He made the sensible choice – his land, not his position
So Victor Scerri has resigned. I thought he would.
I would have done the same – not as an admission of guilt and responsibility, but because the kind of battle he needs to fight now can’t be fought as president of the Nationalist Party, but is best fought as a private citizen.
Some days ago I wrote that Victor Scerri in his current predicament, irrespective of who is wrong and who is right, faces a stark but inevitable choice.
He must either give up his position, or he must give up his development permit and let his land lie idle.
He cannot retain his official position while fighting to clear his name and seek the right to redevelop an old building on land which he owns.
It seems grossly unfair, and it is, but that’s the way it goes.
This kind of harassment comes with the territory, so you have to make choices. You gain some things and you give up others. When you come under attack by a politically motivated mob, however smart that mob may be, there is no way out.
You either go down alone, or you bring down the ship with you. It should be obvious that the decent thing to do is the first – if for no other reason than that it will allow you to retain some respect and conduct your battle for justice out of the spotlight.
Others have been there before Victor Scerri. They have been subjected to mobbing of one form or another. I’m not going to drag up people and issues from the past few years now; there’s no point.
The only thing worth saying about them is that their cases illustrate the ugliness and corrosive danger of fighting a battle by installments in the public domain.
There is nothing to be gained from it, and much to be lost on all fronts.
The audience eventually lose track of the details, if they ever had them in the first place, that is, and all they are left with is a general impression of who was ‘wrong’, who was ‘right’ and a very unpleasant sensation of having been exposed to rather too much information they really didn’t want or need in the first place.
The difference between Victor Scerri and those other politicians is that they were elected representatives of the people, sitting in parliament.
Resigning their seat was not the correct stance as they weren’t answerable to the party bosses or, if their party was in government, to the prime minister – though this should never be interpreted as licence for disloyalty and hostility to the prime minister, which translates into disloyalty and hostility to the constituents, who chose their prime minister before they chose their MP.
But if they held a cabinet post or some other official role, then resigning from that post would have been essential to minimise the ruckus and bad blood.
Sadly, in at least a couple of cases that come immediately to mind, that didn’t happen and the individuals in question ended up struggling at the polls when the general election rolled round.
If they didn’t resign, the people who elected them appeared determined to remove them.
The individuals who suffered this way were understandably aggrieved. “But my name was cleared,” they argued, “it was all dirt thrown at me for political advantage.”
But rival politicians are always going to throw dirt for political advantage. It is idealistic to imagine this won’t happen.
The important thing is not to come across to your audience as though you are keener to hang on to your official position than you are to clear your name and seek justice.
It is precisely this which I have noticed that people seem most to resent. As a general observation, people are able to distinguish between politically-motivated muck and reality. This doesn’t mean to say that they don’t enjoy seeing the muck being thrown if they don’t like the person or his politics, or if they think it will damage a political party they don’t support.
But there is a difference between this more unsavoury side of human nature and the ability to calculate the veracity or significance of the information put before them.
In other words, they may see the mud being thrown, understand that it is only mud, but enjoy it all the same. What goes down really badly, on the other hand, is the perception that Mr X or Mrs Y want to clear their name to hang on to their position, and not because they consider their reputation and integrity as valuable in themselves.
The keener you show yourself to be in hanging on to your position the keener people are to remove you. Bringing you down ends up as a sort of blood sport.
There is a perverse side to human nature which enjoys seeing other people’s wishes and desires being thwarted. You don’t have to be particularly perceptive or observant to pick this up.
I have noticed that many people are motivated more by the desire to prevent others from achieving their objectives than by achieving any particular objectives of their own.
Victor Scerri faced a choice between battling to invest in his land and retaining his position in the Nationalist Party. He recognised that he couldn’t have both without exposing himself and the party to continued attacks, irrespective of whether those attacks are with or without foundation.
And so he chose to battle to invest in his land.
It was a sensible choice. The pseudo-environmentalists appear to have expected him to obediently bow his head to their judgement and prejudice, staying on as party president and abandoning his investment because they said so.
The only possible response to that comes in two words, but we won’t go into that here.
The pseudo-environmentalists have irritated me so much that valley or not, I have ended up hoping Victor Scerri doesn’t lose out – especially when I know, because I know them and how they think, that the leaders of this particular pack would sell their grandmother to have what he does, where he does.
