What has Wied il-Ghasel Got to do with Democracy? Everything

As I write, many Maltese people are biting their nails to see whether Franco Debono votes against the government or abstains. Half of them wish he abstains, the other half hope he’ll bring the government down. “Nazzjonalisti u Laburisti”, same old story.

Much less noticed are two young gentleman spending days braving the cold at Valletta City gate collecting signatures for a petition against the obnoxious development of 24 apartments and 26 garages in the middle of the picturesque valley of Wied il-Ghasel, Mosta. They are representing Harsien Patrimonju Mosti, that has been pulling a hard fight against the rape of the valley for years. They are also fighting a battle against time since though pending an appeal next June, the construction is going on at this very moment.

What has this got to do with what’s going on in Parliament and democracy? Much more than you think.

Before it degraded itself into mud throwing and petty bickering, most of the “Franco Debono issue” was about transparency, accountability and democracy. And while I may disagree on Franco Debono’s tactics, about the issues he put brought to surface I can only say one thing – He is right.

As can be seen in the well documented saga of the destruction of Wied il-Ghasel on Harsien Patrimonju Mosti’s website www.it-tarka.com the rape of the valley was given the green light through a process marred by conflicts of interest, lack of accountability and a massive exploitation of legal loopholes.

The destruction of this valley, like all the other past and present environmental scandals goes against the interest of Maltese citizens who have a vote. Yet, even at the risk of losing their votes without gaining others to compensate (for instance losing the votes of conservatives but in return gaining the votes of liberals when taking a stand on divorce or gay marriage) the abuse goes on.

Doesn’t this raise an eyebrow or two?

Isn’t it a pity that the much needed arguments on transparency and accountability Franco Debono was talking about have descended to petty bickering and mudslinging before even seriously discussed?

PS: I urge everyone who really love this country to download the petition from www.it-tarka.com print it, sign it, distribute it amongst friends and post it in the provided address. With around 30,000 signatures, the President will be asked to intervene. By the time of writing around 19,000 signatures have been collected.

 

They may Promise Change (But they won’t Deliver it)

The first time I voted, I cast my No1 to a random PN candidate and my No2 to AD.

I didn’t like the PN much but considered them as a lesser evil. Then I realized that I should give my No 1 to support the part and principles I believed in because at the end of the day, the world will not end if either the PN and PL is in government and my no 1 vote gives a very strong message – a message against blind tribalism. After my first election I am proud to have given my number 1 vote to AD each and every election with no regrets.

By the time, my interest in politics grew, and the more I came to know about Alternattiva Demokratika, the more I liked them. To the extent of eventually joining the party, and will be contesting Local Elections on Mosta next March.

If one had to ask me what I find different in AD, I will point mainly towards two things, which I will call Freedom and Direction.

Freedom

No one in AD has his hands tied. It doesn’t accept donations from people/companies it may have a conflict of interest with and no one in the party has any personal interest that may jeopardise his position in politics, be it with a construction magnate, a contractor or a North African tyrant.

In other words we are free. We say what we believe is right because no one is pulling our strings.

Direction

In modern Europe, one hears about political ideology much less than before. In a way this is good. Fewer people are fossilized into ideologies of both left and right and many try to avoid any of the two extremes. This is partly due to the atrocities committed by both sides in our not-so-distant history.

However, in many European countries ideology has died completely, to the extent that democracy is not undermined by tyrants who oppose free and fair elections but by the fact voting for a party or another doesn’t actually make any difference.

This can’t be more true than in Malta where I describe both parties’ ideology as a “mad rush to where they think the votes are”

They use the term “rainbow party” as if it is some kind of compliment! In MEP elections, you could have voted for hunters advocate Perici Calascione or environmentalist Alan Deidun, both contesting on the same party ticket (PN). On the other hand, in the same PL opposition, you have ultra-conservative Adrian Vassallo but can still vote for a liberal like Evarist Bartolo. So on and so forth.

I don’t consider that as a rainbow but a complete mess.

Needless to say, we in AD do not always agree on everything. That would be against human nature. We do have our squabbles. However these are usually sorted out in a short time and without any resentment, not only because we mean well but also because unlike in the examples mentioned above, we don’t have people who are diametrically opposed to each other.

