For fellow Maltese who are not familiar with the nuance of American slang "Kentucky Windage" is a not too complimentary reference which sheds an image of indecision that is opportunistically resolved with licking one's forefinger and allowing the direction of a prevailing wind to settle an issue. In less political correct phraseology the odious approach allows for taking advantage of circumstance with little or no concern for principal or consequence. Such has been the case in Malta recently with the theatrical act now being played on stage, which stars none other than Malta's Prime Minister, President and its leader in opposition wrapped in checkered Palestinian shawls on the one hand , pitted against the wile of a "conspiratorial" individual citizen on the other, whose alleged crime was to have written a paper article critical of their odd behavior.
It is a fact of life that every nation, big or small, positions its foreign policy for optimal return on investment, and Malta is no exception. It was so during the cold war, when Mintoff and succeeding politicians played the United States against Russia in a daring game of chicken, which eventually led NATO forces to depart the island, presumably in justification of observing neutrality as required by Malta's amended constitution. Yet what happened with the attempted muzzling of Simone Zammit Endrich, a Maltese journalist of note by the body politic, is a travesty of justice which contravenes Maltese neutrality law, as well as places an undue burden on her constitutional right to publish at will, without suffering harassment.
The specifics on this particular matter centers around a charge from the government levied against Ms. Endrich for instigating hatred by the Maltese, against Arabs and Palestinians in particular, in their long bloody struggle against alleged Israeli oppression in the West Bank and Gaza. The opinionated merits or demerits of her assessment are indeed not an issue. What is at stake is the government's self-imposed right to exert undue censorship over its citizens which curtails their freedom of expression. The threat of taking to court and imprisoning a woman of distinction, who dared to share her opinion in a public forum, tarnishes Malta's image in the eyes of the world, as an impartial observer of international events. The less than honorable conduct invalidates Malta's affirmed policy of maintaining a safe distance from wars of liberation, whose outcome is not of direct threat to the island's survival. That the government attempts to sugar coat its maneuvering in ways to deceive the public away from its ill intent of intimidation, bodes a troubled future for an island nation that has historically been used as a pawn by foreign powers in furtherance of their vested interests. The pressure now being brought to bear on Malta by Arab foreign emissaries to set an example of Ms. Endrich for her audacity to expose political cronyism is a case in point. . The time has evidently come to pay the piped piper for past patronage. Lost in the shuffle is the collateral damage done to her professional career regardless of verdict, by the mere fact of being declared a defendant in a kangaroo court that should never have surfaced
The government's case is focused on Ms. Endrich's well researched article titled "Bitter Harvest" which was published by The Malta Independent paper on April July 22nd,2002. In it she fairly articulated the realities of the seemingly endless war of attrition being fought out in a troubled regional area of the Middle East, where innocent people on both sides have suffered unimaginable hardships thru wholesale death and injury, since the creation of Israel as a sovereign nation in 1948, when it became the homeland for displaced Jews seeking to avoid religious persecution from all parts of the world. It appears that her tone of voice and perceived prejudice in favor of Israel, ran contrary to the views held by Maltese politicians, who in furtherance of gaining political advantage, held a strong partiality of their own in championing Arab interests. This unfortunate state of affairs led to her arrest on fabricated charges of inciting harm against the presence of Palestinians in Malta. It did not help her defense that Ms. Endrich made light fun of the carnivalesque pro-Palestinian show put on by Malta's so-called leaders. The affair would have been a hilarious parade if it weren't so pathetically weird and totally insane. The unconstitutional action being taken against her is patently absurd and ludicrous.
An impartial observer would have found the government's allegation patently false and without merit. No evidence exists, implied or factual, which would have lead readers to conclude that Ms. Endrich intention was to criminally provoke hatred and violence against any group be they Arab or Jews. In trying to stifle the voice of reason the Maltese government is in violation of her third constitutional right guaranteed under Section 41(1) of Malta's constitution, which deals with citizenship and the fundamental rights and freedoms of each individual. Further by using a symbolic but unmistakable gesture of support for the Palestinian cause, the government has run amok of its 1987 declaration of neutrality. Fortunately for the average Maltese the libelous ploy is seen for what it really is, an official attempt to deceive a normally apathetic voting public into an orchestrated condemnation of a courageous woman, who stood up alone against overwhelming odds to face the powers that threatened her hard earned livelihood. This Jacobean act of duplicity of sacrificing one of their own to appease an Arab power, reeks of collusion and merits only derision.
The outcome of her upcoming trial deserves attention from International and local watchdog agencies whose charter it is to monitor grievances against civil rights, and ascertain that justice is served. Hopefully the E.U. is also alerted. Already expatriate Maltese from the United States, Canada, Australia and elsewhere are aware of the case and the risks its outcome entails for the preservation of freedom in Malta. Meanwhile Malta's elected representatives, whose task is to serve and not oppress their constituents, had better keep in perspective that they too are accountable to the law and do not stand above it. Let them also remember that Malta is free to pursue its own destiny without being beholden to vested foreign influence. Considering the implications it may not be prudent after all is said and done to expeditiously face directly towards the wind and divine a course of action which might ultimately lead to self-immolation.
E-mail to Joseph Vella: vellajoseph@msn.net
|
|
