Wednesday, 19th November 2008
MINISTER, YOURS IS NO DISGRACE
Minister Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici on Tuesday announced in the House that he would be introducing a Bill to enact legislation attacking racism and xenophobia.
No sooner did this piece of news hit this website that evidence that it is a sorely needed piece of law was brought into stark relief. Almost without exception, comment after comment followed, condemning the minister and demonstrating that if ever there was a piece of law that was late in being introduced, it was this one.
It would be tedious, not to say nausea-inducing, to reproduce the comments.
The tragic thing about many of these comments was that they invoked freedom of expression and cried buckets of crocodile tears about how this was a measure designed to thwart anti-government comment and opposition to immigration policies the government pursues. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth, as long as a decent sound-bite or comment could be constructed, to hell and back with the truth.
There were a few comments made that stood out by their reasonableness and respect for humanity, but these are traits that the majority of the comment-writers eschew completely, however. For the beasts of the common herd, their right to look down on other human beings is paramount and woe betide any minister who dares express the view that a law is needed to bring them into line.
Well, sorry, people, you’re wrong and you deserve the contempt of the rest of us, we the people who recognise that your “right” to express yourself as you deem fit is proscribed by the obligations imposed on you by the mere fact that you are human.
If having to control your vicious tongues is the price the rest of us have to pay to ensure that we behave like a civilised community, than so be it, I’ll live with that price, especially since you’re paying it, not me.
I fully expect further inane comments to follow this blog. I have no doubt there will be someone who thinks he is amazingly erudite in comparing my exercising my freedom to express disagreement with my peers, and to mock them and to otherwise treat them with something approaching disdain for their ideas and their modes of expression, with racism.
This paragon of logical virtues will probably point at what he imagines is my dislike of Labour supporters and equate this with racism.
Leaving aside the fact that I do not dislike Labour supporters, being rude to people of the same race is not, just in case the point escapes you, racist. It may be rude, snobbish or downright insulting, but unless you believe that you really are part of a separate race or culture, it isn’t racist.
Just for the record, of course, I deny classism or snobbishness – the most crashing snobs I know and the worst purveyors of class hatred, too, are members of the very class I’m often portrayed as hating.
But this isn’t about me and my style of writing, especially since I don’t give a monkey’s and haven’t since I started my column nigh on however many years ago it was.
This is about the racists and xenophobes, the crypto-Nazis and the proto-skinhead louts who infest the country and who have to be made to crawl back under their rocks.
This is about, as well, the many so-called Christians who probably think they’re really great guys, but then employ a Fillipina nanny for their spoilt brats and pay her a pittance to act as nothing much more than a slave.
Only recently, I’ve heard of a couple of cases that are nothing short of brutal. How these people are allowed to get a work-permit for these poor girls and not checked by the relevant authorities as to how they’re treating them is not entirely clear to me.
I suppose that if the law relating to work-permits and visas were changed to allow for inspections on the conditions of employment these people are ensnared into, we’d get all manner of foul cried from the rooftops too.
RSS
Comments
Nannies apart, these irregular immigrants represent a gold mine for those that employ in the construction sector. The more cheap labour is available to them, I guess, the more they will show their gratitude with generous donatons to the importers.
Back in time to the period mentioned by you I had just returned from serving abroad. I was "a floating voter" and hold no brief to defend whatever happened in the 60s. However I know the history of that period very well and I assert that the peccadilloes you mention pale into insignificance when compared with the sustained physical terrorism of the Mintoff-KMB period.
I would like to return intelligently to being a "floating voter" but I am prevented from doing so because no credible alternative has yet appeared on the scene. I concede that it is still much too early to evaluate the MLP of Dr Joseph Muscat but, up to now, the augurs are not at all promising. I am not aware of any condemnation of the historically proven fact of state sponsored violence. I see only vague apologies "for past mistakes" and unbelievable denials nullified by the re-emergence of past culprits among the top echelons of the MLP.
Regrets about my omission to address you as Ms but I did not know your preference for Ms, Miss or Mrs.
Please note that I do not question your right to choose your party affiliation. I hope that you will not be motivated solely by selfish reasons but by the needs of the nation's welfare. That is why I asked you not to act like the proverbial ostrich but to discover the reason why some MLP propagandists of to-day try, in vain, to deny the party's recorded history of violence while others (including you) only insist only ignoring it.
This isn't just about racism, it's also about xenophobia. Let me quote a few details emerged recently.
"could lead to a prison sentence or hefty fine under proposals in a new XENOPHOBIA BILL""He called for the elimination of xenophobic and racist statements"
This xenophobia bill could turn out to be a dangerous Pandora's box. Mix two ingredients like anti-xenophobia law and Political correctness(sic), and the result is positive(sic) discrimination.
Language represents thought, but it ALSO influences thought. Political correctness dogmatically restict the language usage so as to create censorships and stereotypes that result in mass brainwashing. The words 'racist' and 'xenophobic' are a typical example. These two words mean people that have specific ideas or feelings, but have been negatively charged (stereotyped) to subconsciously appear as evil (brainwashing). On the opposite side we have words like 'positive discrimination' and 'political correctness' that are positively charged to fool us into thinking that these mean something 'positive' or 'correct'.
Back in the old dark ages we had the heretics, today we have the politically incorrect(sic). This could be the beginning of witch-hunting, i.e. persecuting people for their ideas and feelings and not actions like racial discrimination.
"If insults that are not related to colours hurt too, like for example insults about dead relatives, why these aren't punished too or punished to a much lesser degree?"