In short I think of Green ideology as left of center, liberal and one that puts a lot of weight on ecological issues. That said, this is not (and should not be) shrouded in dogma and a refusal to make a compromise, but a clear direction.

We do not promise a quick-fix for Malta’s problems like populist parties. Anyone who proposes that is either lying or hallucinating.

However, we do offer something different. A change that while I’m sure there are people who honestly mean it in both PN and PL, for the reasons mentioned above, can never deliver it.

 

Multiculti in North Korea

Most of the people who claim they are against multiculturalism, in reality don’t know what the word really means. Forget the debates about cultural relativism, citizenship or whatever policy is being drafted, for them it’s the simplistic notion of “people of different cultures living in the same country”.

For the purposes of this particular blog, the word multiculturalism is referring to the simplistic definition mentioned above.

For those who claim they are “against multiculturalism”, I have bad news. You’re not going to stop it. Forget it. You can vote in as many far-right parties as you want, your hated multiculti is here to stay.

Multiculturalism has been with us since the end of time. The only thing that changed in the last few decades is that it’s happening quicker. Globalization brought with it faster and cheaper travel and communications. It doesn’t take a month to travel from Malta to Australia anymore and you can date a Chinese girl you met on the Internet. You find Turkish kebabs in Sweden and McDonalds in Iraq. So on and so forth.

All sorts of genocides and atrocities tried to stop it: all of them failed. There still are a lot of Armenians in Turkey, Jews in Germany, Serbs in Bosnia and Tutsi in Rwanda. There are ethnic, religious and cultural minorities in every country in the world.

Except for one.

The only hope for the anti-multiculti is in a land where the sun only shines if the Supreme Leader wakes up in a good mood, and where thanks to the heavily censored media the residents think the National football team had won matches when in reality it had lost. It’s a country where most people believe the Supreme Leader was miraculously born in a well, and everyone enjoys free speech as long as it involves only praise to the leader.

The Supreme Leader of this country has also protected it from your hated multiculti. Only a few thousand people enter the country each year, most of whom are diplomats. Only one tourist agency in the world can take you there, only if you leave from China after acquiring really hard to get special permits. The borders are heavily protected and if you’re a tourist you don’t really have much opportunity to meet the locals. You can’t infiltrate the country through the Internet either, because what the people have access to is decided by the Supreme Leader whom everybody loves since it’s illegal not to love him.

Nobody comes in, nobody goes out.

You want to stop multiculti? Go for it brainchild.

Just one little advice from my side if you don’t mind: The only reason the people in this single-culture paradise are not leaving is that they can’t.

 

David Caruana’s Case Highlights the Fact that the War on Drugs has Failed

“End the criminalization, marginalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs but who do no harm to others” Primary recommendation of the Global Commission on Drug Policy

I met David Caruana at a café a few months ago primarily for the reason that we share similar political beliefs, one of them being the war on drugs. There are many instances where we disagreed including on this issue. While for example, he prefers the Dutch model of legalizing cannabis, I find the Portuguese model of decriminalizing the personal use of drugs much more attractive.

One of the things struck me about David is the honesty and passion with which he discusses the issue – the kind that many politicians try to imitate but never seem to get right.

While I had assumed he probably had smoked some weed, when he told me he had a pending case on the cultivation of two cannabis plants I was shocked. Shocked, not because the person in front of me was arduous enough to go beyond cultivating tomatoes and basil, but because I knew that in Malta’s criminal code, cultivating cannabis is the equivalent of trafficking. Even if the intent of that cultivation is nothing more than personal consumption, which I know is the case here.

This came at a time when I was researching about the issue which included reading the document quoted above

http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/Report

 

Together with other literature, this document doesn’t consider drugs of whatever kind as ideal and healthy. Far from that. However it highlights how much the war on drugs has not only failed but become an added problem. When President Nixon declared the “war on drugs” it was assumed that within a few years the supply of drugs would be eradicated, globally. Unfortunately, thanks to the lack of a parallel “war on corruption” the supply of drugs not only wasn’t curbed but multiplied, reaching alarming levels Nixon could have never even predicted.