Much of their annoyance has to do with this business of preventing others from getting what they want. If they can’t build a house on the footprint of a ruin in Bahrija Valley, then they are damned if Victor Scerri is going to do so.
That’s the way life is in very small societies like ours. We should have got used to it by now.
This article is published in The Malta Independent today.
43 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Is every issue which involves Astrid whatever-her-name-is going to be dealt with in such a narrow-minded fashion? I know exactly where this spot in Bahrija is. I’m no ardent environmentalist but, believe me, stopping this development is the right thing to do.
[Daphne – Who needs laws and boards when we have Ian?]
I won’t go into the merits of whether Dr Scerri is being hounded because he was a public person (in any case that comes part and parcel with the position; if you don’t like the public lens to focus on you, then buzz off into anonymity) or whether there really was some foul play on his part or on the part of people connected to him; that is for the appropriate officers to investigate.
[Daphne – Buzzing off into anonymity is precisely what he has just done.]
I’m just happy that he happened to be a public person but also worried that if he were not, the whole outcry would not have been raised and one of the few beautiful and pristine spots on our island would have followed the fate of so many others.
[Daphne – The essential point is that it is not your beautiful and pristine spot and neither is it Astrid Vella’s. As for the Ramblers’ Association, while I have every sympathy for those who enjoy walking through open countryside – though there is no such thing in Malta – I have to point out that it is completely unacceptable to seek the right to walk through other people’s private property, even if there is no wall around it.]
You couldn’t have chosen better words for your article. It’s a sad situation that we have to stoop so low to ‘win’ a case.
Isn’t it that people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones?
“I have noticed that many people are motivated more by the desire to prevent others from achieving their objectives than by achieving any particular objectives of their own.”
Daphne, this sentence should be written in golden letters. It basically defines socialism!
Utter rubbish. Shows you have absolutely no idea whatsoever what socialism is all about.
[Daphne – You’d be surprised. I suggest you research Silvan’s background. Unlike you, he uses his real name.]
If I were to write “All capitalists are greedy pigs”, would you need to “research my background” to know that it is a silly, shallow remark? Same goes for Silvan Mifsud’s comment.
[Daphne – Next time demand of him a full treatise on socialism. What can I say? Incidentally, did you know of this proposal, made at the Labour Party’s conference on inflation? “Proposta numru 3. ‘Il-Gvern ghandu jimporta prodotti u servizzi huwa stess li mbaghad jinbieghu b’mod differenti’.” Those politicians you support never learn, do they? They still think bulk-buying is a good idea and that the state should intervene heavily in the market. Thank God we are now free to leave when they start screwing up big-time.]
Twanny: Please explain socialism.
That proposal has nothing whatsoever to do with bulk-buying. It simply means that the Gov, or an agency set up for the purpose, would import goods and sell them at a good but reasonable profit. Not to compete with the private sector, but to set a benchmark which the consumer could use to see if he/she was getting a fair deal or not.
I think it’s a brilliant idea.
[Daphne – YOU HAVE GOT TO BE JOKING. YOU ARE QUITE, QUITE MAD.]
I hope you are not one of the motley crew of fools, half wits, and puffed up know-alls who are planning to run the country, because you sure as hell sound like one. Here, for your information, is the number of things you managed to get wrong in one paragraph, so heaven help us if you and your cronies get your hands on quite a bit more than you can handle.
1. It is not necessary to set up in business in order to provide a bench mark.
2. A fair deal is not based solely on price.
3. Buying large volumes of the same goods to resell in smaller units = bulk buying, whatever you may think and whichever euphemism you use to blank out the ghastliness associated with that particular relic of the 1980s.
4. If a government agency/body enters the market then it competes with the private sector.
5. There is no such thing as a ‘reasonable’ profit, as defined by uninformed ‘socialists’ (those quotation marks are deliberate). You either make a profit or you don’t and you either make a good return on an investment or you don’t, but people with your mindset wouldn’t know anything about that.
6. You’re incorrectly assuming that people would adopt the government backed bulk-buying scheme as a standard by which to measure all else. Had you an ounce of sense you would have realised that it is the private sector service that will set the benchmark by which to judge the inevitable shoddiness of your hare-brained scheme.