While all kinds of insults hurt (like insults to dead relatives, for instance), usually such insults are made at the spur of the moment, and unlike racial slurs, they do not involve deeply entrenched prejudice.
But of course, I would agree with you that racial insults to any race (including white people) should be treated similarly.
First of all since you prefer to be formal and announce yourself as Dr., please have the courtesy to adress me as Ms. like well mannered people do. That said I also see PN propagandists with a need to spread blatant twisted facts about things that are happening today and I do know why ! I also see other people digging the past to pull out selected sad episodes and totally ignoring more tragic events because that suites their not so hidden agenda. I go to church on Sundays and feel very comfortable in my Christian belief because I see our church as it is today not as it was during the times of the Borgas Dr.Saliba.
It is said that we mustn't buy vinegar and hope that it would become wine so I thought I'll buy wine and voted PN but that turned to very bitter vinegar .
It is also said that " Mill ward hareg ix xewk u mix xewk hareg il-ward " But why am I wasting my time, some people never learn .
"it is a sorely needed piece of law"
Yes! A law against sea piracy was sorely needed! -giggling-
But seriously, could it be that, since -as reported by the Times- "Migrant arrivals from Somalia double every year", our Government is AFRAID (xenophobic!) that these Somali immigrants might be tempted to earn a euro or two from piracy, just like -as everybody who read the internationl news knows- they are used to do in Somalia? If someone have a better explanation, please, I stand to be enlightened.
Athough Mr.Buttigieg has the tendency to write about the past and nauseam he makes some sense and at least he declares his Labour Party inclinations which make him very different than you. However the other fellows are very much like you but there again unlike you they don't play the part of politically neutral.
I supported the PN for a longer time than I care to remember partly because of my family background and partly because I didn't like the past of Labour leaders. But today, not 40 years ago, we are being let down by Dr.Gonzi and his PN and today Labour has a new and aspiring Leader. Yes I trust Dr.Muscat and no I don't trust the PN and that's why I don't give two monkeys about what you think about Mintoff's government of 100 years ago.
"Under the excuse of freedom of speech a person can utter blatant lies and attribute all the dastardly adjectives to another person or group but that would be an abuse of freedom..."
Yeah, talking about it. I can't stand watching One News or -especially- Net News, with all the nauseating blatant lies, twisted facts and malicious truth omissions, without seriously risking to throw up on the virtual reporter.
We also laughed when Mintoff tampered with (and suspended) the Constitutional Court and made Judges' lives pure hell if they found against his government such as the Blue Sisters case.
This is actually the problem with the MLP soon to change its name (re-branding?) - it is that they laugh at their own misdeeds. They then try to blame others just to allay their guilty conscience.
@ Carmen Attard
What the government is doing today is what is required under today's circumstances. You may agree or disagree. Four years down the road we shall see whether this government had been on the right track or not. If, in your mind you still don't agree with its approach, then use your democratic right.
Unfortunately we shall never know whether another Labour government would have done and whether it would have driven us in a cul-de-sac like it did in 1996-98 and 1971-1987. One cannot forget that elements from 40 years ago still persist in the Labour Party and they still refer to the 70s and 80s as 'those glorious years'.
It boils down to a matter of trust.
Please go back 10 years before the 70s and try to remember that under a Nationalist government in the 60's Labour newspapers were banned from hospitals and those who sold them or even read them were condemned with mortal sin. I think that you also remember the organised disruption of Labour meetings in the sixties and the censorship of Labour broadcasts by the Broadcasting Authority in September 1963 and April 1964 when we had a Nationalist government. So please do check your history before giving us lessons on freedom of expression.
Jeffrey I tried it and it had caused me a long stay at the airport. I had insisted that as citizens we all enjoy total freedom of movement and no one has the right to hinder us on our soil as long as we prove our identity and we are citizens of Malta. I insisted that my ID card would suffice.
Although I behaved in a very civil manner the official at passport control wanted to put me under arrest but then I asked him to consult with his superior who in turn referred the case to higher authorities and after we shock hands they let me go without seeing my passport.
They were all extremely nice as they realised that I was doing that merely to prove a point.
To see others as others see us.
“To a Louse on seeing one on a lady’s bonnet at church”
O wad some Power the gitlie gie us.
To see our sels as others see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us’
On foolish notion. Rober Burns.
Of course you should be concerned about what is happening today! And one of those things happening today is that there still are MLP propagandists who feel the need to spread blatant untruths about press freedom of expression in the 70s. Ask yourself, "Why?"
David. It took me a while to understand the spirit of the anticipated anti racism act and like you I had argued the point as to why the law should only tackle illegal verbal and written offensive language addressed to different ethnics groups.
The new law can’t be interpreted that it would be OK to insult a fellow country man and illegal to insult different races, it is a case of a law being specifically enacted to deter anti racism, hence the term ‘Anti racist act’. Safeguards from other insults are already in place or could be enacted under a different law.
I am not knowledgeable about laws and I sought advice on this one because I take a keen interest on the subject as I look forward with great interest to see some tangible efforts to control the acid tongues we have amongst us.
I auger that we all take a positive approach on this however I hope that our legislators wouldn’t try to be seen more Catholic than the Pope.
Surprise surprise, Gonzipn I’ll support you on this one, might even vote PN next time if after this we get free utilities LOL.
But I couldn't let a statement like that (by Mr Buttigieg) go by without commenting about it and putting it straight, for the record. I feel quite strongly about it.
And please, I beg you to address me without addressing others as if we were on the same wavelength - we're miles apart!