Thus the war changed. The Pablo Escobars around the world had no intention of quitting their trade, thus they bribed themselves our of it (At one point in time Escobar managed to bribe 2/3 of the Colombian parliament to change the country’s constitution so as not to permit his extradition to the US).

Helpless in front of these kingpins, a new enemy had to be found. The enemy was drug users, couriers and cultivators.* David Caruana is one of them.

I wasn’t just shocked when David told me about his pending case but also angry. Seriously angry because I knew that the main reason he will be prosecuted as a criminal with an effective prison sentence very likely is nothing more than a charade to cover up for people with Swiss accounts and villas in the Cayman islands. The ones who are pumping up the white or brown powder that’s driving an increasing number of Maltese people insane, have them commit crimes they would have never thought they’ll commit and die a premature death.

David Caruana is neither the first, nor will be the last victim of this senseless war on drug users. He is the first to go public and use his situation to highlight the faults in our system though. And for that he’s definitely got my full admiration.

*I still agree that those who carry or cultivate drugs for the consumption of others should be considered as committing a criminal offense. However, as the Global Commission report suggests the extremely harsh sentences these people are punished with is nothing more than a need to find a scapegoat.

 

Do We Really Need to be Kept Here?

The first word I heard when visiting Block B in the detention centre for migrants at Safi was “Freedom”. Which, as Col Brian Gatt had informed us beforehand, is the first word any visitor hears as soon as he approaches the immigrants.

Though we didn’t visit the warehouses where the conditions are worse especially due to overcrowding, the inmates at Block B didn’t complain about the conditions they were kept in. Miles away from a one star hotel, but the atmosphere wasn’t tense. The relationship between the officers and the detainees also looked very positive, and it is clear that Col Gatt is looked at as both a person in authority as well as someone who deserves respect.

What struck me was their reaction to the amount of time they have to remain detained. I expected anger towards this aspect, and while there was a certain amount of anger, what was clear from what they said and their body language is a sense of awe. They simply couldn’t understand why they were being detained for so long (18 months).

I tried to be honest with the detainees as much as I could. I told them that we were a small political party and the only party in Malta that suggests a 6 month maximum detention period, rather than the irrational 18 months. While I promised we’ll keep on insisting on the more reasonable 6 month maximum, this wasn’t likely to change any time soon.

I also tried to explain the reason why. First of all that since they entered the country in an irregular manner they needed to be monitored. Quite reluctantly they understood this. But why for so long?

The truth is that up to a decade ago, one would barely see a black person in Malta. Unlike most other Western European countries most black people entered the country as asylum seekers, on boats, sometimes in large numbers. This created a sense of shock, not necessarily racism but while we have our fair share of racists, it was more a question of fearing what was new, things we hadn’t been exposed to before – in this case, seeing a substantial amount of black people in Malta

I tried to explain that it is this was caused automatic and long term detention. That the hysteria that was felt in the country in 2002 has decreased a lot since Maltese people now meet immigrants on a day to day basis and know them personally. Also, that detention gives the Maltese people a sense of safety that what is yet “unknown” is being closely monitored.

Some understood, others didn’t. “No one was a afraid when we saw the first white people in Nigeria”, one immigrant told me.

That is what I told them. Unfortunately, there is more.

I didn’t tell them that since 2002, Malta has seen the birth of two extreme right movement, who aside to the lunatic ramblings, also decided to contest elections (one of them Alleanza Nazzjonali has by now closed shop, the other, Imperium Evropa has actually went further extreme and intends to finish what Hitler didn’t).

In order not to cause any agitation I refrained from telling them that the only reason they were being detained for so long is that both government and opposition lack balls and are afraid that they lose some votes to the remaining extreme right party if they dare rock the boat.

That their real fear is not that black people let loose will become werewolves, but that a hallucinating neo-Nazi gathers his few, but fanatically loyal followers, tell them that the blacks were let loose to rape their women and eat their babies – and then, contest elections.

What I did tell them is that what we, the Greens are asking for is not abolishing the monitoring of people who enter Malta in an irregular manner. I explained that some time in detention (maximum 6 months) is necessary. That the monitoring should go on after the immigrant is released through regular signing at police stations and mandatory health checks.

