For those who have difficulty understanding the difference
I wrote about the difference between a sacking offence/resignation matter and a crime for my column yesterday in The Malta Independent on Sunday, but “Daphne is biased and part of the Evil Network of the tobacco industry and Barroso/Kessler who want to behead poor Dalli”, so there might be some who need to have it spelled out even more clearly. In their interest, I cribbed this straight off an internet textbook guide to the subject.
The Difference Between Lawful and Ethical
A person cannot be punished in court for ethical violations.
The difference between lawful and ethical behavior is chiefly defined by punishment. If a person or company is found to be unlawful, punishment from the government and policing bodies is possible. An ethical violation, however, cannot be punished by a governing body. Ethical violations simply carry consequences.
Independent Enforcement
Laws cannot be enforced independently. They are only enforceable by policing agencies and government court systems. Ethics, however, can be enforced independently. Some businesses and professional associations have strict ethics guidelines that must be followed at all times. The medical profession is a prime example of this.
Sometimes ethical violations in that profession are not legally punishable. However, professional associations and employers may very well suffer consequences for a professional who commits ethical violations. On the other hand, laws are often made as a result of policy makers deciding to make professional guidelines in a field legally enforceable. Medicine has many overlapping areas of ethics and law.
9 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Daphne, I have followed all this closely and even watched the Super One interview yesterday. I was appalled at the fact that Mr. Dalli did not face the public on national TV considering this is a national scandal.
However, invariably, what still comes to surface is that the most affluent beneficiary from all this saga is the tobacco company and if Mr. Dalli was unethical, I still think that on the basis of the circumstantial evidence brought forward he is entitled to view the Olaf report and in his own defence as well as the defence of our national integrity, make it public.
[Daphne – No, Lorna, he is not entitled to view it. What you and a lot of other people don’t seem to understand is that this is a discretionary situation, not a criminal prosecution. The president of the EU Commissioner can sack a commissioner in the same way that the prime minister can sack a minister. It’s up to him and basically, no justification is really even required. But of course, there has to be some form of justification to maintain good relations between member states. If a prime minister sacks a minister, that ex minister can howl until he is blue in the face, and it’s not going to make a blind bit of difference. Leaders can and must sack those in whom they no longer have trust. All it takes is one person to compromise the integrity of an entire institution.]
Is there any wafer of evidence that John Dalli was in the process or intended to orchestrate a lift of the snus ban at any time?
[Daphne – That is not the point, Lorna. The point is that he allied himself closely to somebody who repeatedly made requests for 60 million euros in his name. When the husband of a British minister was found to have been doing something not quite ethical for Silvio Berlusconi, she resigned. She didn’t say ‘it wasn’t me, it was my husband, and I didn’t know anything about it.’]
What I fear most is that these tobacco giants are big enough and powerful enough to change the weather and will not exclude any amount of foul play in order to meet their multi-billion dollar objectives. What I wish and in this respect, what many of the Maltese wish is to do away with the circumstantial evidence, speculation and to avoid taking political advantage of a national embarrassment.
On the other hand, we should be given some hard facts and if Mr Zammit and Mr. Dalli are factually guilty of these accusations, they should face the band.
[Daphne – Bottom line: John Dalli should never have associated himself with somebody like Silvio Zammit. That is the crux of the matter. That is what so many people refuse to see because we take such sleazy associations for granted in Malta. For heaven’s sake, we have even had a convicted cigarette smuggler saying on Maltastar that he knows John Dalli well. Fejn trid tasal izjed? If I were into conspiracy theories of this nature, I would be tempted to say that perhaps John Dalli was so keen to introduce plain cigarette packaging, despite warnings that it would make smuggling easier, precisely because it makes smuggling easier, because look at who his friends are.]
PRIVITERA!!!!!!!!!!!! FHIMT ISSA???????????????
Qatt smajt bil-kelma “ethics” int?
Clue – fi zmienek, dawn generalment kont issibhom regolarment fil-kampjuni tad-Dockyard, tal-karozzi tal-linja, tal-GWU u tal-marmalja socjalista, specjalment f’kull anniversarju ta jum l-Indipendenza. Perswas li tiftakarhom dawn.
Accountants are also bound by a Code of Ethics if they have a warrant. They can have their warrant removed if found to be in breach of their Code.
There is also a difference in the burden of proof in criminal matters on one hand, and in the unfair dismissal regime on the other. The former is heftier while the latter relates to the balance of probabilities.
It is true that only in criminal law is it required that guilt be proven beyond reasonable doubt. In other cases a lower degree of certitude is acceptable.. But the due balance of probability cannot be perceived to be just because of the arbitrary say-so of a hybrid prosecutor/judge/executioner relying on ex-parte, highly suspect, mysterious, undisclosed, non-probative circumstantial evidence. That is what Kessler-Barroso did in the case against Malta’s Commissioner.
I still don’t get it. If Dalli was fully aware of the Zammit’s dealings and about the demand for the millions, it stops being an untenable position for ethical reasons. It is criminal and should thus be dealt with accordingly.
That includes the accused having access to all the records to work out, with his lawyers, his defence.
[Daphne – Actually, it doesn’t, not really. If the police investigate you for drug-trafficking, say, they’re not going to give you to file of evidence. And damn right, too. Can’t you see why this might sabotage their case, or rather, allow the indicted to sabotage the evidence?]
Unforunately, the way I’m seeing it is that it will just fizzle out with public interest waning, and no action from the authorities.
[Daphne – Well, you know. We’re going to have one of those Labour governments you like so much pretty soon. Given that they’re into that sort of thing, perhaps you can get Anglu Farrugia, Minister of Home Affairs, to sit on the AG and the police.]
The matter should investigated to the extent of comprehending beyond reasonable doubt whether Dalli was framed (and in which case, prosecution against whoever’s behind this should follow as a natural consequence), or whether Dalli was behind it willingly (in which case he’s to face the music).
The current status quo is not an option, and if politicians (of any hue) think its best to leave things as they are, then they are guilty too.
Well considering the speed with which this Government is handling the building of city gate, parliament building and theatre, as well as the signing of the rental/purchase of St Philip’s Hospital, I don’t see any reason why the same level of efficiency should not also feature in here.
[Daphne – Because there is separation of powers. The government does not prosecute. The Attorney-General is not part of the government and is not answerable to the government. Any attempt by the prime minister, the president or a cabinet minister (or any other person for that matter) to exert pressure on the AG constitutes a grave abuse of power. I see you missed the not-so-subtle point I made about waiting for a Labour government to sit on the AG. It is exactly the kind of thing Labour did and probably will do again, with Anglu Farrugia in charge of home affairs.]
After all, as you say, there is the danger that Labour makes it to office and in pure Labour style stall any legal proceedings on this case, for God knows what reason. So why not act fast and get this out of the way before Labour kill it off?
It is obvious that “A person cannot be punished in court for ethical violations”.
In the hallowed atmosphere of the European Commission it is not only possible to inflict that punishment but, surprisingly, there is not even the need for OLAF to actually prove the ethical violation, It is sufficient to surmise it on undisclosed and (un)ambiguous circumstantial evidence and in the total absence of serious probative corroboration of that inadequate “evidence”..
What is incredibly worse is that inside the European Commission some one who is accused by such a suspect entity as Swedish Match can receive the extreme punishment of summary banishment, within half an hour, and without the victim being afforded the opportunity to seek legal advice.
John Dalli was “Hung, drawn and quartered” by a revolting, indecent and hasty judgment in total disregard of the fundamental principle of presumption of innocence unless guilt is proved.
Francis, why don’t you join CNi?