That’s six things you have managed to get wrong in as many lines. Not bad for an amateur. Now just imagine what you’d be able to achieve if someone gave you a whole country and its government to play with.
Stick to video games. They’re a lot safer for the rest of us.
@ Ms Corinne Vella
I will ignore the personal invective – it is probably so ingrained you don’t even realise you are doing it.
[Daphne – Personal invective? Nobody here even has the slightest idea who you are. We don’t even know whether you’re a man or a woman. Gej bil-personal invective. If you want to get personal, use your real identity.]
You really should take on board the tacky, but nonetheless true, quip that says “when you assume you make an ass of u and me”. Cos your post is just a series of unwarranted assumptions.
1. It is not necessary to set up in business to set a benchmark – but it is the best way of doing it.
2. Whoever said that a fair deal is based solely on price?
3. Yes, as you say “Buying large volumes of the same goods to resell in smaller units = bulk buying”. But that is not what the proposal in question says, so it is irrelevant.
4. Maybe so, but if the agency is run strictly on a commercial bases, that competitio0n can only be beneficial to the consumer
5. I don’t think that you can look at this matter in such a black/white manner. There is such a thing as “unreasonable” profit – look at the Gov/pharmacies dispute of just a few months back.
6. Since no-one is talking about bulk-buying, totally irrelevant.
[Daphne – Your use of the word ‘cos’ instead of because gives me the tiniest clue that you didn’t leave through the Labour government’s bulk-buying programmes and that you are at the stage in life (20s? retarded 30s? sheltered-from-life 40s?) when you think that something worked out on paper can be applied in real life. You needn’t be young to think this way. Alfred Sant still thinks like that in his 60s and so does his former wife the academic with her crazy theories about education – one of which sank her hero’s electoral ship last year.]
I’m young in mind and spirit.
“when you assume you make an ass of u and me”. Cos your post is just a series of unwarranted assumptions.”
There are no assumptions in my post. All I did was pick holes in your logic, such as it is. You, on the other hand, are making several assumptions.
1. Setting up in business is the best way of setting a benchmark, eh? For your next assignment please explain how implementing this scheme would set a benchmark without, of course, having any sort of benchmark by which to measure its own performance.
2. No one ‘said’ a fair deal is based solely on price but that is what you implied. You’re not seriously suggesting that government backed schemes are in pole position in terms of quality and service, especially where importation is concerned? Not, of course, unless you mean that government can spur all those public employees involved in the torturous processes of importation into providing an excellent service to a government-backed scheme while continuing to frustrate its competitors in the private sector.
3. On the contrary, that is exactly what the proposal says.
4. An example of this being….?
5. For your next assignment, i) define unreasonable profit ii) derive, from first principles, a formula for calculating a benchmark for determining unreasonable profit iii) describe corrective mechanisms that may be implemented by government when market forces push its prices up.
6. Twanny is talking about bulk buying, so perhaps we should, on his advice, dismiss his arguments as totally irrelevant.
I don’t have much hope that this will sink in, but I’ll have a go anyway: This has nothing to do with bulk buying.
Twanny, Socialism is selling your freedoms for security. The ones giving you that security enjoy your freedoms, while telling you that everybody is equal so everybody should have an equal paycheck and they a lower bill to pay. Here is a quote by Winston Churchill which describes what I really think about socialism.
“There can be no doubt that Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the abject worship of the state…Socialism is in its essence an attack not only on British enterprise, but upon the right of ordinary men and women to breathe freely without having a harsh, clammy, clumsy, tyrannical hand clasped across their mouth and nostrils.” – Cited in T.M. Lindsay and M. Harrington, The Conservative Party 1918-1970, Macmillan, p. 142
I liked your article! It is refreshing like drinking cold water in a scorching heat. That’s how I felt reading it.
Twanny jien ma rridx nerga nghix iz-zmien tal-bulk buying.
Daphne, you wrote “As for the Ramblers’ Association, while I have every sympathy for those who enjoy walking through open countryside – though there is no such thing in Malta – I have to point out that it is completely unacceptable to seek the right to walk through other people’s private property.”
Slight correction here – in my time involved with RAM we did not seek to trespass but rather “open up” ways that either through illegal gates/signs or plain old intimidation were closed off to most except the most adventurous or foolhardy.
