Until the current political catastrophe is resolved, nothing is business as usual. Panamagate is suffocating the country, spreading its tentacles everywhere.
Not even a silent protest for ‘animal rights’ at St Julian’s last week was spared. The timing of this event, in the midst of the crisis, was immediately questioned and had to be defended.
Speaking of animal rights, what exactly is meant by this, as opposed to animal welfare? Human rights are clear enough, but animal rights are not. Legislating against animal cruelty and promoting animal welfare is different to recognising ‘rights’.
Today we even have a Parliamentary Secretary for Animal Rights, Roderick Galdes. Oddly enough, he recently attended an event promoting animal taxidermy. It would be good to have some clarification on the government’s understanding of ‘animal rights’. I am sure many people have no idea what they are.
The UN Declaration of Human Rights, for example, includes the right to life, liberty and security of person. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and so on.
None of this applies to animals. They are bred and killed for food, and hunted, trapped or fished for human pleasure. The notion of animal rights is a potential legal quagmire.
The country has been paralysed by the Panama Papers
Animal rights and welfare include the plight of migrating birds, heading to Europe in spring in order to breed. In April last year, the spring hunting referendum had just been held and tensions were high. As soon as a wounded kestrel fell into a school playground in Cottonera, the Prime Minister had taken action.
What a difference to this April. The hunting season has opened and already various protected birds have been killed, but the government is not batting an eye. Perhaps everyone is too distracted by Panamagate.
• If the Prime Minister does not sack Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri, the government will not have a problem and pigs will fly.
People are sick to the back teeth of this scandal. It is a watershed moment for Joseph Muscat. He has taken on the responsibility of deciding whether Mizzi and Schembri should go or stay, and he should take his decision fast.
The country has been paralysed by the Panama Papers. For weeks on end, hardly a day has gone by when the story was not on the front pages.
All other news is being eclipsed. Press conferences are hijacked by questions about Mizzi’s bank accounts and his unconvincing audit. In every coffee shop or office, people crack jokes or express disbelief, or follow Panamagate on the internet.
Two street protests against corruption have been held. Another public protest is planned for May 7 in Valletta, this time by the Civil Society Network calling for the resignation of Mizzi and Schembri. In the meantime, the government is rallying the troops for a mass gathering of supporters on May 1.
One motion of no confidence was already presented by the Opposition to the House of Representatives. Independent MP Marlene Farrugia will present a second one, focused on Mizzi.
What more will it take? The situation is so fluid that recent opinion articles on this subject often include the proviso: “by the time this is printed, Mizzi may have resigned”. I had better add it too, just in case.
• When the Mepa demerger laws were launched, many concerns raised by NGOs and other prominent voices were shrugged off.
One of the worries is linked to appeals. Government authorities can simply be ignored by the new Planning Authority if they do not give their expert opinion on planning applications within 30 days. In the new system, they can then lodge a formal appeal at the Planning Tribunal to be heard.
For example, the Planning Authority can grant a sensitive permit without advice from the Superintendence for Cultural Heritage. The Superintendence can then appeal, and the tribunal, which is not expert in cultural heritage, will decide who is right. The same applies to other entities, such as the Transport Authority or the Environment Authority.
This encourages open confrontation between two government entities at the tribunal, with one authority challenging another. Why call them authorities or regulators in the first place, if they are not the final word on their subjects?
In this system, government authorities will also have to pay for their expertise to be taken into account by the Planning Authority. To lodge an appeal, they will have to settle a fee of up to €3,500.
It is common knowledge that the Superintendence for Cultural Heritage is under-staffed and under-resourced. How on earth is it expected to drum up the money and staff time required for this cumbersome appeals procedure? They probably can’t even get a cheque signed fast enough to be in time to lodge an appeal.
Certain planning decisions with a negative impact on heritage are therefore likely to go unchallenged. These new regulations seem designed to allow the Planning Authority to do whatever they like.
This fiasco will require time to become apparent, but by then it will be too late for any resulting bad development to be reversed.
petracdingli@gmail.com