priority. The Italian government is committing serious human rights breaches, from abusing from data of its people up to sending back potential refugees to Libya (a country with no obligation for granting asylum to those who need it), some of whom will meet their death.

If the EU doesn’t control these serious human rights abuses, while allowing criminal organisations such as the KKK take form, the crucifixes would soon be replaced by Swastikas. And yes, that does bother me. Actually it scares me.

 

Winners and Losers

 

Some people mention the possibility of having a World War III. The tensions are high. The recession aggravates things but it’s just a small part in the equation. So is religion. Though the tension is apparently between the West and the Islamic world, religion is just an umbrella for more serious underlying issues, such as greed, injustice, corruption, poverty and deep resentments. Extremists both from the left and the right have got entangled in conspiracy theories about a New World Order and worldwide dictatorship. While in my opinion creators and believers of these theories verge on serious paranoia and delusions of grandeur reminding me of Charles Manson, most of what they say is actually based on facts (it’s the way they link one thing to another to arrive at their bombastic conclusions is why they shouldn’t be taken seriously).

 

However, amid all the uncertainties, there is one thing for sure. This is not World War III, but yes, we are in Cold War II. Many might not acknowledge this (possibly because it is too scary to do so) but in reality the world is not safer that the 60’s, the peak of the first Cold War.

 

Some say, in war everybody loses. I beg to differ. If there were no winners there would be no wars, cold or not. So who are the winners? The West or the Muslim world? None of them. The winners are on both sides, so are the losers. And for each winner, there are a million losers. And we, the non-guilty no matter what our religion or race are the majority – the losers.

 

The winners are easy to spot out. The weapons industry is one of the most victorious. The more the tension, the higher the profits. Dictators in Muslim countries, and fringe terrorist groups are also gaining a lot. For the latter it’s more a question of power than money, though the two are usually sides of the same coin. The fear of the bad West and its oppression of fellow Muslims especially in Palestine is carefully manipulated to consolidate their power.

 

The list includes the corrupt criminals at Congress, turban wearing sheiks in Saudi Arabia, fanatic Zionists, some of the gamblers at Wall street and last but not least every corrupt dictator in Third World Countries. The latter sporting some solid gold Rolls Royce with a personal professional driver who knows which streets to avoid the overly thin or overly bloated corpses of the locals.

 

And we the losers? Hard to name every category but, generally speaking we are either dying of hunger, scared shitless of a terrorist attack or both. And we will keep on losing as long as the winners convince us the enemy is in the East or the West and not them. And they are succeeding. They do not only care about us, they love us. Angry at the other side but nearly always they are smiling.

 

Seen the Bin Laden clips? Despite his rage for the murdered Palestinian children, despite killing thousands of innocent civilians whose fault was only that to be at the wrong time and the wrong place (something he says was the will of God), he smiles. Yes the son of a bitch smiles, like the sweet Imam in Pakistan who mesmerised journalists by saying in a well mannered soft voice that he wants nothing ‘except full Sharia law for country’ In other words power given to him by God itself, power to rule a country that has nukes, together with people who won’t find it hard to use them.

 

And on the other side? First we had that awful blond, sending troops to kill and die for his ‘noble cause’. To destroy a man accused of having weapons of mass destruction (never found) by invading his land with white phosphorous, an illegal weapon for mass destruction. And when the American citizens got fed up, they chose a black guy, changed a little bit here and there (better than nothing?) but is still fighting the same ‘noble cause’. The noble cause Cindy Sheenan mother of one the deceased who fought it, never got any reply about what was so noble about it. And both the ginger and the black President smile for the cameras to keep us happy.

 

In a land so far away, still featured in many travel magazines (not for long), there is a man, a dictator actually screaming and shouting to get our attention. The President of the Maldives’ mantra, coming out from his severely abused vocal chords, has changed slightly lately. He used to yell ‘Stop global warming, we are going to drown’. Now he yells ‘we are drowning, literally’. Unfortunately, this little rich boy is telling the truth.

 

While mother earth is lashing at us with vengeance for being so bad, the winners insist with their agenda. The Cold War needs to go on, or the profit will decrease substantially. Gorbachev saved the world once. He is not in a position to do it again. Now it’s up to us, the losers, the majority. Unless we unite against our real oppressors we’ll keep on living and dying in our fear.

 

And at the risk of sounding repetitive I still insist, this war can only be won by not being fought.

 

Guilt Free Entertainment

Once again a circus with wild animals in captivity has come to entertain us this Christmas. Entertainment at the expense of endless torture of these wonderful, innocent creatures. One of the ultimate perversities of human beings. Definitely not my kind of entertainment.

 

When I did visit a circus, some 20 years ago it was different. There had been no education. My parents can honestly say they took me, a nine year old on a clean conscience. Probably, like myself, they though the animals were actually having fun.

 

Today we don’t have any excuse. Just in case one still has doubts, maybe this is a little eye opener on the horror circus animals have to endure.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb3AKVn32_I&feature=related

 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y6WKI8eKI4

However, my conscience is not the only reason that makes me prefer watching animals on National Geographic, and hopefully one day in a Safari, than in a circus. It’s that in the latter, they don’t even attract me anymore. An elephant, a tiger or an iguana isn’t itself in such a place. It’s not only held in captivity against any law of nature but it’s being persistently humiliated. It’s naked of the dignity its brothers and sisters enjoy in the wilderness. The show, the games it does are nothing more than a manifestation of its submission to its pervert owner. We take our children to watch these animals obey rules that weren’t meant for them in the first place.

 

The first reaction to this forthcoming circus, Circo Fantasy, is a negative one on the media. And that’s something very positive. I’m proud that most of my fellow Maltese people do have a conscience and disapprove of this brutality, while I’m disgusted with authorities giving the green light to this perversity.

 

However, the ball is in our court. We have to hit them where it hurts, which is the profit they make from this misery. We have to boycott any circus with animals and show the reason why. If we really love circuses, we will attend only those that are animal free. We still appreciate the greatness of a trapeze jumper, the accurateness of a juggler and the talent of a clown.

 

We love animals. We also want to see them. But when we do, be it on a screen or in the wildlife, we’ll see them living their free dignified life. We want to see them live, like they do on the Discovery Channel.

 

Take another step and join this Facebook Group. This year might be the last one our country is an accomplice to this misery.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=152447782391