Out with the troublemakers

In my last piece a couple of weeks ago I just happened to write about the national “thuggery” syndrome. Sure enough, within a few days we had it manifest itself in its worst form.

Where are the parties when there is need of a common front to protect us citizens on issues such as hunting and fireworks?- Austin Sammut

Nearly half a dozen louts who believe they own our public land (yours and mine, that is) beat up a decent, law-abiding citizen who was only protecting his basic rights, that is to enjoy the use of his home town beach besides the louts and also to protect his property (a boat in this case) from vandalism.

Had I not seen the photographs I would not have believed it. The nature of his injuries is irrelevant. He was viciously beaten up. Full stop. That he forgave the louts and withdrew the charges of slight injury is insignificant, however. He feared reprisals from the louts who beat him up in the first place. Was he threatened, perhaps? Only the victim and the louts know that.

The louts were fined a mere €60, something that has scandalised us law-abiding citizens. It has been explained that, considering that the victim withdraw charges, this was the maximum charge applicable. I have no reason to doubt this fact, as explained clearly to this newspaper by my learned and esteemed colleague Joseph Giglio some days ago. For what it’s worth, however, the Attorney General has appealed. Don’t know where it’s going to get him, but we will see.

The point is that the louts deserve the worst possible punishment under our law. And perhaps the law has to be amended as necessary and if possible. The alarm the louts caused to society must be taken into consideration.

Another salient point is their arrogance prior to their arraignment. They obviously thought they could challenge the police, the courts of justice and us citizens.

Had the louts been charged under arrest they would not have been sitting in the court precincts and one would have possibly justified or, at least, understood their attire. I have witnessed much worse attire and torn and bloodstained shirts during arraignments under arrest during the police regime of the 1980s.

With all due respect (and if this remained the case in attire), the louts should have been thrown out of the courtroom and condemned for contempt of court as soon as they appeared. In fact, can some court official or journalist explain how they appeared? I may have missed a report.

But, all in all, it is truly a pity and actually depressing that louts like these could get away with a pittance of a fine (some Lm35 for those of us who still calculate that way).

This leads us to a much broader perspective. When will the two main political parties grow up to their responsibilities and provide a common front on the issue of the use of public land?

If there is one man who has stood up to protect our public land, at least in my lifetime, it is Minister Jason Azzopardi and I salute him for it. People who usurp public land tend to be of the nastiest type and we must be of the nastiest type in their respect.

I have a personal experience with regard to the nastiest – believe me, the nastiest – elements of human beings with regard to the usurping of public land.

I am sure Dr Azzopardi has the full backing of the Cabinet and his government. But that shows guts.

Where is the Labour Party on these issues? Look at Armier and other areas. Where are the parties when there is need of a common front to protect us citizens on issues such as hunting and fireworks? I wrote about these ages ago.

The law is the law. It is there to protect us and must be enforced effectively by any government and not be ignored to attract voters and power, which, after all, is in the hands of the people and alternates once every five years or so – if that!

A word now on the proposed reforms to the law courts and the judiciary. Most welcome indeed.

I have expressed my opinion that the judiciary’s remuneration is too low, that sessions need to be organised by appointment (a very difficult task indeed) and that afternoon sittings must also be introduced. On a recent visit to the Royal Courts of Justice in London I observed that afternoon sittings resume at 2 p.m., so why not here (something I do not agree with the president of the Chamber of Advocates, Reuben Balzan).

But things do look a bit more positive. Our outspoken Chief Justice (who, to use a literal translation from the vernacular, does not bite has tongue and whom many of the senior lawyers have known for 30 years or so) might well help this reform happen.

But I must once again stress (Minister Chris Said, who is performing so well and has already done so much for our justice system, please note) that the limp is not with the judges and magistrates but with shortcomings in administration, facilities and budget.

Members of the judiciary should have individual budgets to be administered and dispensed of solely by themselves.

I am fed up of writing about this.