"why would you want to call someone as gollywog if not to insult him on the basis of his race?"
The question is not if it is good or bad to insult someone, the question is if all insults hurt, why only those addressed to black people are punished? A typical case is the 'Vieira vs Mihajlovic' case study which I explained in detail in Dr ABC's blog 'Abject-Apologies'. If insults that are not related to colours hurt too, like for example insults about dead relatives, why these aren't punished too or punished to a much lesser degree? Why we are being brainwashed into thinking that insulting a black colour is like insulting a divinity?
"Looking at the comments, was I right or was I right?"
Andrew you are always on the right angle but it would do you no harm if occasionally you go a bit left of centre or even right of centre. Moderate people do that you know.
This is what people are concerned about today-what is happening today not whether Mintoff of 40 years ago was democratic or a dictator . As if we care.
At the last election I was one of the 49% that voted PN. Today I joined the 81% no vote . Tomorrow I will join my ex PN friends and vote Partit Laburista. Let's face it with JPO,Austin and Gonzi the PN IS DOOMED .
Times poll .
Is the new vehicle circulation tax fair ?
no 81.9%
yes 12.9%
don't know 3.7%
don't care 1.5%
Total votes : 1431
The PN ban on the Labour Party's papers from hospitals and offices wasn't because in the minds of democratic people , those papers constituted hate propaganda - A court case instituted by the MLP against the Government proved that when the government lost the court case .
I now expect you to revert back with one of your usual naive justifications in that the government was democratic enough to allow Labour take it to court . Then we laugh .
LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL - YOU ARE SO HILARIOUS, MAN! I wonder you take yourself so seriously.
Some time ago, I concluded on this very blog that you and I are miles apart and that your experience is not mine.
Your latest comment, the one I am quoting above, seals that judgement I made.
"Looking at the comments, was I right or was I right?"
In my humble opinion, you were neither one nor the other. No offence intended, but I think you were controversial, wrong, and arrogant.
For example isn't it arrogance to imply that you were right, as if you couldn't possibly be otherwise? "was I right or was I right?"
"and cried buckets of crocodile tears"
Wrong. We really are worried.
Face it, we are not in agreement, which will lead to serious repercussions within the party.
(Nationalist majority against illegal immigration)
"I'm totally against racism. However, it is obvious that some anti-racism crusaders spread hate and prejudice against other groups, even if these groups are not race-based."
It is obvious indeed Chris. These "anti-racism crusaders" think that ONLY they have a 'right' to "spread hate and prejudice against other groups" while these "other groups", which might be people that share the same beliefs -like racists for example- or same feelings -like xenophobes- or same political ideas -like socialists- have only the 'right' -according to these crusaders- to be suppressed or oppressed. Hypocrisy never cease to surprise me.
"What happens when their policies change right after an election??? Who are they representing??? Maybe themselves".
I'm not defending any politician here. I'm only stating facts. What happens after policies change right after an election? If it's an urgent matter, there are various democratic options such as mass protests and as a last resort, a general strike.
As for who the politicians are representing, in the case of the government they are representing the majority who voted for them, in the case of members of the opposition, they are representing the large minority who voted for them. I think the US has a democratic system, so you should know.
I don’t always agree with Dr. Borg-Cardona but this time I agree although not entirely. Vicious tongues, of which we have our miserable share, need to be controlled to protect us from ourselves. Under the excuse of freedom of speech a person can utter blatant lies and attribute all the dastardly adjectives to another person or group but that would be an abuse of freedom which would damage other human beings.
Our present laws give us adequate protection against slander and gross insolence but a redress in court is costly and time consuming. As the situation is at the moment our laws do not provide tangible protection to ethnic groups as that wasn’t really called for before we started experiencing the bad situation of illegal migration which created the ugly threat of xenophobia.
Dear Mary, Hypocrisy at its worst strikes bright when you read a blogger lauding other columnists and politicians that are notorious for spreading ‘hate language’ against fellow citizens and acting the deceitful role of righteousness when the victims are their political opponents. Need I be clearer than that?
The last para. of my last should read-
People, who expressed their support for the Labour Party during their lives, were buried in a designated area in the Government Cemetery infamously called ‘il-mizbla’, the rubbish dump when they passed away.
Maybe the ban of your Party's papers from hospitals and offices was because in the minds of democratic people, those papers constituted hate propaganda? - I am merely asking a question.
With regards to the 'Freedom of Speech' being in the Constitution during Mintoff's 'dictatorial period', you are absolutely correct. It's what happened to the person expressing himself against Mintoff's government is something you never explained.
And how can one have his freedom of speech guaranteed under a dictatorship.? By being defenseless and by finding that the Constitutional Court can be dismantled anytime if the dictator so desired?
“I see nothing wrong with a law to ascertain political correctness, however I hope that our Administration won’t drive itself into a phobia to protect us from the evil of xenophobia like what happened in Britain and to a lesser degree in the USA” This was the unequivocal statement I made here 3 days ago. Now read Mr. Martinelli’s last contribution and judge for yourselves cause I am not going to justify his gibberish with the courtesy of a reply. Once bitten twice shy.
"Government and Parliament have a duty to lead as well as reflect opinion...I rather think the same prevails in Malta".
I agree. It is certainly the case if this bill goes through.
"So the present Government is to be considered a perfect example of a 'failed representative democracy' based on the facts that what was promised in 'their policies and manifestos' has not been done as promised".
I agree with you that some of the promises were not kept, and its not the first time either. A case in point is the promise that spring hunting would be retained - and remember that I am against hunting - although in this case, the government had no right to make that promise, since it wasn't a promise it could keep.