What we are proposing is nothing more than common sense, humane and cost efficient. The only reason these people are being detained for so long is that both government and opposition lack balls.

 

Is it a Gateway Drug?

“Both alcohol and tobacco tend to precede cannabis use, and it is rare for those who use hard drugs to not have used alcohol and tobacco first” Golub A. Johnson, American Journal of Public Health, 2001

The main argument against the decriminalization of cannabis is that it is a gateway drug and introduces people to other, more lethal drugs, the most notably heroin and cocaine.

That argument is seriously flawed.

A recreational drug is any substance that when inserted in the body alters the mood and behavior of the user in a way he considers desirable. Thus, while cannabis is a drug, so are alcohol, tobacco and coffee.

The issue here is the way we use language in everyday life. We call alcohol, tobacco and coffee by their own name, rather than “drugs”. That doesn’t mean they are not mind altering substances. In other words – drugs.

[Before I carry on I’d like to make a distinction between alcohol and tobacco or coffee. The level of mind altering in tobacco and coffee is very mild. Alcohol on the other hand had a very significant effect, as everyone who’ve seen someone drunk, or got drunk at least once in his life, knows. Thus while for the purpose of this article I will be comparing cannabis with alcohol, this doesn’t mean the others are not drugs as well.]

Most surveys given to drug addicts in trying to identify patterns on how they started abusing drugs till they became full blown addicts were conducted in the way most surveys are – through a questionnaire.

And here is the mistake. Since in everyday language we don’t refer to alcohol as a drug, when asked “What is the first drug you ever used?” most respondents replied with “cannabis” even if, in the absolute majority of cases, drinking alcohol preceded it.

So, what makes something a gateway drug?

When people use a substance that significantly alters their mood they learn a lesson. The lesson is simply that a short cut exists to arrive to the desired state of mind, if only for a while. As an example, while working on your self esteem and assertiveness is likely to take a long time and hard work, one can temporarily overcome shyness by drinking a few units of alcohol.

Most people just stop there. Others start using alcohol in most areas in their life and in turn become alcoholics. Others will try harder drugs, many of whom end up full blown drug addicts.

So, is cannabis a gateway drug?

There is no such think that makes any particular chemical a gateway drug. The “gateway drug” is nothing more than the first mind altering substance the addict had used. It can be anything, but most of the time it’s alcohol.

 

They Aren’t Saying Occupy Iran, Are They?

The American people are angry. Their anger is directed mainly at the super rich 1% whose net worth is the equivalent of a third of the whole US. They’re asking for more affordable healthcare, housing and education. They are fed up of bearing the burnt of a recession caused by other people, while those same people are barely affected. Hence, the Occupy movement.

One of their slogans says, “Is this what democracy looks like?”

They are right. They have been fooled and betrayed. And if the betrayal had a name, it would be Barak Hussein Obama.

Before becoming President, Obama promised change. Not a superficial one, like the skin colour of the President, but change where it really matters, namely foreign policy.

The Iraqi invasion and the following occupation were based on a lie: There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) and Saddam Hussein, disgusting as he was, wasn’t a threat to the US. Many acknowledge the fact that the main aim of the invasion was getting hold of Iraq’s resources, especially oil.

What many non-Americans fail to realize is that the US average Joe, who pumped billions of dollars on this senseless war through his taxes, has gained nothing. All the spoils of war went to the same elite – the CEOs, bankers and politicians who are part of the 1%, or even a portion of it.

Public sentiment towards interfering in foreign countries has changed a lot since 2003. American citizens are fed up of financing these wars and prefer that their money is spent on them, in healthcare, housing and education.

Obama promised change. As Senator he used to ask the most relevant questions about the invasion/occupation of Iraq. Questions about its expenses, the use of mercenaries and the accountability of US troops. He gave clear indications that he was less interested in overthrowing regimes hostile to the US and more concerned about the health of American citizens.

Yet, three years later, while thousands of Americans are protesting and occupying public space, they are seeing a déjà-vu. Not only didn’t the US troops get out of Iraq, but it’s very likely that Iran will be invaded. The threat this time is nuclear weapons. The public is sceptic. They have been fooled too many times. They refuse to finance another war for the benefit of the 1% and their priorities are paying their bills, continuing education and feeling safe that the state will take care of them if they get ill.

