I.M. Beck
Nothing to be proud of
By the time you read this, much of the crowing and preening will have abated, though, no doubt, there will still be reverberations thrumming around the country about the magnificent thrashing wrought by Jeanne d'Arc on the infidels.
Let's start by making a couple of things clear, lest I be pilloried more than necessary myself. In my real life, I give some service to the foundation that runs St John's. This having been said, whether or not the now-defunct extension ever came to fruition would have meant not a single iota of material gain for me, in any way, shape or form. In fact, since I work in Valletta, it would probably have meant inconvenience and traffic problems.
Not to put too fine a point on it, the only opinion I ever had on the project per se was that if it wasn't a good thing, it shouldn't happen. Other than that, I had no view and I expressed no view.
I had, however, dared to venture the opinion, when the whole controversy was kicked off by Ms d'Arc, that it might not be such a bad thing if, before shooting their mouths off, people would wait for the technical specs and take into consideration the opinions of people who might know a small something about things like this.
I don't include myself within the ranks of people who know something about things like this but, for that matter, I don't include Ms Astrid Vella and many of her many admirers within those ranks, either.
I know as much about civil engineering and the protection of the cultural heritage as they do, and that ain't a hell of a lot.
You'd have thought I was advocating the demolition of the co-cathedral in favour of the erection of a block of flats, to witness the skip-load of opprobrium that poured down on me. What I thought was an entirely reasonable point was drowned in a concerted howl, telling me precisely where I should get off and what I should do with my opinion.
Well, frankly, my opinion hasn't changed at all. In fact, it has been strengthened.
What we have here, as has been written before this in other media and will be, no doubt, written again before long, is mob rule, pure and simple. A regiment of good men and true have been swept along on a tide of righteousness and blinkered tree-hugging.
This has had the effect of obscuring the fact, stark and simple as it is, that the appropriate, legally-constituted bodies that should have discussed the thing dispassionately and taking into consideration all (and I do mean all, including the ones that contra-indicated the project) relevant factors have been rendered utterly useless.
Mepa, with its EIAs, and each and every other relevant forum that should - must, in fact - carry out the function of protecting our environment have been swept aside because the self-appointed protectors of our cultural heritage have decreed that they are not worth the time it takes to discuss projects and proposals.
The Labour Party, not being stupid, jumped onto this bandwagon with glee, and I don't blame them one tiny bit. This tactic, in the cut and thrust of politics, is perfectly valid, especially when they're given such a present by a bunch of people who, normally, wouldn't be seen within a barge-pole of Labour. The thing is, what Labour thought they were going to gain in the short term, before they were left standing there, all dressed up with nowhere to go, by the government's suave adoption of the tenets of real politik, has now been outweighed and overshadowed by the harm done to the mechanism in place for protecting the environment in the first place.
Now, thanks to the way this whole thing played out, we're back to the good old days, when such niceties as EIAs and technical studies and public discussion (as opposed to the megaphone-wielding tactics that have become all the rage) can be done away with, in favour of deciding in favour of which wheel is the squeakier.
This time around, it may very well be that a project that was not exactly brilliant was stopped (but we'll never know, because we're not going to have a proper discussion about it now). But, next time around, who is going to decide what will be scuppered before a proper, calm debate?
Or, even worse, who is going to decide what will be pushed ahead, without a proper, calm debate?
Popular Stories
In Discussion
17 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Corinne Vella
Feb 18th 2009, 19:37
James A Tyrell: "Why was the planning of this project kept secret from the public for over two years?"
It wasn't kept secret at all. The Sunday Times of 3rd December 2006 reported the proposal in an article entitled "Tapestries Museum planned under St John's Square".
I have a question for you: what led you to believe the project was kept secret and why did that happen?
James A. Tyrrell
Feb 15th 2009, 15:41
@Andrew Borg-Cardona. You are very welcome for the spelling lesson although I'm a little confused as my comment was directed at the writer of the article I.M. Beck. Are you one and the same?
