A believer... or an unbeliever?

I often feel like the girl picking petals. Think not that I’m regressing into adolescent anxieties or into ‘he loves me, he loves me not’ scenarios.  I merely find myself reciting the ‘I believe, I do not believe’ mantra.

D word
Divorce is not longer an unutterable word and the issue is now resurfacing with frequency. Yet, I believe that Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando’s draft bill will not create more momentun unless polls show greater public support and better vote-catching potential. On this matter, I can swear by the Prime Minister that he can smell what’s cooking on the Government backbench. It is very hard to believe that Pullicino Orlando was merely a ‘lone ranger’ in the preparation of this draft bill of over 30 pages. In an island where 'is-sema ghandu ghajnu u l-hajt ghandu widintu' (the sky has eyes, the wall has ears) it sounds incredulous that the Honourable dentist hinted to his ex wife, herself an Opposition MP, while his Prime Minister remained blissfully oblivious. And it sounds even more unbelievable that the Opposition appears to find the Lone Ranger thesis plausible when instead it must feel this move has somehow pulled D carpet from underneath its feet.

The word “referendum” sounds wonderful. Nonetheless, I strongly believe that here it is being employed as a delaying tactic. Midweek, the great majority of the respondents of the timesonline poll revealed that most favoured the introduction of divorce. The following day the question unexpectedly changed to: Should the decision be taken by Parliament or by a Referendum? “Referendum” sounds so politically scrumptious that 80% immediately agreed to it. Yet, in this case a referendum would amount to a tyranny of the majority.

It is widely acknowledged that referenda are insensitive to the needs of minorities including those trapped in a legal limbo. Switzerland provides us with ample evidence of referenda employed as delaying tactics. Thanks to referenda Swiss women were unable to vote and contest federal elections as recently as 1971. In this country, where the size of the Muslim community is the same as the size of the Maltese population, another referendum banned the building of minarets. And in case you are wondering, yes it was a referendum that blocked the Swiss EU membership process.

Confession
The relief people feel in unburdening themselves and when they get something off their chest is tremendous. The healing powers of the confessional rest on the oath of confidentiality. A breach of this oath costs institutions dearly. Various professions have learnt this much from the Church. Social workers, psychologists, marriage counsellors and journalists are among those who endorsed Codes of Ethics promising not to reveal the identity of their clients or sources.

A journalist must defend his source’s identity at all costs and is legally protected in doing so. I find it hard to believe that government ordered an Inquiry into the alleged leakage of documents from the Presidency. The Malta Today managing editor Saviour Balzan and the acting editor of The Malta Independent Noel Grima were both summoned before the Inquiry. Grima wrote: “I refused to divulge ... the nature of the documents in the file, for that involves the confidential relationship between a journalist and his contact.” Now to me this is even more incredible than the government’s action.

The Institute of Maltese Journalists is proud that it successfully lobbied both sides of the House to agree to the incorporation of the Confidentiality of the Source in the Press Act. It was indeed a great accomplishment! Lest we forget the law states that no court shall require editors to “disclose, nor shall such person be guilty of contempt of court for refusing to disclose, the source of information contained in a newspaper or broadcast for which he is responsible unless it is established to the satisfaction of the court that such disclosure is necessary in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, or for the prevention of disorder or crime or for the protection of the interests of justice...”.

Noel Grima aptly wrote that it is unbelievable this enquiry is evaluating a conversation at a state dinner. Well, I believe that during dinner conversations journalists should also refrain from discussing their sources. I would never share anything in confidence if I suspected that my name and quandaries would end up as state dinner table gossip.  There is clearly a breach of ethical behaviour whenever the confidentiality of the source of information is not respected.

It is people who need protection not the stories they may tell or the materials they may divulge. Actually, it is the journalist’s business to verify those stories and publish them.

The F word
Unifaun Theatre will be appealing the court judgement which did not find the Film and Stage Classification Board guilty of violating their Freedom of Expression with last year’s controversial ban of Anthony Neilson’s play Stitching. The court asserted that it is unacceptable for any person to be allowed to swear in public, even in a theatre as part of a script. “According to our law, the very fact that a person swears in public, regardless of the reason, is a contravention... So if the court allows this in a democratic society, it would be discriminating (against those who are punished for swearing in public).”

This rationale has set a scary precedent in a country which had the audacity to enforce censorship in three notorious cases. Apart from the ban of Stitching, there was the patronising attitude employed last summer in Raphael Vella’s art exhibition ‘Pornolitics’. The cherry on the cake was the ban on campus of the student newspaper Realta’, which was followed by legal proceedings against its editor and an author. Reference to the protection of vulnerable groups or anything of that sort cannot even be cited to justify these cases.  The ‘offensive’ materials mainly appealed to the supposed crème de la crème of Maltese society: University Students, a select artistic crowd and the theatre circles.  Censorship is indeed obsolete and its use will only contribute to make the institutions that support it irrelevant.

Beyond The Wall, at Ospizio
Believe it or not, artistic director Paul Portelli and Theatreanon took us beyond The Wall to experience some sanity. It is the world where the inarticulate local politician can hardly piece two unscripted sentences together; where the monsignor speaks an archaic language, which yuppie lawyers and ourselves can hardly comprehend; a world where lost souls struggle with their pains and secrets ... on their own. This is truly a Goffmanian Ospizio set within the unexplored ambience of our forgotten past. Go there if you dare.