Perhaps you are not aware, but walking parts of the Majjistral park up to a couple of years back meant you were badmouthed off by the “hawn privat” Neanderthals…in another area you were pelted with stones by let’s say (can’t find the right word really) …a man. Contrary to what you say there is still some little countryside around and I can still walk in one place for three hours without encountering a soul or any inhabited building. I am not saying where though!
It is this little free-to-all countryside that RAM in particular has been most vociferous about – and quite rightly so too. It is also an area (metaphoric not geographic) where this government has turned a blind eye for so long and the matter is only being partially addressed now through Lands Dept and Parliamentary Secretary Jason Azzopardi.
[Daphne – Thanks for pointing that out. Now the big question is: are there maps telling people which land is private and which is not? Walkers don’t cause any trouble (it’ the snail-hunters who do), but what offends is the ‘bid-dritta’ approach to having picnics and taking walks wherever they please.]
“Now the big question is: are there maps telling people which land is private and which is not?”…. As a matter of fact there are not and no authority (including the maligned MEPA) is interested in the matter. But then again once you assume that the foreshore is free to public access (MEPA policy unless I am mistaken) you can really go a long way.
[Daphne – Protection of public access to the foreshore has been a long established ‘principle’ in Maltese law. There was a great debate about this some time in the early 1990s, when there was a proposal for a private beach club somewhere along that stretch of rock between il-Fortizza and it-Torri on Sliema’s Tower Road. Retired judge Antoine Montanaro Gauci had written a very rare letter to The Time which seemed to settle the matter once and for all. But that raised the question of the legality of all existing beach clubs, including FAA’s much-beloved Teeny Beach. So no, this long predates MEPA and the same principle cannot be applied to rural land because there were specific reasons for the foreshore having to be public. It wasn’t just an arbitrary thing.]
RAM does not encourage picnicking really – anzi I remember one walk where everyone was actively encouraged to pick a discarded bottle or some such garbage left over by other “countryside lovers”.
There is no comprehensive map of Malta but limited local maps can be drawn if one is willing. When the RAM decide on an itinerary for one of their walks, they can go to the Lands Department and check if the land they will be walking over is private or owned by government/Joint Office. If it is government-owned but rented to private persons they can also find out if the tenancy conditions include right of public passage. If the land is privately-owned they have to assume that there is no automatic right of way over it.
Years ago, BirdLife Malta mapped hundreds of trapping sites and then used this method to find out if they were on private or public land so the information is there – you just have to take the time and look for it.
“I have noticed that many people are motivated more by the desire to prevent others from achieving their objectives than by achieving any particular objectives of their own”.
This has been the Maltese trait for centuries. Someone wrote during the knights’ period that if someone in Malta tries to light a candle he will find a hundred people trying to put it out. I would like to find exactly who wrote it.
@Silvan Mifsud
Know what Silvan? It is because there was socialism in European history that it is considered normal today that all the people have a good life, with food and clothes and housing, education and health care.
I am not talking specifically of Malta here…this is the story of all Europe…how in the 19th Century a movement sprang up which, by means of the ballot box and also by means of action, gradually brought about the mentality that it is not acceptable that the riches of a country are reserved for the few. Read a bit your history books Silvan. If you are the former high profile member of the Ghaqda Zghazagh Laburisti, you know well what I mean.
[Daphne – I hate to disabuse you of that notion, my returning friend Albert, but it was capitalism that improved the lot of the common man, and not socialism. Besides which, the benefits of socialism, such as they were, would have been absolutely impossible without capitalism, as without capitalism there would have been no wealth to redistribute. Where socialism operates in a capitalism-free vacuum, everyone lives in poverty, except for the few pigs who are more equal than others. When did the lot of the common man begin to improve? When did we see the massive growth of the middle classes? After the Industrial Revolution. That’s why it began to happen in the 19th century, and not because of your mythical movement and its ballot-box.]
Bulk buying? hmmm…
We will then start hearing shoppers, mostly women, reacting to shortages galore, “jahasra qed jaghmlu mill-ahjar li jistghu!” “Isa wasal iz-zejt morru qabel jinhataf!”
Margerine this week, cans of tuna next week…..one brand – no choice. Importers go on a long vacation – you and your employees are no longer required. Socialist civil servants will do just as good a job!