Can you answer two very simple questions for me please? If as you say there was no risk to the Co-Cathedral in letting the discussion proceed in a calm and reasoned manner, why was the planning of this project kept secret from the public for over two years? Also can you tell me if ultimately there was no danger of structural damage to the Co-Cathedral from these proposals why did the foundation stop a local shopkeeper from digging out his cellar in order to accommodate a safe?
Are we expected to believe that digging out a cellar some distance from St. John's posed a greater risk to the structural integrity of the building than excavating a four storey deep quarry beside it?
Andrew Borg-Cardona
Feb 15th 2009, 09:57
I thank Mr Tyrell for his spelling lesson, which has been taken on board.
Read my lips: I don't care if people don't agree with me (Simon Micallef Stafrace please note...) My only point, from day one of this sorry affair, was that BEFORE saying no, all the relevant facts should have been discussed.
They were not and there's an end to it.
There was no risk to the Co-Cathedral in letting the discussion proceed in a calm and reasoned manner, but it seems that the desire to make an impact (justified or not) combined with political expediency to ensure that the discussion became hysterical.
Such is life in the 'Net Age, I suppose.
Andrew Borg-Cardona
Feb 15th 2009, 08:02
Dear all, especially the ones who seem to think that personal insult is an acceptable means of reaction to reasoned argument, would you kindly identify where I insulted Ms Vella? Certainly compared to the vulgar rants to which I have been subjected below (bring it on, incidentally, I can give as good as I get and then some) my mild sarcasm in her regard was a model of restraint and good taste.
The fact remains, however large the dose of triumphalist rhetoric is poured over the matter, that the project was snookered by ill-informed public outcry, fomented by non-experts, preventing proper and dispassionate technical discussion of the real (rather than the perceived) facts of the matter.
J Martinelli
Feb 14th 2009, 23:57
@ rene joseph
Because Franco Farrugia, like myself, not only read this column, we read blogs and more than one page of The Times.
Therefore we encounter several names, got used to their opinions and know where they come from and what their motive to write really is!
Does that answer your question?
Now answer this one: What was the real purpose of Joseph presenting a motion regarding the St. John project? - Purely a personal interest? Or was it not political opportunism?
James A. Tyrrell
Feb 14th 2009, 20:59
'The government's suave adoption of the tenets of real politik.' What a very polite way of saying that the Government lost it's bottle and decided to go with the masses! I should point out however that realpolitik from the German is in fact one word.
I think you only have to read the comments here to see that you are in a minority of one with regard to Ms. Vella unless of course you decide to cuddle up to Cruella de Vil from the Independent. I'm sure you know who I mean, the jealous one with the mouth like a toilet!
Enzo Caruana
Feb 14th 2009, 20:35
@ Franco Farrugia
Thanks and no thanks for your personal definition of U Turns. But I beg to differ. Gonzi will go down in history for making colossal U turns on the Mnajdra landfill, Xaghra l-Hamra, Ramla l-Hamra and now the Cathedral projects. You conveniently limit U turns to poltical decisions that would sway the future of the country. Thank God, public opinion, people like Astrid Vella and the Labour Party forced Lawrence Gonzi to make U Turnson these issue. If there was no opposition to these senseless projects our natural and cultural heritage would have been destroyed or spoilt forever. Political mistakes could be corrected but the destruction of our heritage can never be redeemed or repaired.
Once again a big thank you to Astrid Vella and all those who forced Lawrence Gonzi to notch up another U turn on his poltical profile. He should start thinking about a scenario to avoid another one with his plans for Parliament in the the City Gate Project
simon micallef stafrace
Feb 14th 2009, 20:01
Don't agree with you on this one bocc! We all, i believe, agree that St. John's is common heritage not to be tampered with. History has shown that EIAs always seem to agree with the developer. St. John's is too precious for us to take the risk. That's about it!
rene joseph
Feb 14th 2009, 18:47
Franco Farrugia
why are you trying to venture into partisan lines when this has nothing to do with party colours?