They are also angry, very angry. This is not democracy; this is a farce. They voted for a Democrat who became a Republican once he got elected. Their protests were met with police brutality with the excuse of protecting the “general public”.

The similarities between their “democracy” and a totalitarian state are increasing by the minute. And they definitely don’t want this. How can one blame them?

 

The Hacker and the Mole

“Jekk ghandek bzonni hawn utilizzani bl-ahjar mod. Dan Jista jsir permezz ta’ tip offs ghal investigazzjonijiet ghall-istejjer.
Imma jien ukoll ghandi bzonn l-ghajnuna tieghek biex in-nies jibew ukoll isiru jafuni” Sabrina Agius

PL leader Joseph Muscat is alleging that either his computer or that of RTK journalist Sabrina Agius had been hacked and calling this an “erosion of democracy”.

Needless to say, the PN – by far the superior party when it comes to spin – are denying this categorically. I don’t trust them. Definitely not after the dirty tactics they used on Harry Vassallo before last elections. One thing is more than clear – hacking or not, there is some kind of foul play.

Obviously, this doesn’t by any means exculpate Dr Muscat from using Sabrina Aguis as a mole in RTK and instigating her to join more popular arenas such as the Times or PBS – so that he can “use her” further.

This behavior is shameful and downright disgusting. Yet, both parties are using the same tactic: “Whatever it is, the other party is worse”

As if I care!

I had been sympathizing with Alternattiva Demokratika years before I joined the party. While my main motives for this were anger for the rape of our countryside and thirst for social justice, there was something else.

I was fed up of hearing of scandal after scandal (hard evidence or not) and allegations of corruption and nepotism justified by the claim that “the other party is worse”. Worse still, these justifications were not coming from party officials, but sympathizers who were themselves being victims of the corruption (aside from those who had a finger or two in the pie).

Not only didn’t these justifications satisfy me. They made me angrier. They still do, when I see, as an example out of many, having a land speculator admitting he donates money to both parties equally. Something that doesn’t create much public outrage since both parties and their apologists had a muzzle around their mouths.

I joined the Greens while former leader Dr Harry Vassallo was using the slogan “A new way of doing politics”. As time went by, I became more and more involved in the party, not only because of embracing the “Green” ideology practiced by AD and the European Greens but also because I really believe in the need of a new way of doing politics.

A new way where amongst other things a political party’s main strength wouldn’t be the weakness of the opposing party.

 

The Punishment Rarely Fits the Crime

To assess whether a punishment delivered by the law courts is just or not by reading a newspaper report isn’t very rational. The reason is that the judge would (or at least, should) have judged the case considering a number of variables that do not appear in a short report from a journalist.

 

What can be assessed quite accurately though is the trends in punishment delivery. And what these trends are showing is that Maltese laws are a complete mess.

 

For the sake of simplicity I will focus on two kinds of crime: Drug related (not including theft for drug money) and violence related (including sexual violence and rape).

 

On drugs, Malta’s laws are ridiculously harsh. While I don’t agree with the legalization of hard drugs since this might increase availability, one fact cannot be denied:  No one is forced to buy drugs.

 

I’m not putting into doubt the devastating effect of drugs. I’ve lost close friends myself to them. I’ve seen families being ruined, and otherwise good, law abiding people committing serious crimes.

 

The point is, the war on drugs – the way we’re waging it – has failed, miserably.  Law enforcement, while it should be there, shouldn’t be the main weapon against drugs. Drug addiction is a disease and should be treated as such – with prevention and treatment. On a positive note, we have excellent services in Malta, though I would like more resources pumped into them, rather than into keeping people behind bars.

 

Then, there is the main issue on the failure of drug laws enforcement. The problem is not that sentences are too soft, the problem is corruption. We are jailing, for unreasonably long periods of time people who are nothing more than couriers. That the kingpins are brought to justice is extremely rare, and when they do they are the ones who enjoy the best lawyers and exploit every legal loopholes that can save them from long periods of imprisonment, if any.

