"Start spreading the news,
I am leaving today
I want to be part of it
Iran Iran"
(With apologies to songwriters Ebb, Fred and Kander, John)
Recently the Hon Dr Adrian Vassallo MP PL made public noises about his readiness - if the need arises - to translocate himself from sunny Malta to Iran. The reaction was so loud (though not necessarily clear) that it made the sound of irritating vuvuzelaz like the melodic chirping of birds in spring.
Members of his own Partit Laburista joined a Facebook group set up to buy him a one way ticket to Iran. Dr Vassallo was not amused and publicly stated, with some justification, that an apology from these "colleagues" should be forthcoming.
Basing myself on what has so far been reported publicly it seem that neither the apology nor the one way ticket have been delivered.
A number of interesting issues arise from the discussion.
Is Iran heaven or hell?
Out of all places in the world, why was Iran the desired destination? For Dr Vassallo Iran means religious zeal and the apex of religious crusading spirit. For his critics, Iran is the symbol of bigotry, persecution and fundamentalism. As Kai Hafez says, Iran, for the average Westerner is the forecourt of hell. Since, probably, neither Dr Vassallo nor his detractors have ever visited Iran their image of the country is based on the reportage of Western media, especially CNN. As Hafez notes this coverage is characterised by a heavy patriotic bias and is consequently tremendously biased. There is a big difference between the stereotypical portraits communicated by the media and reality on the ground.
The global village, just like the tribal village, is still, unfortunately, not the ideal locus for fair and unbiased communication! This exchange, though, proves another point. Audiences are not passive blotting papers. Out of the same coverage of Iran, Dr Vassallo concluded that this is a place worth living in; his detractors drew a diametrically opposite conclusion.
People are, after all, not the miserable puppets in the hands of media owners that some commentators believe they are.
Is Vassallo a lone ranger?
Dr Vassallo told The Sunday Times that he is a lone ranger only because "other MPs were afraid to speak out about their beliefs."
He said that he had received calls of support from "around five Labour MPs last week."
Why, one asks, have these Labour MPs not expressed their support publicly?
One can agree or disagree with Dr Vassallo's public stand, but one cannot but admire his sticking to his guns and principles in spite of the rather aggressive and negative reaction to what he said. Dr Vassallo has shown himself to be a man of principles who is even ready to compromise his political career in defence of such principles.
On the other hand, is one to understand that these other Labour MPs are opting for silence because they are not ready to defend in public the principles they believe in? If this is the case, then this does not augur well for the Partit Laburista and democratic debate in Malta. One expects everyone, but more so MPs, to defend publicly their principles.
I do not agree with Dr Vassallo's position but neither do I agree with - sometimes hysterical - attacks against him. If those who agree with him do not come out publicly in his defence then probably the process known as spiral of silence would take over. This theory, proposed by Neumann, states that when people feel that their position is in a minority they would be less ready to defend it. The media can be easily manipulated - and the Internet is more easily manipulated than the rest of the media - to project a position as if it were the majority position when in fact it is not.
A truly democratic and pluralistic debate needs all voices and sides of an argument so long as this is done with the due respect for others and within the parameters of the law.
These "silent" MPs are letting down Dr Vassallo and their own beliefs.
Vassallo the Taliban?
A friend of mine told me that Dr Vassallo proudly says that some of his colleagues in the Partit Laburista call him the Taliban. I do not think that the appellative "Taliban" is something to be proud of as it manifests a mentality and programme of political action which are deleterious to both Church and State.
A Taliban kind of mentality confuses the roles of the State and the Church. It leads to a confessional state where rights are restricted and abused.
What Dr Vassallo writes and says places him in the ranks of those Catholics who are nostalgic for a world which probably has never been. They think that there was some Golden Age in the recent or distant past when everyone respected basic Christian and human values.
They now feel threatened and oscillate between two opposing positions. Sometimes they have the desire to blockade themselves behind massive walls which - they naively believe - will isolate them from all the evil that surrounds them.
At other times, they want to take to the streets, embark on crusades, pronounce fatwas and pressure Governments to legislate even the minutiae of their moral beliefs. Such Christian think that their values are the only valid values around.
These attitudes are both impractical and undesirable.
Let us take the ruckus and pointless diversion created by his position on porn in hotel rooms. I think that the porn is morally negative and that dependence of porn is a social and psychological minus. However, it does not follow that the state should ban or criminalise everything which is morally negative. If the state embarks on such route, despotism would be just round the corner.
Catholic moral theology says that porn is bad. It also says that masturbation, all kinds of lying, pre-marital sex, lack of respect towards parents, extra marital sex, not going to Mass on Sunday and contraception are morally not acceptable as well. Would Dr Vassallo, or anyone in his right senses, suggest that the above actions should be made illegal?
Does Dr Vassallo think that Malta would be a better place if hotels were to be legally prevented from providing porn TV stations on their TV system? Are not porn TV stations, films etc already available in hotel rooms through one's laptops? Does he expect the state to install "nanny" soft ware on all laptops so that no one watches porn?
I think that Dr Vassallo would have used his talents and time in a more positive way had he spoken about the negative effects of porn than launch a Don Quixotic type of attack on these "porn" windmills?
What I have written is not and should not be seen as a defence of porn. It is though a criticism of an impracticable and theoretically dangerous strategy that Christians are tempted to adopt when faced by things they believe to be immoral or when faced by value systems different from theirs.