Exceptions break rules, not make them

The ‘exception that makes the rule’ must be one of the most maddeningly misused idioms in the English language. I know, because I’ve maddeningly misused it myself for years. Until not too long ago, I had always taken it in the same spirit as that very different maxim, ‘rules are there to be broken’. Every rule has an exception, so one can only realistically be expected to ‘follow the rules’ up to a certain point. “Hey, don’t look at me... I didn’t ‘break’ that rule; I merely proved to be the ‘exception’ that made it in the first place.” That sort of thing.

Well, after using it in that sense for over two decades – mainly to justify all sorts of rule-breaking of my own - I eventually discovered that it doesn’t mean that at all. The real meaning is actually much more interesting: it implies that the existence of a ‘rule’ can only be determined by cases where that rule may be broken. If committing murder (for instance) were actually a physical impossibility... it wouldn’t even be possible to have a rule against it. It takes the ability to commit a murder to necessitate legislation against homicide. There is a beautiful paradox in there somewhere, struggling to get out. 

But the difference in meaning has significant ramifications. ‘The exception makes the rule’ does NOT in any way justify the rule being broken. On the contrary, it emphasises the need for rules to be enforced: they’re there to prevent exceptions... even if the exceptions prove that they actually exist.

There, that paradox again. Isn’t it gorgeous? And aren’t we just the luckiest nation on earth, to be surrounded by so many glaring examples of it everywhere you look?

Consider the following gem of a specimen. The Planning Authority has just announced a new set of regulations for billboards erected in public places. It might not, I’ll admit, be the single most pressing issue the country has ever faced; nor even the one in most urgent need of regulation. But hey, you can’t expect all the PA’s decisions and statements to be earth-shattering every single time, you know. There’s an exception to every rule, remember? Sometimes, the PA takes decisions and issues statements that don’t cause immediate panic and uproar.

But it happens rarely, and I’m beginning to doubt if this really is an exception. On closer scrutiny it turns out that the PA has proposed regulating some billboards, but not others. And you’ll never guess which billboard advertisers are going to have to follow these rules, and which have been given carte blanche to just carry on with their unregulated business as usual.

Oh well, here goes: “Subject to the provisions of this regulation, the following advertisements shall be exempt from the requirements of permission: [...]; a political advertisement [...] an advertisement for a national or town or village feast, including sponsored advertisements, provided it is displayed for not more than 30 days prior to the date of the feast.”

There were other inbuilt exceptions, but the rest all seemed eminently sensible to me. “An advertisement which is displayed on enclosed land and which is not visible from any road” seems fair enough, given that the regulations intend to address the visual impact of billboards. “An advertisement required by any law or ordered by a competent court” is perhaps superfluous, seeing as the courts and the law both automatically overrule the PA’s authority anyway. Still, it’s good to point these things out all the same.

But political advertising? Advertising for a village festa? On what grounds do those two get to be treated any differently from anybody else?

The question assumes a certain relevance when you look at the declared objectives of these regulations. In the PA’s own words, it aims to “ensure that outdoor advertising is of a high design standard that will not have a visual impact or affect road safety conditions.”

Got that everyone? ‘Affect road safety conditions’.

Now: seeing as driving in Malta has become about as ‘safe’ as disembarking on Ohio Beach, Normandy, on 6 June 1944... yes, I think we can all safely agree that road safety is a serious issue that concerns us all closely.  And while billboards might not be the most immediate danger, they are still considered as potential hazards. 

A badly placed billboard can obstruct view of traffic signs, or even obstruct traffic itself. The advert or message might distract drivers’ attention (admittedly this one’s a stretch, but yes, strange things do happen on the road). There are even specific health concerns involved: flashing lights or reflecting sunshine can provoke epileptic fits, for instance. 

And now that an election’s coming up, there’s also a good chance of being bored to death while stuck in traffic with nothing to do but read political slogans everywhere you look.

So make no mistake: billboards are dangerous things, and must be regulated. But then... why are billboards advertising political slogans or village feasts automatically ‘safer’ than any other billboard? 

I will resist the temptation to speculate that they are made of some kind of accident-proof material that justifies waiving all known road safety precautions. Clearly, what the Planning Authority is telling us that is that our safety in only of any concern to them as long as it doesn’t get in the way of those two doing whatever the heck they please. 

So if a badly erected political billboard causes traffic chaos, or even a pile-up leaving casualties or fatalities... sorry, folks, but that’s not the PA’s concern.

Meanwhile, if the accident scenario is too much for you... what about the ‘visual impact’ part? What are we to understand on this score, exactly? That, in the interest of beautifying our country, everybody else out there now has to conform to a certain aesthetic standards... but political parties can continue littering the place with as much grotesque ugliness as they are both capable of concocting?

Again, the message is inescapable. We only care about beauty when it doesn’t harm the interests of politicians. And this, please note, is coming from the Planning Authority: whose remit is in part to keep those political parties in check.

But the really extraordinary thing about this is the way it was presented to us. What is there in the proposed law itself, that even tries to justify making any form of exception for these two categories? What was the declared rationale behind this blatantly discriminatory decision?

In a word, there wasn’t any. Those two exceptions were simply enumerated along with all the others, as though it was perfectly normal and natural for political parties and village band clubs to be exempt from legal requirements. And this stands out from other cases where the law has been manifestly applied differently to the two parties. 

When, in the 1990s, the Fenech Adami administration wrote similar exemptions into the Data Protection Act (funnily enough, the lucky token beneficiary was also the Church on that occasion)... it at least gave us a reason for the exemption. Political parties are necessary for the proper functioning of democracy, we were told. And to properly function themselves, they need to be legally allowed to spy on everyone else.

OK, you can wrestle with that excuse all you like... but at least there was an excuse to wrestle with. Here? Nothing at all. Like we’re all expected to accept without question such a glaring distortion of the advertising market...

Which brings me to another small detail: as I find myself repeating from time to time, political parties do not exist in a vacuum. They occupy and compete within the same market as everyone else. If they benefit from a legal loophole, their competitors suffer on account of the same loophole. 

Personally, I would have thought the whole point of the PA was to close such loopholes, not to invent new ones. But invent a new one they did, and what a loophole it turns out to be, too. For what, pray tell, are the regulations that will soon apply to everybody except the two political parties? (Oh, and village festa organisers; almost forgot about them for a second) Let’s see now: among many other details, there is the trifling matter of a 1.500 fee to Transport Authority. 

My, how very fortunate for two parties which are both crippled by unpayable debts. That’s one less expense they have to worry about, and one more financial obstacle placed in the path of their competitors. And by a truly amazing coincidence – you’d think I’m making this up, but I can assure you it’s true - this legal notice just happened to emerge only a few months before the start of an election campaign. 

You know, just in time to make it as difficult as possible for anyone else to compete with the two parties for public advertising space. To ensure that the only billboards that get to clog up our streets for the next year – posing as much danger to motorists and pedestrians as they like, and as ugly as possible, too – are the ones bludgeoning us all with political messages that only serve the interest of the two parties... 

Perhaps I should have asked this before, but... whose interest was the PA supposed to serve again? Must be another one of those things I’ve always got wrong: I always thought it was supposed to be the ordinary citizen.