Shall we have to put our name on a waiting list for TVs?
That’s the best Joseph can come up with? Or was this proposal a leftover brought to new light by the discards of the 1970s and 1980s who were recently welcomed as ‘heros’ by Joseph?
I’m buggered if I’m going to let anyone else tell me what I can or can’t do with my own property, as long as what I do causes no actual harm to anyone else. As you say, it’s sour grapes – or possibly something more sinister.
If Astrid Vella and MEPA were around when the Order of St John built our magnificent fortifications, they would have accused the knights of causing environmental damage. The environment is a tool used by Astrid and her tin soldiers to get their names in headlines.
Ms Daphne,
Rigward Proposta Nru 3. Ftit xhur ilu. l gvern ta qalbek, li kull ma jaghmel, jaghmlu sew kien ippropona u hedded lill ispizjara, li biex jikkontrolla l prezzijiet kien lest li jibda jimporta l medicina l gvern. Dan biex nikkontrollaw l inflazzjoni.
Allura ghax xi haga simili ipproponija il PL, li kull ma jaghmel jaghmlu hazin, nghidu li ma jitghallmu qatt.
Ipprova ghal darba kun oggettiva u nehhi l ghamad li ghandek m ghajnejk.
Issa tista tinfexx tghajjarni
Grazzi
“The important thing is not to come across to your audience as though you are keener to hang on to your official position than you are to clear your name and seek justice.”
Although the above makes sense, it is extremely unfair. Unfortunately many of us think of politicians as a bunch of corrupt individuals who are in it for money. The truth is that most of our politicians (on both sides) are not in it for the money and the pittance they receive as remuneration is just one indication (although that also contributes to the suspicions that many have that these people must be getting something else under the counter).
Although some are motivated by the fame and importance their posts might bring, i think that most politicians are in it because they truly believe that they can do something good for all of us and want to be of service. Of course there are bad oranges in every basket and those should be removed but to think that all ministers and politicians are corrupt is unfair. Why am I saying all this? It’s because I feel that in cases such as victor scerri’s the man was not “innocent until proven guilty” but was handed a guilty verdict from the outset.
I do not agree that one should resign and fight on as an individual to avoid damage to the party. a) The resignation in many people’s minds means he is guilty and had to resign. b) He was Party President until now and so the damage has been done. c) Dr. Scerri will now be called the ex-PN president so will remain linked.
I think that the resignation plays into the hands of those people who wanted to harm Dr. Scerri and the party. I think that the Party and particularly the party leader, when faced with such a situation, should immediately look into the case (not wait for the auditor’s report) and decide to either ask the person to resign if the case is fishy or to fully back the individual if they believe he/she is innocent particularly if the person is an asset to the party.
If I gave a good part of my life and hard work to a party, came under attack for doing so and was truly innocent I would expect the party to stand by me in my hour of need and not abandon me, even if it loses votes because at the end of the day values should come before votes.
Once when I was at university Eddie Fenech Adami was invited for a discussion and at one point in time he said that even suffering/sacrifice was a value – the students booed him but I personally understood him and admired him – he was a man who believed in values and yes even one’s suffering has value, when one of your own is in need (i.e. you know he is innocent and is being unfairly treated) he should get support not be shunned.
Actually you can get a very clear and valid assessment of a person’s character and personality when s/he is passing through suffering and/or difficult periods in life.
Dear Twanny,
If we were to start from the far left of the political spectrum, starting from communism and moving to the centre i.e. from communism to socialism to social democracy to New Labour, you will realise that over the past 50 years, leftists have felt the need to dilute their ideology and move to the centre. This was because in many cases leftist ideas did not work in practice, leaving masses in poverty and restriction, while the privileged few controlled matters (read Orwell’s Animal Farm). This made their ideology unelectable. That is why I believe that the sentence I quoted from Daphne’s article is a very good definition of socialism.
[Daphne – “This made their ideology unelectable” – and that’s why it had to be imposed by force, the first casualty of extreme socialism being democracy.]
Recent events, have also shown that far right capitalistic policies also bring about a colossal financial and economic disaster, who worst of all have as victims innocent workers who always worked hard for a living.