 

It’s an open secret that someone is protecting them. Corruption has invaded every institution of power in this country, yet no one wants to do anything about it. Like many other Maltese people, I know – sometimes beyond reasonable doubt – some things that are going on. But what can I do, without the hard evidence?

 

So, to hide all this dirt and appear to be doing something, we become too harsh with the couriers.

 

What about violence?

 

That, we treat with a velvet glove. Beat the shit out of your wife and you’ll get a suspended sentence. Worse still, in the case of domestic violence, some people are granted bail and are sent to live (believe it or not) in the same house with the victim, since it’s the matrimonial home. All this when the main reasons for not granting bail include the risk of tampering with evidence and intimidating the witness!

 

Non-domestic violence is also treated lightly. The message given from the law court seems to be “hurt whoever you want unless you kill him”. Otherwise it will be treated as a murder and that (at least) has to be taken seriously.

 

Sexual abuse and rape are also treated with caution, lest we punish the abusers too much. The sentences given to the priests convicted of abusing a number of children are shameful to say the least.

 

It this same week a foreigner was granted 14 years imprisonment for importing heroin. Another foreigner was jailed for 9 years for beating a man unconscious, raping him and leaving him tied up. (9 years prison isn’t a joke, but relatively speaking it is definitely too lenient).

If this is what we call justice, I’m curious to know what injustice looks like.

 

It’s The Extremists, Stupid!

The relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is probably the biggest problem Europe is facing only second to the economic crisis. A problem that exists mainly because we have been fooled. Tricked by a handful of extremists into choosing sides.

The extremists on one side are the Islamists with right-wing extremists on the other. Most of us who are left leaning have been too respectful to the Islamists’ “cultural rights”, while those with right wing tendencies tend to see extremists on their side as “having a point” even though they may not completely agree with their tactics.

We, the moderates, the absolute majority have been doing it all wrong. Unlike other issues such as economical and environmental where our differences are healthy in a democratic environment, on this issue we need to unite because we have a common enemy that is becoming extremely dangerous in our continent. It has already claimed hundreds of innocent lives and can lead to rising tensions that can get our of control.

The enemies are the extremists – on both sides – because even though they hate each other bitterly, their similarities are striking.

In spite of our differences, we the moderates should speak one uncompromising voice to these people. If you permit me, I will suggest the attitude we should take.

Towards the Islamist:

“You hate freedom of speech, yet you abused it left, right and centre. No, you don’t have a right to agitate people, tell them to hate others and even murder them. Neither do you have any “cultural” right to mutilate your daughter’s body or imprison your wife.

 

You have insulted practically everyone and we don’t give a shit if you feel offended. If you insist on giving sermons of hatred, you’ll soon be delivering speeches to the rats and cockroaches in a cell in solitary confinement”

 

Towards right-wing extremists:

“Snatching the veil from a Muslim woman or painting swastikas on Mosques isn’t going to make your cock and longer, so get over it.

 

Just in case you happen to actually believe that you are harming Islamists and helping your country, then you’re even more stupid than I thought. You’re not hurting the hateful Imam but helping him. He may look offended but in actual fact he’s enjoying every single moment of it. You are justifying his claims that we the infidels are a nasty bunch and deserve to be killed. You are scaring his wives of the cold world outside and allowing him to abuse them more at the comfort of his home. Idiot!

 

That said, I still believe the main cause of your hatred is your own sexual inadequacies”

Needless to say these arguments are very simplistic since this is a blog not an academic study. One has to keep in mind that these extremists come in various forms. Not all right wing extremists are violent thugs with swastikas painted on their faces while some Islamists manage to sugar coat their words and appear less threatening.

There are also various ideological differences amongst the extremists. Some right wing extremists don’t see eye to eye because of Jews (some ally with them because they consider them common enemies of Islam while others want to finish what Hitler started). They also differ amongst themselves on basis of nationality. On the other hand, Islamists come from different sects, most of whom don’t see eye to eye either.

However, despite this being simplistic, I do believe it is a good starting point on this crucial issue. Whatever we do there will always be unrepentant extremists. For those, the only solution is the strong hand of the law.