Dr. Frank Portelli, and his position on minorities

The P.N. has always stood for people's rights and dignity, whoever they may be. Compassion and social justice have always been part of the ethos of the P.N., and with it a good dose of tolerance towards people of different views, coming from different backgrounds and cultures. It is for this reason that I cannot fathom the fact that nothing is being said by the party to stop or disassociate itself from Dr. Frank Portelli's spewing of venom at the minorities of our country. Dr. Portelli happens to be a candidate for the leadership of the P.N., and for this reason must fall within the acceptable boundaries of what is acceptable for the party, a party that has cherished and stands for tolerance and inclusion in our society. Islamophobic rhetoric has never been accepted by the P.N., and should never be. So, why should we accept this kind of language from a candidate who hopes to lead our party? Why isn't anything being said or done to stop Dr. Portelli from saying things that our party is politically and morally against? Isn't there a red line that makes certain kinds of positions unacceptable for our party? Could anyone say what he or she pleases in any kind of contest to occupy a position in the P.N.? I believe that there should be a red line on this. Language that attacks the dignity of fellow humans should not be accepted by anyone who hopes to occupy a position in our party, and Dr. Portelli is no different.

There might be some disagreement between the more conservative and more liberal elements of our party. The reason for this is that our intentions are good, we debate, even sometimes vehemently, because we believe in our values, and put fellow humans at the center of what we say. We all believe in one important aspect in politics, which is defending what we consider as human dignity. We might have disagreements with regards to what human dignity entails. Yet, none of us will say anything bad about the immigrants of our country, use Islamophobic language, or even treat people of different sexual orientations as some kind of abnormal object. The P.N. was the party that opened our country to the rest of the world, by introducing the internet, liberalizing the media, and campaigned and negotiated tirelessly for our country to join the E.U. So, how are we now accepting a kind of language that goes against what our party really and truly stands for, by allowing one of our own to spew hatred against minorities? 

It is right to point out that the kind of politics that Dr. Portelli stands for is similar to that condemned by E.U. institutions (not by the far right) in Victor Orban of Hungary, who has many times  gone against the political group that he and we also belong to i.e. the E.P.P.    

        

My Choice for Party Leader

We all have got our beliefs on who is the right person to fit the bill as our new leader, and I am sure that we all consider the P.N.'s future success when making our choices on who to vote for. I will refrain from stating who my preference is, but will highlight what I believe the direction of the P.N. should be like. May I also state that it is important that the choice of the councilors and members (tesserati) is respected by all, and that all those who want to be in the P.N. fold should accept the prevailing decision in a free and fair vote. 

Everybody likes to win. It is the same with the P.N. activists. The general election result was a blow for all those who had worked hard during the four years. It has also been a blow for all those who believe that honesty should be the way forward for Maltese politics. However, it is important at this point not to divorce our eagerness to win with the purpose of the P.N. as it has been led by Dr. Simon Busuttil. During the past four years our party has fought a battle against the most corrupt government that our country has ever seen. Yet, our economy is doing well, and the majority in this country are pretty comfortable with the situation as it stands today. There have been promotions in the army, and jobs were given out for votes. Those who have gained from these promotions in the army would not care about the fact that a friend of the prime minister skipped grades to become the commander of the AFM. People consider their immediate needs, while disregarding the fact that corruption will bring the country to a situation in which the present standards of living will not be sustainable. All this will implode because of corruption, but alas people do not realize this. For this reason, it is important that the leader that the P.N. will be choosing, will continue to fight corruption, and that he sets an example by being accountable to the country and his party, while making sure that the message is being communicated to the electorate. Honesty should be the foundation of the P.N.'s new leader, as it was with Dr. Busuttil. By stating that we should not divorce our eagerness to win with our mission as a party that militates for honesty in politics, I mean that our eagerness to win should be, because we believe that if we win we will bring honest politics to our country, and eliminate the kind of institutionalized corruption that we have today. We want to win for a purpose, unlike a football team that bases its successes on how many trophies it gets. 

