Terrible is the country where the rule of law is not respected. Worse is the country where law is the only measure applied to guide human acts and relationships. This would be especially true where a positivistic approach to the law is taken. In such cases the law is based on the power of those who enact it and can verge on being arbitrary. Many obscenities have been sanctioned and justified by the law. Many injustices have been committed in the same way.

A civilised country needs other things besides the law. It also needs, for example an ethical ethos and like minded citizens. The law regulates the minimum. Lower than this one should not stoop. Ethics looks at a higher target. Just justifying one self in terms of law is not the right approach in several cases. Let me look at two such cases.

The age of the self employed?

In more senses than one the self-employed are the motor of the economy. They risk, they sweat and they achieve results. At first glance the increase in the number of self employed can signal a more vibrant economy. But when one looks closer some surprises ensue. Gejtu Vella writing in The Times of May 31, 2008 informed us that “security personnel, chambermaids, waiting staff, swimming pool attendants and clerical workers, mostly of tender working age, are being served with self-employed contracts of service by their respective employer.”

What these employers are doing is totally legal. So should that be the end of the story? This is absolutely not the case. Legal it is, but obscene it is even more. The law stipulated that if you work part time for 20 hours then you have a right for pro-rata sickness and leave benefits. Some bloodsuckers a.k.a. employers starting employing people for 19 hours and less. The law was changed. If someone is employed even for eight hours a week then one is entitled for pro-rata benefits. End of story. Justice regained. Exploitation kicked on the backside. Trade unionists patted each other above the backside.

Unfortunately this was not the scenario that emerged. The bloodsuckers a.k.a. these particular employers, probably aided by members of a profession, whose title should not be mentioned in a respectable society, struck back (Clue number 1 for profession: Their number in heaven is slightly smaller than the number of virgins in brothels). Stop employing people. Make them employ themselves and then they come to you on their knees. (As Gejtu wrote: “The realities of life - family, children, mortgage payments and many other financial commitments - impose certain obligations on the workers' possibility to quit.”) You don’t have to give them any benefits but a wage. (Quite naturally some member of the same profession is working on this detail as well. Hint 2: Some members of this profession do their level best to enable paedophiles and drug traffickers to roam the streets. ) Legality respected! Obscenity triumphant!

Gejtu Vella told us that the government should do something about it. He suggested that these bas***ds (one can find this word in the RVS English version of the Bible without any asterisks) should not be granted government contracts. Well spoken and may government heed. But then Gejtu disappoints. He said that “the UĦM will cross swords with those employers” who so behave. Come on Gejtu is that all? Don’t tell us what you WILL do. Tell us about something effective that you ARE doing. An idea? Book adverts in all the papers; name the bloodsuckers, give us their office and home number as well as emails. A photo wouldn’t be a bad idea. And then let the honest people of this country phone them and email them to tell them what they think about them. I’m sure that these bloodsuckers pose as respectability itself. Let us expose them in public in their naked obscenity.

The law should not be the bastion of exploiters.

A drink called Cocaine

I am told that on the way to Paceville two gigantic billboards are gracing Regional Road exhorting the revelers to drink Cocaine. The substance usually takes the form of powder which one sniffs. It is said that in Malta it is consumed during the parties of the rich and the powerful. The Cocaine being advertised is of another kind. It is drunk not sniffed. It is also wholly legal since its contents are totally dissimilar from those of the nefarious drug.

It seems that everything is in order. It is another case of legality respected.

Based on the importer’s claim to legality the advert for Cocaine made it to one of Malta’s most respectable newspapers i.e. The Times. It also made it to the programmes of the production house with the best claim for a social conscience i.e. WE.

But it is another case of obscenity triumphant.

Earlier in the week the Broadcasting Authority joined the fray. In a statement signed by the chief executive, it declared that:

“In so far as Cocaine Energy Drink is concerned, it breaches the Broadcasting Act's provisions concerning offence to public feeling. Moreover, such an advert encourages behaviour prejudicial to health or to safety and runs counter to the efforts made by agencies like Sedqa to combat the drug problem in Malta. I am of the view that by referring to 'Cocaine' in the name of the energy drink, by association, the impression could be given that the use of cocaine is legitimate. Therefore I do not consider it to be in the public interest to allow the said advertisement," the CEO said.

In this case there is an Authority saying that the advert is illegal when aired on radio or TV. In the case of newspapers there still is the veneer of legality since the Broadcasting Act does not cover print. But the statement of the Broadcasting Authority gives other reasons – besides the legal ones – why that kind of advert should not be aired …. And I add “nor printed”.

Any item that uses the name of a drug – whatever it is – should be blacklisted by both the print and the broadcast media.