I cannot believe that you actually wrote "Back to the 70s, freedom of speech was never threatened during the era of Mintoff's dictatorship .....!
The "freedom of speech during the 70s" about which you are now boasting was demonstrated at that time by the burning down of the printing presses of "The Times. After the passing of the "Foreign Interference Act" it received adverse publicity throughout Europe by the muzzling of Italian and German politicians who were deported so as to prevent them from addressing NP assemblies. Another instance was the barring of the correspondent of The Times of London. It reached its acme of barefaced effrontery when it attempted to bar contact between foreign embassies or foreign missions with the Nationalist Party without prior consultation and advice from the MLP Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The Maltese survivors from that era do not suffer from from massive collective amnesia!
@Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici: The illegals rights are being broken right now, by the governments of the EU. As they have no freedom of movements within the EU. They are kept in Malta against their will. Mr Bonnici when you and other ministers are afraid, to let them have movement of freedom, that's XENOPHOBIA. When you and other ministers give European illegals prefrences over African illegals, that's racial.
Incredible! Look who is talking about "vicious tongues"!! Hypocrisy at its best!
I also would like to say that I agree with Mr Seychel that correlated Democracy and freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is one of the pillars onto which Domcracy stands. Typing Democracy on Wikipedia, you will read: "An essential process in representative democracies are competitive elections, that are fair both substantively and procedurally. Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are essential so that citizens are informed and able to vote in their personal interests."
@ STEPHEN FARRUGIA.
Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship or limitation, imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. However, in practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on "hate speech". This is because exercising freedom of speech always takes place within a context of competing values. There is a difference between total freedom and absolute freedom, one is totally free to think that the people of a particular ethnic group are all cannibals but one does not have the freedom to express that unfounded thought.
Back to the 70’s freedom of speech was never threatened during the era of Mintoff’s dictatorship, freedom of expression was entrenched in our Constitution (Chapter IV Sec.42. Entitled ‘Protection of freedom of expression’ to include all medium.) by that dictatorship.
Prior to the 70s before Malta fell under a dictatorial regime, the righteous Nationalist Administration barred all the Labour Party printed material from Government hospitals and offices. People who expressed their support for the Labour Party were buried in a designated area in the Government Cemetery infamously called ‘il-mizbla’, the rubbish dump.
So, I may conclude that you are against the new ant-discriminatory/hate law?
It will not be nice if you call your black cat 'nigger' since this word is a pejorative reference to black people and whether it would fall within the intent of the law or not, I am sure that you will not give your cat that name. How about 'Cuddles' instead?
Calling the other cat 'Joseph' (depending on which Joseph you choose) will not upset the Nationalists one bit but rather amuse them since they will take it that you named the cat after your leader Doctor Joseph Muscat. So, my advice is to find a better name such as Giggles.
On the other hand, if you " ... call him Laurence.... sorry I meant Dr.Gonzi,
the Laburisti would feed him rotten fish", that would not be a surprise at all since the MLP has been feeding, not cats, but Maltese citizens rotten policies for the last fifty years or more. As some often remind us - l-ispizjar milli jkollu jtik"
Keep it up Charles - you are so entertaining!
'There are different kinds of democracy, two of which are "direct democracy" and "representative democracy". Ours is a representative democracy. Political parties give us their policies and manifestos and we choose the party whose policies we agree mostly with. We might not agree with all the policies, but by voting a party to government, we give them the legal right to pursue ALL their policies.'
So the present Government is to be considered a perfect example of a 'failed representative democracy' based on the facts that what was prmosied in 'their policies and manifestos' has not been done as promised.
Government and Parliament have a duty to lead as well as reflect opinion.
Several free votes at Westminster have rrejected capital punishment
but it is suspected that a majority of the population would welcome it.
i rather think the same prevails in Malta
"Political parties give us their policies and manifestos and we choose...by voting a party to government, we give them the legal right to pursue ALL their policies."
1: A muzzling law for the Maltese wasn't in any manifestos or policy.
2: This Government does not represent the will of the majority. As you probably know, this Government obtained LESS than 50% of the votes. I invite you to tell me which government in Europe governs without the majority of the votes. A Governemt that didn't obtain the majority of the votes can't be called democratic.
@Charles J Buttigieg
Your tragicomic fictitious story of the two cats pictures well what we are getting into.
"It IS the government's task to legislate, but you forgot to consider a very important principle called Democracy. Democracy means that the laws should reflect the will of the majority".
There are different kinds of democracy, two of which are "direct democracy" and "representative democracy". Ours is a representative democracy. Political parties give us their policies and manifestos and we choose the party whose policies we agree mostly with. We might not agree with all the policies, but by voting a party to government, we give them the legal right to pursue ALL their policies.
Prepare to build a larger prison because the law will be defied and you will happly have political prisioners in a EU country, what a disgrace. It will not even be contested, ' I am guilty'. How many thousands are you ready to build the prisions for? For Malta to start having political prisioners, clearly shows which direction this country is heading.
Back to the 70's.
"Through this law, the government is doing the dirty work of certain NGOs (as if it is not the task of government to legislate)."
It IS the government's task to legislate, but you forgot to consider a very important principle called Democracy. Democracy means that the laws should reflect the will of the majority and not the hidden agenda of "certain NGOs". From the public response, as admitted by the author of this article, the majority of us DON't want this muzzling law. And if you think that the public will be consulted, or that this bill will not pass against the will of the majority, I tell you wait and see.