I do not believe in a revolution in the structures of the P.N. Revolutions have always led to dispute or tragedy, while evolution is what brings progress to an institution, party, or country. A revolution is based on conflict, while evolution is brought through dialogue and the goodwill of those of different opinions within an institution, with the aim of bringing sustainable progress. I believe that there are many things that might have to change to make the P.N. electable. These kinds of changes should be made intelligently by consolidating what is good, and removing what one may see as not that good. Revolutions oust people to replace them with others. Evolution is about the inclusion of all, without having to oust others who might not agree entirely with a position. I will be supporting a candidate who will help the party evolve, not one who wants to cause earthquakes within the party. 

I do trust that all those who will be voting for a new leader will not allow an eagerness to win to disregard the raisons d'être of the PN i.e. honest and progressive politics for our country.   

     

Should we Legalize Cannabis?

Most people are arguing that whether cannabis should be legalized or not should depend on whether the drug is harmful to one's health or not. My take on this issue will go beyond health, and more on how the legalization of cannabis would leave our country in general. Will more liberties on drug consumption make us better, or would this be detrimental to us as a country? In principle, I believe that it is wrong to be moralist on the issue, as moralism is what many times brings us into the dichotomy of what is "right" as opposed to what is "wrong". I will not go down that road, as this issue is more about the common good than about whether consuming cannabis is morally "right" or "wrong". What is "right" or "wrong" on these sort of issues, those that effect individuals, is more about the perspective on how one wants to live his or her life than anything else. If cannabis is harmful, self harm should not be anybody's business, and no government should interfere on these sort of matters. Yet, it becomes the government's business when medical expenses come in, and the taxpayer is expected to foot the bill for other people's decisions. This also applies to the consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and junk food. The question is: should we pay for the medical expenses of someone who has brought trouble onto him/herself? Cannabis might have some medicinal benefits, but might also cause physical or mental health problems if used excessively. Cannabis, like alcohol, has also got some short term effects, namely anxiety and paranoia to problems with attention, which makes it dangerous for users to operate machinery or drive. On the other hand, when one makes an illicit drug legal, it is possible that it no longer remains in the realm of criminal gangs, which is a good thing. People start to pay taxes when consuming cannabis, and there might be more controls over where people consume the drug.

In principle, I am in favour of the legalization of cannabis, as long as things are not rushed into parliament as they were on number of occasions. The government shouldn't take these issues as a way of winning points over the opposition, as they did on gay marriage. On such issues, like all others that effect our society as a whole, we need a mature discussion on how to get the law right, as to guarantee that law and order is kept for the good of all individuals. The legalization of mind altering substances, with possible health repercussions, should be implemented with also those who do not want to consume the drug in mind, who are expected to live side-by-side with those who do. On the health issue, my point of view has always been that any product that harms human health should be taxed according to the medical expenses that these might bring to the taxpayers of our country. Thus, a study on the health risks must be made for this reason. This must include not only hash, but also junk food, tobacco and alcohol. People must pay for their decisions, and it is only right that they do so with their medical expenses. Taxation is good, because it allows people liberties, without putting a financial burden on the rest of society. It is important that the consumption of the drug is restricted to certain places, places that are secure for the users and all those present. This also applies to the consumption of alcoholic drinks (laws exist, but aren't enforced, we should start by enforcing the laws on alcohol consumption). Issues regarding paranoia and anxiety should be catered for in public places where cannabis is being consumed, to ensure the safety of all present, as should be done with alcohol and any mind altering  substance. However, law enforcement on alcohol is very weak, which augurs badly for when or if cannabis is legalized. This is my greatest worry

Another issue that might crop up, and which worries me a great deal, is whether we should transform our country into a partying paradise for foreign young people, and a hell for all the local residents. Some areas in Malta, namely Sliema, St. Julians, and Bugibba, have already become places where partying is rife in ways that are a nuisance to local residents. Legalizing the plant shouldn't be used as a marketing strategy for bringing more young party goers to our country, with the noise, vomit, and bad behaviour that to go with it.
                 

