Roamer’s column

Anybody following the British press will have read the Archbishop of Canterbury’s criticism of Britain’s coalition government in, of all newspapers, The Statesman, and noted how he openly questioned the coalition’s democratic legitimacy. In that pretty non-Catholic country Tony Blair told a BBC Radio 4 audience that (the Archbishop) was “entitled to speak his mind”.

On the right of the political spectrum, Lord Tebbit had no trouble with asserting that “no-one would dispute the right of the Archbishop to make comments of a political kind in this area. It is part of his job”. The man who famously told the unemployed that they should get on their bycycle and look for work instead of sitting on their haunches, should come to Malta.

Downing Streeet (our Castille, or Mile End if you prefer) was unhappy with the intervention and managed to remark, as politely as it could, that Rowan Williams made “an important contribution to the debate”. Mmm. This was echoed by David Cameron, leader of the coalition, who “profoundly” disagreed with him.

How Archbishop Paul Cremona and Gozo Bishop Mario Grech must envy Canterbury.

Over here it was not so much the case that the islands’ spiritual leaders had to watch every word they said. It was more the general misconception that any errant priest was the Church and the Church was every errant priest. Even the editorial of this newspaper surprisingly fell into this gynormous error last Sunday, thus contributing to the growing myth that the Church conducted herself in a manner that, as it was described, “grated”.

Worse, the editorial stated, flatly, that contrary to the Archbishop’s “opening shots” (a militant choice of words), which were “conciliatory when he said that no one should embark on a crusade... the Church he leads then wasted no time in doing just that”. Come to Malta, Rowan Williams and show what the Archbishop of Canterbury can say, and how much he can openly criticise the government of his country, on socio-political issues, without being accused of political ‘interference’ and without incurring the wrath of the Prime Minister you baited when you referrred to his “Big Society” as a “stale slogan”.

Conscience – again

Meanwhile, over here we are being told that once a referendum was held and delivered its result, this was binding on every Member of Parliament, who no longer has any right over his own views, no right to the exercise of his conscience.

Yet his views may well coincide with those of his constituents who voted against the introduction of divorce; in the same way, although in a diametrically opposite manner, as the views of the majority of Pullicino Orlando’s constituents differed sharply from his.

We also had Lou Bondi writing to ask why certain parliamentarians were conscientious objectors, “as distinct from opposing (divorce) on routine political grounds”?

Having admitted that “we don’t know because not a single one told us”, he thought he knew why. “Because for them faith and conscience are interchangeable. Faith does not inspire their conscience. Faith is their conscience.”

Well, parliamentarians who did object on social grounds saw what had happened elsewhere, everywhere, and did not like what they saw. Faith and reason informed their opinion. Anyway, to acccuse them of having a conscience that is interchangeable with their faith, that faith is their conscience, begs the question. By the same arument, isn’t the secular mindset similarly interchangeable with a secular conscience?

And we had Ranier Fsadni conceding that if Thomas More “were an anti-divorce MP today, I suspect he would reject the idea that he was obliged simply to vote Yes when the Bill came to be passed. He would be prepared to dissent (and not resign). But I also suspect that, in formulating what his conscience dictated, he would ask himself not just about the consequences of a divorce law but also about the consequences of future political action, of incurring the consuming wrath of the electorate”.

Question. Which part of the electorate? Certainly the 53 per cent, but not the 47 per cent, nor in all likelihood a portion, perhaps the larger part, of the 90,000 who stayed away. But one’s reaction to Fsadni’s speculative take on the way More would have informed his conscience, whether he would have thought about incurring the “consuming wrath of the elctorate”, is to regard that take as manifestly dicey. For in More’s case, he must have done just that and asked himself what consuming wrath he would incur if he defied the King’s wishes on the “business of the Queen”.

He knew that the King’s wrath would lead him to execution. Last week, I suggested that no politician was being asked to make the final sacrifice, to give up his life, only to listen to his conscience, a suggestion that had numerous savants and non-savants (mainly the latter) salivating. It was even the case that the word conscience in respect of that of an MP was subjected to some snideness by being written thus – ‘conscience’.

As the divorce debate in Parliament gets into its stride, we must hope that the collective intelligence of our MPs will see to it that the discussion moves away from personalities to the issue involved. The central issue is marriage and, from that recognition, the family – and safeguarding both.

I have little doubt that the optimists who have been maintaining, against all outside evidence, that any divorce law Parliament will attempt to knock together will not strenghten the institution of marriage; that sooner or later we will go down the same path other countries have trod – a weakening of the institution, fewer marriages and more cohabitation (why marry if we can divorce?); followed by laws on cohabitation that will further undermine marriage and the family;followed by further attempts to shellac traditional marriage.

Once we embark upon the slippery slope on the top of which we stand or teeter, the deceptiveness of the slope will take on a momentum of its own. Silly to think we will emerge differently from the civilised, enlightened countries we so wish to ape; frivolous to place hope over experience.

Of spaces – and loyalty

You would think, a glance is enough, that given his sheer bulk there cannot be more to Resources Minister George Pullicino, than already meets the eye. His weight alone, if not his height and reach, makes him a potential contender for any heavyweight contest in the ring or, outside it, for a wrestling bout that Japanese carrying God knows how many scores of kilos of fat, tissue and muscle, seem so much to enjoy. This notwithstanding, there is more to him than weight.

Pullicino gets on quietly and calmly with things; on the whole, he does so with more than a little success, not least by contributing to make Malta more beautiful and this, quite apart from the island’s natural charm. In Sliema alone, his latest hit, following swiftly on the George Bonello Dupuis Garden, itself a very welcome addition to attractive spaces, his ministry is creating, is Bisazza Street. St Anne Square, too, has been re-fashioned.

What was until recently a traffic-choked artery down which thosuands of cars and buses trundled daily has been transformed into a stylish and tastefully planned pedestrian zone complete with Seville-style citrus trees, sitting arrangements and a sculpture reminding those of us who are interested, of comedy, past comedians – and sculptors; a pleasing nod in the direction of Ġemma Portelli, Victor Apap, Charlie Clews.

Nor are these isolated creations; there has been a welcome proliferatation of such projects – not all of them Pullicino’s I know, but in great part. I am now thinking of the Baċir 10 undertaking that will enhance further the attraction afforded by the Three Cities.

One does not know how much the work going on there during the past decade will translate itself into an appreciation for this government’s commitment to turn that historic area into a truly tourist attraction and into an attractive residential area – watch out for a surge in property prices; possibly very little, but it remains a simple fact that the facelift to this Labour stronghold was carried out by an administration that has done far more to bring about the general enhancement of the cities than anything – if anything – carried out by Labour governments.

The greatest monument to the place has been the scaling down of an enormously loss-making dockyard and ship repair industry that cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of euros since Malta gained independence in 1964; and the great change that has, as a result, transformed a run-down area into a handsome, thriving geographical and historic space with memories reaching back to the16th century.

And loyalty? What’s that all about? I have been meaning to mention this for some time and to doff my cap/hat in the direction of Francis Zammit Dimech, who was returned to Parliament having left the House as a minister and returned to it as a Member of Parliament. His behaviour has been impeccable; not once has he spoken out of turn, not once betrayed signs of any bitterness – which is more than can said for quite a few backbenchers on the government’s side of the House.

Not only; he has maintained constant contact with his constituents when others on both sides of the political divide have followed devices that were well outside their remit as representatives of their constituents. Perhaps Zammit Dimech will soon have his loyalty recognised; it is by no means certain.