@Dr ABC
"If having to control your vicious tongues is the price the rest of us have to pay to ensure that we behave like a civilised community, than so be it...."
I think that it is crucial to comprehend that undermining freedom of opinion and expression IS undermining Democracy. Those that attempt to justify the suppression of the flow of the human thinking with the excuse of creating an ideal society (utopia), should consider that, eventually, it may only lead to dystopia.
"You are always correct, whatever the subject at hand, you are always right".
I don't believe this is true, but I do pay special attention to what I write. When I am incorrect and am corrected, I admit my mistake and move on. In another blog recently I even corrected myself when I looked up some facts and found I was mistaken.
Instead of telling me I'm wrong or always right, I would prefer that you correct me when I'm wrong. However, sometimes its just a case of misunderstanding, and if you still don't understand after several of my attempts, I'm sorry but I can't perform miracles.
I’ve got cats so this can’t be my reincarnated life. I’ve got a white cat which I call ‘White trash’ and a black cat which I call ‘Nigger’. The new law will not stop me from calling ‘White trash’ by his name but I will need to find a new name for Nigger. If I name him Joseph the Nationalists would hate him and if I call him Laurence.... sorry I meant Dr.Gonzi,
the Laburisti would feed him rotten fish.
Yes this is definitely my first life and I’m happy for one thing- in my next life I shall keep away from Mellieha and Canada and my only problem would then be just cats. No more Dr. Peppers and Martin Ellis in my next life I hope.
Is this your original life or the reincarnation of a previous one ?
Stay away, cats!!
hehe I couldn't resist Charles - now it's your turn. (:
Irrespective of the nature of our comments here it always regresses to one debate between two groups, the Elves and the Victors. It often degenerates to personal insults. When an Elf makes a statement, plausible, supported by facts or a silly one, all the other Elves come out to support the statement and the Victors come out to take the Mickey and vice versa.
How can it be possible that any opinion is always stupid to the same half of the people and smart to the other half? Of course this isn’t a by-product of racism but certainly the result of polarisation, bias, antagonism, radicalism, chauvinism, classism and other isms just as negative as racism.
"Fejn tidhol il-verita', jien dejjem nimxi bil-pinna u bil-klamar - I'm going to have to remember that, my friend".
Please make sure you do - put it in your diary.
Whatever!
Let me write it here for you since at the end of it this is what you are seeking.......'ghandhekk ragun ghaziz Kenneth Cassar'.....'You are always correct, whatever the subject at hand, you are always right'.
Be it racism, hunting, hippos, whales, etc etc etc
Here's what I wrote (in my reply to one of your posts) here: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20081118/local/anti-racism-bill-to-be-moved
"Like I said, debating immigration laws (or immigration itself) does not have to be either racist or xenophobic. In fact, I don't believe that all commentators who are anti-immigration are racist or xenophobes".
In fact, I don't see anything racist about any of your comments on that particular page (linked above), and I would be stupid if I said they were. And since I neither have the time nor the will to check on your past posts, I will assume that none of them were.
My point (which I made very clear) was that most of the people commenting were making a mountain out of a molehill and making wild speculations on one sentence that didn't say much at all.
Cont...
"As you pointed in your last contribution to this blog, you wrote ‘people who are not xenophobic/racist need not worry’ ….. this can be interpreted that since I am worried than in your opinion I am a racist".
Like I explained in my previous post, I don't believe that your interpretation is correct. When I say that "if you are not a racist, you need not worry", I only mean just that. I already made it very clear that I do not believe that debating immigration need be racist, so any people who are fearing discussing immigration, in my opinion, need not fear anything at all, since the bill speaks only of racism and xenophobia. That's all I meant.
"Do you agree that your comment was vague? Do you blame me for making that assumption?".
I do not agree that my comment was vague, but I hope that with this (and the previous two posts) I have cleared that up.
"the problem is that when you quote another person’s comment and you add your views to it, you leave ample space for a variety of interpretation. Your comments are never direct but vague".
I don't think that is so. When I quote another person's comments and add my own, I would be commenting on that particular quote, nothing more and nothing less. I also don't think I'm ever too vague, but whenever you think I am, ask me to be more direct or to explain more.
"What I’ll do is set up a word document and start pasting your posts in it so that I will be in a position to quote your exact words when addressing you".
I don't think that's necessary, but if you wish to do so, its fine by me. I never keep track of a person's history and whenever I comment on a particular post, I usually treat it as if it is that person's first post ever. In any case, I reply to so many people's posts that I can hardly expect myself to keep track.
Cont...
I'm going to have to remember that, my friend.
Basically the problem is that when you quote another person’s comment and you add your views to it, you leave ample space for a variety of interpretation. Your comments are never direct but vague.
What I’ll do is set up a word document and start pasting your posts in it so that I will be in a position to quote your exact words when addressing you. As I told you earlier, what I’m talking about goes back a few months so obviously I am not in a position to quote ‘exactly’ or ‘approximately’ what you said since it wouldn’t be fair on you (ghax naf nigbed naqra lejja).
As you pointed in your last contribution to this blog, you wrote ‘people who are not xenophobic/racist need not worry’ ….. this can be interpreted that since I am worried than in your opinion I am a racist. Do you agree that your comment was vague? Do you blame me for making that assumption?
The British look up to the English and down on the Irish, the Italians look down on the Sicilians and the Sicilians look down on the Arabs. Christians look down on Muslims and Muslims look down on the Christians.
