Blame the mothers

"So you want to be jailed?... So, it would be a worse punishment if I do not jail you, once you want to go to jail. Then perhaps I should not jail you." This is not something out of a farce at the Manoel Theatre, but these words were in a court report on the back page of The Times on Tuesday.

A 16-year-old boy was in the dock for not abiding by a probation order. His probation officer reported that since July the boy had only attended two of the weekly sessions with her.

Furthermore, the few times that he bothered to attend, he was "hostile" and "showed signs of aggression". "But he quietened down after she yelled at him".

She recommended that the boy be referred to a social worker or a psychologist since "he did not have any boundaries and speaking to him was like talking to the wall".

But what I found really seriously disturbing was that his mother, who was called as a witness, told the court that the boy "has threatened to kill her, even brandishing knives".

Even the probation officer's remarks concerning the mother disturbed me: "He is rebelling against his mother and we need to understand why". This insidious comment insinuates that somehow the mother is at fault. From my understanding the boy was also rebelling against the probation officer and anyone else who tried to get him to behave.

We need to understand why he is rebelling, full stop. Why pick on Mum?

According to the court report the magistrate, after discussing the jail option, asked the boy whether he was listening, when the option of sending him to jail was being discussed.

In response the boy told the magistrate: "Throw me in jail... perhaps when I come out I will learn to behave". Hardly likely! However, these were the words that sparked off the magistrate's reaction at the start of this article.

Prison turns petty criminals into hardened ones, and I imagine that that was what was going through the magistrate's mind. But why the facetious banter?

The magistrate then asked him why he had not attended the probation sessions. "I either forget or do not wake up in time," responded the boy.

Yet the magistrate gave him five weeks "to pull himself together" and attend the sessions with the probation officer.

Now the whole reason for the boy's presence in court was because he was not attending the sessions. But the hearing revealed that besides not attending, his behaviour was hostile on the few times he did. Besides, his mother also told the court that he had threatened to kill her.

Obviously, this boy is seriously disturbed and his mother is at risk. It is not clear in the report whether the probation officer's recommendation that he should be assigned a social worker and a psychologist - which seemed a very wise one; in fact the whole family needs help - was followed up.

The boy made it very clear to the magistrate that he "does not want to work" after the latter suggested he might be found some community service work.

I consider myself a liberal and am all for understanding why young people rebel. I also believe that putting such a minor in prison will do more harm than good. But allowing him to go home, considering the threats to his mother, is irresponsible. Besides, there is no way this kid can pull himself together without professional help.

I understand that magistrates are in a quandary in such cases. There is nowhere to send disturbed youths other than prison or Mount Carmel Hospital, and they are both not advisable, or the solution, in this case.

But something tangible needs to be done to protect women at risk of domestic violence.

Old chestnut

I have come to know a set of gentlemen of leisure when I go for my early morning swim. They are a mine of information. They keep me updated on what is happening in the area and fill me in on many other useful things to know.

They are right behind me on environmental issues, but we do not always concur on other topics.

On Thursday, one of them brought up an argument I had brought up at a TV debate years ago. It was an example of one of the things on which he did not see eye to eye with me.

I was surprised, as the topic - that housewives should be paid for housework and nurturing children - had not surfaced since. Imagine my surprise when I read on Friday that the Archbishop had brought the subject up again in his Independence Day homily.

The state should "support mothers who choose not to work outside the home to be able to bring up their children," he said. He also brought up the fact that such women are branded as failures.

An important and valid point, and this is certainly a subject that needs to be addressed.

Of course women can never win - they are failures as homemakers and nurturers if they go out to work, and failures if they don't. Besides, the women who go out to work are not only seen as failing their families, but are also held responsible for most that is dysfunctional in our society!

They are now pressured to go to work by governments and pressured not to by the Church.

The crux of the whole issue is that women need to be financially independent. And that means earning proper wages. At the moment the majority of women do not earn enough even when they work both in and out of their homes.

Castille Trees petition update

Support for the petition is still trickling in despite the September 15 deadline. One of the late arrivals came from Architect Louis A. Naudi, a co-founder of The Men of the Trees in Malta, now known as The International Tree Foundation. Unfortunately, although the covering letter was dated September 12, I received it last Friday.

However, since Mr Naudi said I was free to quote him, I shall reproduce some of his comments.

"I completely agree with your objection to the removal of the trees in Castille Place. Furthermore, I would like to point out that one of the trees by the St James Cavalier entrance (on Castille Place) is one of the very few surviving Delonix regia (Flamboyant or Flame) trees in Malta.

"Considered as one of the most exuberant of the tropical trees when in full bloom, these trees cannot stand cold wind and temperatures lower than 5°C.

"The one near St James has flourished because of its position and I am sure that it will not survive if transplanted."

The petition was delivered to the Office of the Prime Minister, with this covering letter, on Wednesday.

Please accept this petition on behalf of 1,949 people who would not like to see the trees at Castille Place removed.

We understand that the trees right in front of the façade of the Auberge mar the architecture, and that those trees could be removed.

But we do not accept that all the area be denuded of trees as planned.

The argument made by some that Castille Place would look like squares abroad holds no water. We do not need to copy other countries. On the contrary, we should strive to keep our diversity.

Besides, the countries used as comparison have large areas of forests and woods. We do not have that luxury. The small wooded areas in Malta are few and far between.

It is also important to note that trees calm people down. I am sure that you agree that we need more of such calming elements in this country.

Of those who signed the petition, 1,378 people sent in their details via The Times Website, 342 sent them via the cutting from The Sunday Times and 229 sent them via the printed petition, or by e-mail.

I have had an acknowledgment of receipt from the OPM, but understandably, the prime minister has been busy with the Independence celebrations last week, so I have not got a response so far.

Hopefully, we shall have one by next week.

phansen@timesofmalta.com