FAA's democratic reaction to scrutiny and criticism: "SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP"

Among the keenest readers of my blog are the various exponents of Flimkien Ghal Ambjent Ahjar, who track what I am saying and then react with a statement. This is the latest. Note the cunning (as in Blackadder) reference – out of the blue and for the very first time – to Dock No. 1.

Amusingly, Flimkien Ghal Ambjent Ahjar sees this as a matter of ‘case closed’ and demands that people who are objecting to its methods should belt up and sit in a corner. Look at how FAA puts it: “certain people can’t come to terms with the fact that this case is now closed and prefer to indulge in disparaging remarks and nit-picking. FAA calls for an end to this assault on the public’s democratic and EU rights to participate in the decision-making process of our land…”

Sorry, Astrid, but it’s not a matter of ‘case closed’ at all. Being an amateur in the world of public affairs, you don’t realise that what you are seeing happen now is a very big instance of Case Opened. What you are encountering is called a backlash of public opinion. It means that when you get onto your next rabble-rousing bandwagon, you will encounter rather less inertia than you have done so far. People will ask more questions – about the FAA and its methods. People will question those methods. And if you push your luck too far, people will react. They are reacting already.

I find it extraordinary that Astrid and her FAA, who have been bouncing up and down speaking about ‘people power’, are now reacting to the inevitable scrutiny of their methods, operations and motives by demanding that the people should shut up and leave them alone. La krejta, trid toqghod ghaliha. Scrutiny and criticism come with the territory.

I’m sorry, FAA, but it’s my “democratic right”, as you yourselves put it, to scrutinise what you’re doing and saying and to tell a wider audience about it. If people like me and other commentators and reporters don’t do this, how are The People going to find out what you’re up to? How are they going to notice the ‘flaws’ – a word you love – in your arguments?

The editor of The Sunday Times added a note to a letter from Paul Cardona, FAA chairman, which he published last Sunday, suggesting that FAA is coming across as intolerant to views that do not coincide with its own. I concur.

Look at FAA’s reaction to the scrutiny it is getting from this blog – practically the only scrutiny it is getting at all: a national statement to all media demanding that I sit down and shut up at once.

Read my lips, FAA: this is not about the St John’s museum project. This is about you, your methods and your motivation. And all three of those things will still be there tomorrow, and the next day, when the next projects come up for assessment. If you can’t stand the heat, go back to the kitchen. You have failed to realise that, in a democratic environment, you too are laid wide open to scrutiny and criticism. And democracy would be ill-served if that didn’t happen.

www.timesofmalta.com
Tuesday, 24 February
FAA calls for closure on St John’s

Flimkien Għal Ambjent Aħjar (FAA) said today that it had no problem in confirming that it was summoned to meet the St John’s Foundation to discuss the proposed museum extension, but this, it said, came about only after it (the FAA) made the project public.

“No attempt at public consultation or any sort of contact was made during the two years that the Foundation had been dealing with MEPA on the project since 2006,” FAA said.

In a statement to react to comments made by a number of columnists, the NGO said a call ‘demanding’ its attendance was made on a Wednesday afternoon for the following day or Friday, however its representatives had prior commitments which could not be cancelled.

“We offered to meet on any day the following week however that was not accepted by the Curator who insisted on meeting within 48 hours, ie by Friday. That Friday coincided with the last day of the State presidency of the St John’s Foundation as the following Monday it was to be handed over to the Church presidency.”

FAA subsequently attended a presentation which the Foundation held at Din l-Art Helwa’s premises which was limited to NGO leaders and heritage authorities but excluding the public. “In spite of what has been claimed about exclusive presentations, project presentations of this sort are normally made to all the environment NGOs together, in this case the presentation was attended by officials from DLH, FAA, Ramblers Association and Friends of the Earth. On the other hand, in projects affecting the general public or national monuments, the project should also be presented to a wider cross-section of the public and the press before the preparation of an Environment Impact Assessment, as was in fact done in the case of the Grand Harbour Regeneration Plan and the Dock One project,” FAA said.

As regards the accuracy of its references to the cemetery at St John’s, FAA said the area was referred to as the 1577 Cemetery in publications by Leonard Mahoney, Marquis Nicholas de Piro, Dominic Cutajar (former Curator of St John’s Co-Cathedral Museum) and Dane Munro, an academic on St. John’s Cathedral.

“It is surprising that certain people can’t come to terms with the fact that this case is now closed and prefer to indulge in disparaging remarks and nit-picking. FAA calls for an end to this assault on the public’s democratic and EU rights to participate in the decision-making process of our land and calls for the focus to be directed toward more positive initiatives,” the FAA said.