Tal Mellieha-wara l-muntanji,ta Bormla-ta Baharhom, ta L’isla-ta Cacu,ta B’kara-tal patata catta, ta Tas Sliema-
tal Pepe.Rabti w Zebbugi- jiffurmaw Ludi. Il-Misilmin-ghedewwa tas-Salib,il-Libjani-tal habbaziz,Ghawdxi tajjeb ghaharqu...,il-Laburisti hamalli...
But we all condemn prejudices and we all get offended if we’re called hypocrites. In my next life I want to be a dog but then I’ll have problems with cats.
"My English friends tell me that they can eat all the white jelly babies they want but black jelly babies are illegal." "don’t you think that it is pathetic that referring to a colour in everyday life may offends people who are that colour?"
To answer your question, I think that if these absurd ideas about colours are not checked, in the not too far future, it will be illegal to show your white skin in public and would have to either get a dark suntan or wear a burka when walking down the streets.
Regarding the future anti-racism and xenophobia laws, I think that they will try to brainwash us into thinking that discrimination against the Maltese is positive while discrimination against those with dark skin is evil. To attack xenophobia, I expect them to pass laws that prevent you from saying, for example, that the sub-Saharan region is the most AIDS-infested place on Earth, even though it is the proven truth.
OK...here it seems is where the misunderstanding started. You wrote:
"Izda jekk jien nuri certa inkwiet jew incertezza fuq legizlatura, tittimbrani bhala razzist! Prosit!!" (But if I show that I am worried and uncertain about some legislature, you label me as a racist! Well done).
This was presumably in response to my saying that people who are not xenophobic or racists need not worry.
Now here's where the misunderstanding is:
To say that "people who are not xenophobic/racist need not worry" does not mean that all those who worry are necessarily xenophobic/racist. In other words, if you are worrying about the new bill (and you are not xenophobic/racist), you are worrying about nothing. That's all I said...no more, no less.
Of course, I could be wrong (the bill could in effect imprison people for not having dreadlocks), but I certainly did not call any one who is worrying "racist" or "xenophobe" (although there certainly might be some), and it was never implied.
"When I express myself it is my opinion too and I’m not a politician neither".
I only mentioned not being a politician because you told me I am imposing my opinions on others. I never told you that you were imposing your opinions on anyone, so you didn't have to explain to me that you are not a politician too.
"If you label my comments as racist, than indirectly you are saying that I’m a racist altogether".
Ok, so let me rephrase my question. Can you please quote me where I have labelled your comments as racist? Unless I know what particular instances you are referring to, I cannot comment. If there were "numerous occasions where (I) pointed out (your) comments / opinion as being racist", surely you will remember at least one.
Ok, if you cannot remember (or find) the exact words, just tell me what you wrote (not necessarily the exact words) and I will then tell you whether I would have been justified in calling your comment racist. Fair enough?
I think its only fair not to accuse others of calling your posts racist unless you can provide the evidence.
>Just for the record, the guy who won the VAT lottery ain't me. Pity, that.
Nice to see that you DO read the answers to your scriblings. You have (in my opinion) a VERY important clarification being put to you in IM BECK. I suggest that it is in your interest to reply rather sharply...
lest of course one concludes that there's more your silence other than the very immature
way of putting people "into coventry".... (dear, oh dear!)
(I'll make it easier for you... don't answer me: answer the readers in general as to what FACTS you are basing you allegations on...)
When I express myself it is my opinion too and I’m not a politician neither. There are numerous occasions where you pointed out my comments / opinion as being racist. For correctness, I would like to add that this approach from your part is aimed at the comments expressed by all contributors and not mine only.
On the other hand, now you are asking ‘Tista jekk joghgbok tikkwotali fejn jien sejjahtlek razzist?’ u ejja ta’ ma naghmluix tat-tfal issa. If you label my comments as racist, than indirectly you are saying that I’m a racist altogether.
Unfortunately, the online back issues of ‘The Times’ go back a few weeks and thus a lot of the comment boards will not be available since as you know, illegal immigration boom occurs during the summer months.
I personally have no intention of calling anyone a golliwog or more so of swearing..
But I assure you that if I was a judge I would make a big distinction between a transgression of uttering an unfathomable expletive against God against someone calling a person a golliwog. No need to guess on the reader's part which one I think is the more serious
Interesting to know the readers' opinion on which is the more serious..
Tista jekk joghgbok tikkwotali fejn jien sejjahtlek razzist? Rigward il-kacca, jien nesprimi l-opinjoni tieghi. Jien m'hinix politikant - ma nghamilx ligijiet.
______________________________________
@ Charles J Buttigieg:
You are entitled to believe that the bill is not going to be against discrimination as such but more about political correctness to address the sickness of our racial prejudice. I prefer to wait until I have any details, and will not base my judgement on a single sentence which barely says anything at all.
How can we be pleased when we see the following happening?:
1: The Government is not repatriating those that don't qualify for any protection: "the number of "illegals" who were not repatriated has reached 2,123" http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20081025/local/fewer-migrants-repatriated
2: In the last budget, the Government loaded us with new burdens -with the excuse of the difficult international times- but at the same time inreased the "financial allocation" for the irregular immigrants to a whopping 536.4%. This means that their funds inreased by more than 5 times (from less than 1 million to 5 million) -http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20081104/budget/strong-increase-in-funds-for-illegal-migration/
3: In the last months we read: "Frontex chief admits failure", "Immigrant arrivals exceed local birth rate", "Migrant arrivals from Somalia double every year", "Minister upbeat about Frontex despite chief's admission of failure"
And finally we have the Government preparing a bill attacking racism and xenophobia. If you consider all this, you shouldn't be surprised that we are diffident of this muzzling bill and consider it a way to force us to look at the the other side while we continue getting, year after year, huge numbers of illegal immigrants.
