This morning papers gave prominence to yesterday’s demonstration organised by a number of environmental NGO's under the leadership of Front Harsien ODZ. The Sunday Times of Malta said that thousands took part in the demonstration and described the pro-environment event as “massive”.

I was pleasantly surprised by the large number of people who participated. Mike Briguglio was correct saying that it was not only the largest demonstration ever in favour of the environment but the largest demonstration ever organised by civil society. People were more than justified to participate.

Zonqor was just one of the reasons why so many people participated. Demonstrators were cross and angry. They were protesting against the taking over of Malta by land speculators who are now cashing the pre-electoral secret deals. These speculators are now claiming their pound of flesh and a bit more as well. Myriad examples are two well known to need repeating here.

Following the publication last Thursday of the Pope's encyclical on the environment my participation in such a protest was de rigueur. His strong position has now to be translated into concrete action by the Church in Malta as well.

In paragraph 56 of the encyclical Laudato Si, the Pope speaks of the negative effects of speculation on human dignity and the natural environment.

“Here we see how environmental deterioration and human and ethical degradation are closely linked. Many people will deny doing anything wrong because distractions constantly dull our consciousness of just how limited and finite our world really is. As a result,  whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenceless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule”.

The title of Chapter 3 of the Encyclical is “dialogue and transparency in decision-making.” Given the many cases that we experienced in the last few months and are still experiencing this chapter makes very interesting reading.  Let me quote just two snippets:

“182. An assessment of the environmental impact of business ventures and projects demands transparent political processes involving a free exchange of views. On the other hand, the forms of corruption which conceal the actual environmental impact of a given project, in exchange for favours, usually produce specious agreements which fail to inform adequately and to allow for full debate.

183. Environmental impact assessment should not come after the drawing up of a business proposition or the proposal of a particular policy, plan or programme. It should be part of the process from the beginning, and be carried out in a way which is interdisciplinary, transparent and free of all economic or political pressure. It should be linked to a study of working conditions and possible effects on people’s physical and mental health, on the local economy and on public safety. Economic returns can thus be forecast more realistically, taking into account potential scenarios and the eventual need for further investment to correct possible undesired effects. A consensus should always be reached between the different stakeholders, who can offer a variety of approaches, solutions and alternatives.”

Among the demonstrators there was a contingent of Jesuits/Jesuit sympathisers. They were reminding us that it is not only Zonqor that one should protest about. A very large shooting range is being proposed for a large ODZ area in the limits of Mosta. The quality of life of residents and the thousands who visit Mount St Joseph every year will be negatively affected for the benefit of Russian speculators. Is this right?

This is not the first time that the Jesuits have taken an active role to save the environment. Malta’s Jesuit communities had actively participated in the Front Kontra l-Golf Course movement some years back. So no one can accuse them that they only speak because ‘they’ are involved.

The pro-environment activism of the Jesuits is not supported by other religious orders; not even by the children of the patron of the environment.

Those who are concerned about two crossed pencils show no concern for the justified crie de coeur of cross people. Those who consider the crossing of two pencils to be ‘evil’ do not consider gross land speculation as evil. Those who decry crossing pencils as ‘idolatry’ have nothing to say about the idolatry of ill-gotten money. The degradation of our common home does not trouble them enough to put pen or pencil to paper. Do they think that all pens and pencils are possessed by the Evil One?

Strange isn’t it?