Franco Farrugia
Feb 14th 2009, 18:11
@ Enzo Caruana - In my book, at least, 'U-turn' is when you change tack over a very important issue, in the sense that you change direction completely when you have in front of you a political decision which will sway the future of the country. Do you want an example? Fine. How about the VAT issue? Or the EU membership issue?
What a difference these issues have, in comparison with the St John's proposed projects!
So, the next time you wish to identify a proper u-turn, I hope that I helped you out in which direction to look. :-)))
Enzo Caruana
Feb 14th 2009, 17:47
Your comments and snide remarks about Astrid Vella came as the regular summer solstice. You could not help toeing Richard Cachia Caruana's line and that of a lady columnist/blogger whose name should not be mentioned. Thank God we have the likes of Ms Vella whom you tried to make fun of calling her Jeanne D'Arc.
Ms Vella's next crusade or battle - call it as you wish - is to prevent Lawrence Gonzi have his way and lump us with a Parliament building lumped smack into the entrabce of Valletta. Rest assured dear Dr Borg Cardona that Ms Vella's legion will be much bigger and stronger on this issue and be prepared for another inglorious U turn by Lawrence Gonzi if he persists.
leonardo vince
Feb 14th 2009, 17:16
Gee! The same line of thought offered by Richard Cachia Caruana!!! A coincidence?
rene joseph
Feb 14th 2009, 16:35
The only thing ABC does nowadays is insulting people and trying to discredit others who do not see eye to eye with the government's plans; soon enough he'll call Astrid a lil' elves.
Now, the FAA was not talking nonsense on the dangers of this project. Indeed, the FAA quoted Joe Magro Conti (MEPA IHM unit), Dr Albert Ganado (Cultural Heritage Advisory Board) architect Michael Ellul and the MEPA Directorate, as well as Santo Guido who all showed great reservation on the project - with the MEPA Directorate saying 'the project is a non-starter due to the fact that no mitigation measures can guarantee that the Cathedral's foundations will not be affected'.
So, as far as I can see the only one who is carrying on the 'mob rule' is ABC himself.
Jesmond Farrugia
Feb 14th 2009, 16:34
Beck,
You don't have to be a cultural heritage expert to realise that excavating close to any building is fraught with danger. Damage happens frequently, as any person living close to a building site would testify.
Your argument that one has to await 'expert advice' to start this project does not hold water, that is called a waste of taxpayers money.
Eric Soames
Feb 14th 2009, 11:23
Seems to me, Becksie, it was more a question of lack of faith in the people responsible for vetting the project and therefore a fear that any danger would have been swept under the rug. On the other hand it didn't help either that the project in question entailed digging a large hole in porous ground to store valuable fabrics in.
Joseph V. Grech
Feb 14th 2009, 10:43
Seeing that, by his own 'admission', this much despised lawyer / contibuter to the Times of Malta, gives ''some service'' to the foundation that runs St John's., he should have the decency to keep his big mouth shut and not aim his poisoned darts at people like Ms. Astrid Vella and the many FAA supporters who attempt to protect what's left of our countryside and heritage.
I personally find I.M. Beck's contributions superficial and disgusting not least because he regales readers with descriptive narratives about his gastronomic escapades that usually end with public / free advertisements for the restaurants he visits.
I suggest Andrew Borg Cardona use his mouth solely to gorge himself with food rather than to utter the kind of nonsense he dishes out in his regular 'contributions' people have grown to despise.
The Maltese have spoken; the Prime Minister and the Archbishop have reacted positively, even if belated. All those who continue lamenting the passing away of this 'grand project' that put our gem of a Cathedral at risk, now need to accept the situation. And that, incidentally, includes Richard Cachia Caruana, that ''professional'' who is, like ABC, fast earning for himself the nation's scorn and anger.
Franco Farrugia
Feb 14th 2009, 10:38
Personally, I do not think that it does you honour to attack Astrid Vella. After all, she is a citizen at a par with your good self and with anybody else and his aunt, and she has a right to her opinion and to move people towards that opinion. An opinion, I might add, that made good, common sense. Except for some people who didn't see it that way.
I am not in any way affiliated to FAA and have nothing to do with the lady mentioned above.