Do that to a coloured or other type of foreigner and he/she could take you to the Race Relation Court.
So one have to be very careful how to handle such legislation.
We have had incidents over here when certain type of people were refused entrance to a bar or a club simply because they were not Maltese or because their complection is a little darker than ours and believe or not some were even maltese.
This legislation requires a lot of thought.
Every minute of the day you hear the most unfathomable expletives against God as if it was normal everyday language and if you are unlucky once in a blue moon some magistrate will fine you a few euros for swearing.
But dare call somebody a golliwog a term common in my old schoolbooks and you risk being taken to court charged with racial discrimination and end up with a criminal record.
Imagine these same situations a hundred years ago or even today.
.
@ Kenneth Cassar.
Discrimination and Racial prejudice are two different subjects.
Discriminatory as defined in our constitution means affording different treatment to different persons attributable wholly or mainly to their respective descriptions by race, place of origin, political opinions, colour or creed.( Chapter 4. Sec 46. Para 3) I understand that our constitution only binds the government and its agents. I also understand this to mean that while the Government would be breaching the constitution if it discriminates on these grounds a citizen or a private enterprise wouldn’t unless the principles form part of our Legislative or Common Laws. This is my personal opinion and naturally I stand to be corrected.
From the little I read about the proposed law it appears that it’s not going to be against discrimination as such but more about political correctness to address the sickness of our racial prejudice.
Ezempju car huwa meta inti tiprova timponi il-fehmit tieghek dwar kacca u nsib fuq il-kaccaturi u n-nassaba, imma jekk jien nigi nuri l-opinjoni tieghi fuq l'immigranti illegali tigi tghid li jien razzist.
Meta inti targumenta dwar il-kacca, tghid illi li kien ghalik tinqata kompletament minn Malta. Dak fl-opinjoni tieghek huwa ragunament tajjeb. Izda jekk jien nuri certa inkwiet jew incertezza fuq legizlatura, tittimbrani bhala razzist! Prosit!!
I always wondered if we all enjoyed some kind of previous life! This makes me think if in prevoius life, ABC spent his short life doing 'forced duty' in an Andalusian Arena!!
Maybe that is the reason why he looks at the MLP and its supporters that way!! Lol.
Hope ABC's visits to Wonderful Gozo become more frequent to help our ailing tourist industry!
Fejn tidhol il-verita', jien dejjem nimxi bil-pinna u bil-klamar. Jekk tahseb mod iehor, ikkwotali fejn ma mxejtx hekk.
Congratulations for your winnings with the VAT Department :)
Halsilna drink issa
Kemm timxi bil-pinna u l'klamar meta trid u fejn jaqbillek!
Racism is only about racial issues. Of course there are other forms of discrimination and prejudice, but if race is not involved, it is not racism.
1. I don't live in Sweden, so I don't have voting rights that make it possible for me to change the laws in Sweden.
2. Regarding the sexual harassment law, I already gave my opinion. The anti-racism bill being prepared does not have to follow the same lines, and I cannot comment until we have more details. I would suggest that you read my previous post.
Are you sure you're feeling all right Bocc?
"Regarding the sexual harassment law you mention (the way you describe it), if that is the case, I strongly oppose it. I'm not unreasonable."
I think you are a very reasonable person but naive about this subject. Did you know for example that in Sweden, to attack XENOPHOBIA, prevent black ghettoes and the white flight, you are obliged to have immigrants in your neighbourhood?
"if that is the case"
This means that you didn't know anything about this law. Let me quote the definition: "The essential characteristic of sexual harassment is that it is unwanted by the recipient, that it is for each individual to determine what behaviour is acceptable to them and what they regard as offensive" -http://www.ncwmalta.com/infowomendetail.asp?i=29
The same two absurd principles might as well be applied to anti-racism and xenophobia laws i.e.:
1. You are guilty until proven innocent.
2. If for example you ask an irregular immigrant 'are you a refugee?' and he does not like it, then for the law that is racism and you are guilty and prosecutable until you prove you didn't ask that question.
By your own admission if one believes that one is part of a separate culture they are being racist.
When we refer to a group of people in a way of labelling them both as being different or 'other', and of a lesser order or status is racial not just downright insulting.
A radical columnist wrote that the Labour Party supporters lack culture and they do not send their children to Ballet lessons, (not verbatim) a lot of PN supporters lauded the columnist for the insults and all the Labour supporters got hurt.
I hope that you are not trying to convince us that a Maltese person would be legally correct and not a racist to hurl those insults to a group of fellow Maltese and a racist if attributed to a group of Africans?
I also hope that our nippers would still be allowed to sing Baa Baa Black Sheep at school, that we won’t get in trouble with the law if we ask for a black coffee instead of coffee without milk and I would not be looked upon as a criminal if I’m caught eating black jelly babies. My English friends tell me that they can eat all the white jelly babies they want but black jelly babies are illegal.
To say that our Lord was crucified by the Jews, although it’s a fact, is considered racist; we may also have problems if it snows at Christmas as we won’t be allowed to call it a white Christmas.
My solid stand against xenophobia and all discrimination, be it racial or political, is well know, but don’t you think that it is pathetic that referring to a colour in everyday life may offends people who are that colour?
@ABC: When an African insults a Maltese or a white tourist, will he be subjected to an arrest for racism??? Does the Maltese police have the guts to make such an arrest???
Under this new law, my girlfreind will be protected, the question is will I be protected.