Where were you Police Commissioner?

Things never seem to go away, especially when they are too obvious to dismiss, and thank goodness for that. General elections are not the court of justice, nor do they absolve politicians and public officials from their wrongdoings, if there are any. Try as they may, as time subsides, politicians and officials will need to face the music for not doing their job properly. No covering up is foolproof. as covering up entails shutting the mouths of honest men and women. And, this is what has happened yesterday, when an ex-FIAU official, Mr. Jonathan Ferris, spoke to the Sunday Times to tell us that the police commissioner did not honour his duties, and because of this he has failed to protect the Republic of Malta from alleged criminality. This was also said by the PN opposition before the general election under the leadership of Dr. Simon Busuttil, and no "Simon falz" campaign, nor do the false accusations of negativity regarding the PN opposition change what is cast in stone i.e. wrongdoers will never set their minds at rest, and their actions will one day be apprehended and sanctioned. Misgivings caused by this lack of commitment by Malta's police force will one day come to haunt the government, and will continue to do so till the very last day of this political cycle.

Questions are already being asked regarding why the police commissioner had failed to follow the normal procedures when the prime minister's chief of staff, Mr. Keith Schembri, was being accused of money laundering. Why weren't the allegations registered at the police registry, and given a CID number, as normally happens? Why did it have to be the leader of the opposition to take the initiative for the allegations to become the subject of a magisterial inquiry? Where was Mr. Lawrence Cutajar in all this? Even if Police Commissioner Cutajar believes that Mr. Schembri is innocent, there is always no good reason not to register the FIAU files, and in this way make them seem not to exist.

Mr. Ferris who worked for years in the Criminal Investigation Department before joining the FIAU is known as being a thorough investigator, who had also once prosecuted his own cousin. All he is asking for is that procedures are kept, and that the police do their job. He said about the Pilatus incident that before having his fenkata, Mr. Cutajar should have followed procedures by phoning the Msida branch to get the inspector to open an investigation. Why weren't procedures kept by Mr. Cutajar? Why did it have to be the prime minister to open an investigations on his wife's and his own financial activities, when it had to be the police commissioner to do the job?

My point isn't on whether Mr. Schembri or Dr. Muscat are innocent or guilty, it is about having our country's institutions working properly as should be the case in a modern democracy. In which civilized country do you have the prime minister opening a magisterial inquiry about himself, and have opposition leader doing the job that should be done by no one other than the Attorney General?
.  

      

Politicians and the Needs of Civil Society

We live only once in this world which we know of, and they say that it is what you make of life that counts. This is true to some extent or another. Yet, what we are and the experiences we have in our lives are very much determined by how people treat us as fellow human beings. It is also about how society perceives us and treats us as individuals or as an individuals of a kind, and the fairness or lack of it that governments are willing to give us. If we consider a single mother, the needs she has, it is important that a proactive government is there for her, not out of compassion, but because she has got needs, and it is a government's role to cater for her needs, and  her needs should be of importance to a politician who means well, and who doesn't want to discriminate against a part of society. Considering her as sinful, and legislating with this in mind is surely abdicating of one's responsibility as a politician. We shouldn't condemn her as anything less in a world of unequals, because she isn't what is deemed by some as part of  a "normal" family unit. No government should be a judge of what is "normal" and "what isn't", what is "natural" and "what isn't" and legislate accordingly. This kind of dichotomy is what has led to minorities of our country and others to suffer prejudice. If, one says that a person is living an unnatural existence, because he or she is gay or lesbian, one is saying that there is a superior kind of person who is not gay or lesbian, and that this should give the latter greater rights to the former. This is what I count as discrimination. And, discrimination is wrong and should be condemned.