That is why all politicians today, at least in the western part of the world, are fighting to fit themselves somewhere in the centre.
Having said this, the Malta Labour Party unfortunately still has a few influential individuals who cannot take the vital step for the party’s survival, that of scrapping their ultra-leftist ideology.
To put all this within a practical background, I believe that proposal no.3 made by the Labour Party on inflation is a sign of this, which is a pity as all the other proposals then move in the direction I outlined above.
On the contrary, Silvan, It was the centre that moved, to the extent that many policies that once were considered as very leftist are now considered to be centrist, if not even right.
That is why most left parties – including the LP – feel very comfortable in the centre while the conservative always ahev to strain to fit in.
[Daphne – If the centre moves, then it is no longer the centre. Find a geometry teacher to explain this to you.]
Perhaps the earthquake moved the centre.
“If the centre moves, then it is no longer the centre.”
Not if the whole SPECTRUM shifts. And what happened in politics is that the whole spectrum shifted leftwards and what had previously been considered as very leftist became centrist.
[Daphne – What you are talking about is not a ‘shifting centre’ – a tautology – but a different spectrum with a centre of its own.]
The first casualty of extreme socialism was anarchism.
On page 13 of the Audit Office report the following is stated: ‘The development permit was not sufficient for building operations to commence. The applicant required the approval of the Environment Protection Department which she never obtained. Consequently all operations on site were carried out illegally (…)’. Is it the responsibility of the applicant to obtain the approval of the EPD or is it the responsibility of the DCC to obtain such approval? If it is the responsibility of the DCC then the applicant cannot be blamed for acting on a development permit which was issued, let alone accused of acting illegally, if an incorrect screening process in the application procedure took place. The auditor seemed to be rather keen to infer from what was an error in the administrative procedure related to this application that illegal action was taken by the developer. If his brief is to investigate MEPA procedures isn’t he acting outside the parameters of his brief when he unjustly concludes that the action of the developer was illegal?
What I find even more worrying is that the auditor makes serious allegations based on no evidence whatsoever when he states that it is plausible that collusion took place. When this auditor makes such serious allegations which can tarnish individuals for life, he is clearly abusing his authority and does not realise the consequences of his actions.
The Government should seriously consider advising Chairmen to ask auditors to redraft their reports if such reports contain statements beyond their terms of reference and particularly if their conclusions are based on speculation. It is unfortunate for the reputation of the people concerned that the media picked up the subjective comments and not the facts of the case.
“The applicant required the approval of the Environment Protection Department which SHE never obtained.”
Why “she”? Is Dr Scerri a cross dresser?
[Daphne – You seem unable to grasp the principle that wives are not legal, biological or theoretical extensions of their husband.]
This is all very interesting and worthwhile. At the same time, may I ask the moderator to start a thread about the latest fulminations by the Bishop of Gozo who looks like a character straight out of a gothic novel about the dark ages please?
E=MC2….Is it his denunciation of relativism which worries you ;)
@ Thomas
Il-gvern ta qalbek mhux talli kkontrolla l-importazjoni, talli gie jaqa w jqum jekk il-poplu kellux dak kollu li kellu bzonn, meta minn gimgha ghall’ohra ma kienx jaf jekk il-prodotti bzonjuzi kienux sej jkunu fuq l-ixkafef tal-hwienet jew le.
Il-medicina kienet haga izolata u temporanja mhux bhal ‘bulk buying’, ghaldaqstant thallatx il-hass mal b**s. Il-gvern Nazzjonalista ma hax dan il-pass biex jikkontrolla l-inflazzjoni izda biex il-pazjent ikun moqdi tajjeb u bi prezz ragonevoli.
Hadd mu qieghed f’xi kju biex ipoggi ismu fuq ‘waiting list’ biex jixtri l-kumdita jew ixahham lill xi hadd (jew xi kazin) biex ‘jaqbez il-kju’! Nahseb qed tifhimni.
Hallina nghixu Sur Tumas.
Is anyone bothered by what is right and wrong? Does anyone ever consider Natural Law principles when deciding which actions are right, beneficial for everyone or wrong? Was Dr. Scerri right trying to obtain an ODZ permit with various applications over a 10 year period?