I might not waste any more time replying to wild speculations. At this point, I will only repeat that if you believe someone is innocent until proven guilty, don't you think this would apply to the government too?
So, before making any wild and baseless speculations, ask yourself this question: Is this in the bill?
"They know that the maltese are not black while the irregular boat immigrants are black".
I personally know two Maltese people who are black - born and living in Malta. And in any case, many (if not most) Maltese people are certainly not white.
Regarding the US voters, if anyone voted for Obama just because he's black, yes, that voter would be racist. So I guess this counts me out as a "pseudo anti-racist".
Regarding the absurd laws, they might be a reality (though I suspect some of them aren't), but certainly not in Malta. What you are doing is simply speculating. I could say that the bill will include that we should all wear R&B style clothing, but I would be writing rubbish.
Regarding the sexual harassment law you mention (the way you describe it), if that is the case, I strongly oppose it. I'm not unreasonable.
"Hilarious, were it not so tragic"
Indeed. These absurd laws would really be a funny joke, weren't they a reality. Now let me give you a real example this time. A law about sexual harassment was recently passed in Malta thanks to those in favour of gender equality/positive discrimination. This states that you not only are guilty until proven innocent but the definition of sexual harassment is what the accuser decides it to be. For example If I decide that the way you looked at me is sexual harassment than you are guilty until you prove that you didn't look at me. These are the absurdities that the pro positive discrimination are able to come up with. Kenneth, this law IS a reality in Malta. If you don't believe that such an absurd law now exists in Malta you can ask Mr ABC about it because since he is a lawyer I am sure he knows about it more than me.
"One cannot be racist unless one knows the skin colour or race of the person one is offensive towards."
They know that the maltese are not black while the irregular boat immigrants are black.
"Now, regarding the 96% of "African-Americans" voting for Obama just because he is black, I can't see how you can be so sure of that."
The obvious is self-explanatory. The figures are unequivocal. But if you really believe that the main reason why all blacks voted for him is not his skin colour I tell you that I was expecting that response. That is what I meant when I said: "Let us hear these pseudo anti-racism defend this 'xenophobic' behaviour." If it was the other way round, i.e. 96% of white voters voting for the white candidate and 44% of blacks voting for the white candidate, I guess you would have rushed to cry 'racists' and 'xenophobic'.
His argument is defective because it implies that most white voted McCain and most blacks voted Obama. That is a total fallacy and even by watching Obama's victory speech in Chicago, Mr. Seychell would have realized that there were thousands of white people listening and celebrating.
Many are of the opinion that Obama won because he spoke of what people wanted to hear, had a credible running mate, was younger, well spoken and ably aided by financial and economic disasters mainly within the remit of the Republican President especially by embroiling America into a war which, like Vietnam will have no satisfactory resolve.
McCain's age and cancer history played heavily on his campaign and his running mate did not help matters much. Here was a classical example where Ms. Palin had other attractive attributes which immediately faded away once she opened her mouth.
So, one cannot simplify by stating that the colour of Obama's skin was a direct factor and to draw the line there while ignoring other factors would verge on racism.
Further to my other comment, another big reason why Obama was elected was the experience of 8 years under president Bush.
Not to defend rudeness, but its not like people being rude towards people commenting on blogs know the skin colour of the people posting the comments. One cannot be racist unless one knows the skin colour or race of the person one is offensive towards.
Now, regarding the 96% of "African-Americans" voting for Obama just because he is black, I can't see how you can be so sure of that. The way I see it, due to a substantial number of black people in the US being underpriviledged, most black people would generally tend to vote for Democrats. It is also a fact that a campaign was conducted by the Democrats urging the non-white communities to vote...hence a larger turnout of voters. This is probably one of the reasons Obama was elected president.
I think you have a twisted definition of the word 'racist'. If you discriminate against a particular race it is still racism, even if the race you discriminate against is the same as yours. A racist isn't someone who thinks that his race is superior to any other, but someone who thinks that a race is superior to any other.
Now that the americans casted their votes and the results are known, it is time for some reflections. 96% of the African-American voted for Obama while 56% of the white voters voted for the white candidate McCain and 44% for Obama. Here is the source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27524699/
Simply put, almost all black people in the USA voted for Obama because of his skin colour. So now let's see if the likes of Mr ABC that are always the first to label many maltese 'racist, bigot and xenophobic' will do the same this time. Let us hear these pseudo anti-racism defend this 'xenophobic' behaviour.
1. Through this law, the government is doing the dirty work of certain NGOs (as if it is not the task of government to legislate).
2. People will be arrested for ordering black coffee.
3. We will not be able to say Happy Christmas.
4. Anyone suspected of being a racist will be jailed unless he can prove that he is not, by, for instance, marrying a black woman or giving a donation to immigrants.
Hilarious, were it not so tragic.
If I say the Maltese are xenophobic then someone will respond that so are we Brits and both statements are correct. British are known to have murmured that Wogs begin at Calais.
I take issue with our host where he claims that MLP is more xenophobic than PN but then I am of the Left-a bleeding hearted liberal that does not favour PN and all that it entails-though I admit that I seem to find PN members more reasonable than those of the MLP.
I have met politicians of both flavours over the years, though my thoughts are now dated, but I am more impressed by the Nat leaders than those of Labour. Jason Azzopardi made a substantial impression on me though our meeting was brief.
Over recent years the MLP has often tended to look south to North Africa whilst PN has always looked to Italy but these distinctions are blurred.
One has to look at Malta as a nation that has suffered colonialism over the centuries and indeed it has left its mark on your psyche.