It is easy to say that one's point of view is right, because it is objective, or because it abides to a natural law. Yet, what is natural or unnatural is culturally determined, it is what some human beings do to come to terms with themselves to the detriment of others. Coming to terms with our own existence in a world which exists materially, but which only gets a meaning through language when   human beings decide to give it a meaning, is our own private business, and shouldn't be imposed on other people. There is no meaning out there, no natural laws, there are human beings who happen to find ways of surviving whatever is thrown at them. Language is what we have, and the language that politicians should be using should be of the kind that liberates rather than suppresses.

On Migration and Oil Exploration

Our country hasn't had migrants from Africa for quite some time now, when our neighbours Italy have had an influx of 12,000 people in just 48-hours last week. According to the Sunday Times of London, there are people in Italy who are asking questions on the reasons why Malta is not taking migrants in, as we are closer to Libya than they are. This is a legitimate concern by our neighbours, because questions with regards to whether a nation respects international humanitarian obligations is of an ethical and social concern. The other question that arises is: if we aren't reaching our international obligations, what has led us to not doing so? In July 2013, the situation of migration to Malta was so imminent that our prime minister Joseph Muscat was speaking about push backs. According to U.N.H.C.R statistics, the highest point for migrants coming to Malta by boat was in 2008. It was also the highest in Italy in 2008, which led to an agreement between Gaddafi and Berlusconi to cooperate so that boats intercepted by Italian coastguards are forcibly sent back to Libya. This  was in violation of the European Convention of Human Rights. However, the agreement collapsed with the revolution in Libya in 2011. After that, figures rose again in both Italy and Malta. They reached the highest in 2013, when 2008 migrants reached the Maltese shores by boat from North Africa. However, from 2013 onward numbers began to dwindle to reach an all time low of 25 migrants in 2016 in Malta.

In the mean time, things have become so disparate in Italy that the Italian M.E.P. Mario Borghezio had to recently bring up once again accusations that Malta has traded oil exploration rights to Italy in return for the latter taking the former's share of migrants. My take on this is that this would mean that our country is buying itself out of its humanitarian obligation, which entails not contributing towards aiding victims of war and mass displacement in one of the greatest humanitarian crisis since the holocaust. This is unacceptable, when considering the way in which our country is selling passports to rich migrants, while failing to help those who are really in need. Muscat's government perceives money over and above human life, not to mention honest dealings on an international sphere, which I find as unacceptable as worrying. There are things in life that are more important than money, such as compassion, honesty and integrity. The P.L. government has been failing on this front.
         

Gay Marriage Legislation and a Free Vote.

Our country is made out of people of different kinds, who live their lives differently to one another. We have become a country in which aspirations differ, and it is because of this that the P.N. must remain a party for the people as Dr. Simon Busuttil is leaving it. The P.N. cannot become a party that represents only one kind of people, if being in government is to become a reality. The P.N. must be the party that everyone is comfortable with, because if it isn't people will just not vote for us. We cannot exclude people because of their sexuality, nor should we exclude conservatives who are an important part of our party. It is about allowing democracy to take its course, and not allowing anyone to create a homogeneous situation in within our party. It is all about reaching a right balance, and finding ways of making divergences in the P.N. our strength. This is why I have been suggesting all along that having a free vote on ethical issues should be the way forward for the P.N.

However, there is another aspect to politics that all politicians must be expected to respect i.e. living up to their promises. It must be said that being conservative out of conviction is fine, as M.P.s should feel free to express their ethical position without being hindered by their respective parties. What is wrong is when you get politicians who go along with the party stance, to go against what they seemed to be in favour of after the general election which is nothing other than deceit. If there were candidates in the P.N. who were against gay marriage, these should have said so before the general election not after. It is neither conservative, nor is it liberal to contest a general election with a promise to then break it, when the electorate had decided to vote for you. It is outright deceit to do so. There was nothing about a free vote on gay marriage in the P.N.'s electoral program, thus it is a must that all opposition M.P.s vote in favour of the bill if they are to be taken seriously.