[Daphne – Natural law? What in god’s name is that? You mean the sort of natural law that says if you fancy the woman in the cave next door you can club her over the head and drag her back to yours? Or that if you run out of food you can roast all the useless old people and eat them? Laws are there to protect us from ‘natural laws’.]
Dear Daphne,
Please read: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/
[Daphne – Tiresome. God forbid our decisions should be taken by people who get off on this kind of thing. Nothing would ever get done.]
I believe ‘artificial’ contraception is supposed to be against ‘Natural Law principles’.
Dear John,
If this is what you believe, prove it.
As for your views on the matter Daphne, the Nationalist Party’s policies in the 80’s were most of the time in line with Natural Law’s tenets.
I will not comment further about this matter. I said what I had to say, however my question about whether Dr. Scerri’s various applications for an ODZ application were right, beneficial for him and for society in general remained unanswered.
[Daphne – I don’t give a fig for ‘natural law’. It’s secular law/the law of the land which interests me. So what you are going to get here is my opinion, and not who or what was right: there are democratic processes to decide on that. Yes, Dr Scerri was right to do whatever he could within the limits of the law to get permission to remove that wreck and replace it with a family home. I would have done exactly the same and so would the other 400,000 people who live here, including Astrid Vella, George Debono and the rest of them. Those who say otherwise are hypocrites or have no hope of ever being in Dr Scerri’s enviable – yes, enviable – position and so can speak in the same way as economists do when discussing theory. On paper it’s one thing and in real life it’s another.]
Why else would the Church ban it, Marco? I have no intention of digging up the relevant Papal encyclicals and other pronouncements for you. If you are really interested, look them up.
This is not about him building on his own land, it is about ruining a spectacular view with his building. I am really sorry for Victor because if I were him, I would be really pissed off…you have a piece of land that you can’t use unless you want to grow some vegetables! Still, on the other hand we have seen far too many valleys being destroyed and we can’t accept that other valleys end up that way. Few weeks ago I went to Kalkara for their feast and I was really shocked when my friend took me on their roof to show me the huge buildings being erected.
The houses being built look beautiful and I am sure they cost a lot but hey, where have all the trees gone? It is not true that a small part of the valley was taken but the whole of it. We know that if Victor was given the permission, then others would have applied and it would have been really unfair if Mepa gave permission to Victor and not to others, so I personally think that Mepa gave a wise decision. Unfortunately Victor has to accept that.
On the other hand, I am really disgusted by the way this was taken. I am sorry but a responsible person would accept what others have criticized and then he would ponder on it and come up with something that could help him overcome it. I never imagined that the PN would act in such a childish way. Why attacking back? If he resigned, just choose another guy and try to help him face his problem. How did the PN help him face his problem? By attacking Joseph Muscat about a permit he got 11 years ago! I think Maltese politics need to mature a bit….we are fed up of seeing our parliamentary members dreaming about new tactics to attack their opponents. Parliament today is not discussing the best for the Maltese but they are discussing how they will hit their opponent under the belt!
[Daphne – Oh, you mean people are not allowed to say anything about the leader of the opposition’s dodgy permit, because it was 11 years ago? Eleven years is a lifetime only in the perspective of a 25-year-old.]
No Daphne, I didn’t mean to say that. Everybody should criticised when deserved but I think that the PN should criticise the PL about today’s actions and not the past.
[Daphne – Lawrence, 11 years ago isn’t The Past. This is not a discussion about the leader of the opposition’s development permit. It’s a discussion about his character and integrity. You should be able to tell the difference. The permit is significant only because of what it tells us about him.]
And you know, probably more than I do, that there is a lot to criticise. What happened 11 years ago might not affect people today (maybe because people today want the here-and-now facts). What happened last year passed ahseb u ara 11 years ago. I agree with you but it’s not what we agree on that motivates the public.
The public wants the here and now…what happened today. Nationalists will be interested in the Joseph Muscat case but I don’t think it will affect them much. I think the PN has a lot to criticise PL today, surely as much as the PL has to criticise the PN. that’s what I wanted to say.
After all, if there was corruption 11 years ago, there should not be today after all the restructuring taking place in Mepa. And the two cases are a bit different, I think. Isn’t Mepa directly under the prime minister now? It wasn’t, 11 years ago.
[Daphne – No, it was under George Vella, Muscat’s self-described ‘political father.’]