Not too long ago there existed muted controversy over the pipes that dispel semi-treated human sewage into the sea. As with all such controversies, once the shores were officially declared safe enough for swimming the simmering outrage subsided and today the issue is practically all but forgotten, buried beneath other more contemporary issues. However the pipes continue to spew sewage and while the quality of treatment of the sewage may have improved it remains sewage.

Of course even such treated slurry has its effects upon the environment. Certain kinds of sea vegetation, upon which both desirable and undesirable fish may feed, thrive upon any opportunity for a ‘nutrient-rich’ zone, and certain bays make for perfect examples. The full effects of such artificial enrichment of sectors of sub-aquatic Malta are unlikely to be fully appreciated by the public for many years to come. After all, being a small set of islands we have the blessing of having our poor environmental choices shunted wherever the winds and the waves dictate.

However upon a different level the choice of the Maltese Islands to literally waste tonnes of sewage every day is a choice of incredible stupidity. While a Swiss city with one quarter the population of Malta worries about producing enough cow excrement to generate alternative fuel, we of the Maltese Islands appear to feel that we are wealthy enough to toss our excrement into the sea, not only soiling our chances of using it as an energy source but also soiling the “Sun and Sea” tourism life-line that the Malta Tourism Authority seems stuck on (which is every bit as reductionist in nature as some males’ demeaning perspectives of the female).

In Malta we have a population of 400,000-odd persons. That represents 400,000 individuals each using the sewage system several times a day. We currently throw the vast majority of it all into our seas.

Why do we do it? Biomass is by no means a new energy and has been used successfully in much cooler countries, just as solar panels have and, unlike the use of crops to directly make fuel, this is not nearly so great a threat to world food supplies. Why does the Nationalist government persist in dogging every effort to introduce alternative energy sources? Not only do ministers state that it is more expensive than exponentially pricey fossil-fuels but when a foreign company expresses interest to open an alternative energy laboratory in Malta the initiative goes up in smoke! Also, why is the Nationalist government hedging its bets with a highly expensive form of alternative energy (an offshore wind farm) which I honestly doubt they are capable of maintaining in good repair?

Could it be possible that spending a bomb upon another inadequate white elephant would pave the way to future excuses not to introduce further alternative energy? In other words could it be a case of yielding a foot to save a yard for as far as oil interests are concerned? Is it possible that the oil gurus have dipped their fingers into the pockets of Maltese politicians? Would this have anything at all to do with the redoubled efforts in “oil-exploration”? Sometimes I seriously do wonder whose interests the politicians, the supposed servants (‘not’ masters) of the people, are safeguarding…

As the boats continue to land upon our shores and the tally of individuals illegally entering the country surpasses a thousand-strong, eyes are increasingly cast towards the Nationalist government for some kind of a solution.

On the part of the Maltese authorities we have seen an incredible degree of reticent passivity in terms of the measures that they put into motion in the past half-decade. Even Nautilus has been admitted to ‘not be a solution’ for the Maltese situation. Not only have we seen immigrants’ boats brought to our shores from dozens-to-hundreds of miles away, and immigrants themselves detained for lengthy periods of time, but we have also heard much talk of integrating such immigrants into Maltese society.

As such I feel that it is important to point out the differences that there exist between a legal immigrant and an illegal immigrant, especially as it appears that some do not seem to be sufficiently aware that any appreciable difference exists.

The first difference to make note of, and probably the most crucial, is that it is reasonably possible to regulate and to demographically plan for a sustainable society where legal immigration is concerned while it is not possible to do likewise where illegal immigration is concerned. This may initially seem unimportant but if one were to consider the economic sphere of any given economy is only able to provide a specific standard of living for a specific number of individuals then it stands to reason that any increase or decrease in population will inversely effect the overall average standard of living. Any significant unplanned influx of a net-benefactor population would consequently also vie for the resources of the present economic sphere and therefore result in significant detraction to the existing population in terms of their standard of living. So important is this first difference that all others fall to the levels of trivia.

While there is no hard rule to suggest that an illegal immigrant necessarily fits within the category of net-benefactor, there is no denying that the pool of illegal immigrants within the Maltese Islands do, siphoning tens-to-hundreds of thousands of Euros towards their upkeep. The reverse is more or less true of legal immigrants. True, a legal immigrant could end up on welfare, just as any local individual could, but this is about as significant an exception as a net-contributory illegal immigrant is within their respective contexts.

While it would be politically correct to state that there is no racial connection between legal immigration and illegal immigration, the reality of the situation demands otherwise. African blacks and African Arabs almost exclusively makes up boat immigration while Asians and Eastern-Europeans make up the bulk of individuals who arrive on a valid temporary visa and allow it to expire, remaining here and hence becoming illegal immigrants of a sort about which too little information exists to be certain of. Beyond the racial realities lie geopolitical realities, where disparities within the reality of the grand scheme of things lead to mass illegal migratory trends. One of the factors that cannot be too lightly stated is the fact that freedom of movement is not uniform from around the Mediterranean basin. It is also clear that even if legal avenues were easily accessible from the southern rim, it is highly unlikely that Malta would have approved even 5% of those who arrived via illegal means.

Does this make all the talk of legality and illegality null and void? I would think not. If anything it further highlights that there is a need for inadequacies in present policies to be recognized and for alterations to be made in the name of improving our survival chances through adaptation to our circumstances.

It is that time of year again. When dozens of students look upon their university result report with dilated eyes upon the spot where an ‘F’ or two offensively blotches the computer screen. The rest of the results, even the ‘A’ s seem to shrink in their presence as hope is sapped from within the student’s very core. A few other students look upon a half-dozen failed units with tear-stained cheeks, contemplating their next job application for chambermaid.

An exaggeration, you might say, but results mean a lot within the university grinder, much more so than the academic levels preceding it. For, as is the case with a number of other universities world-wide (to which this contribution applies equally or more so), the regulations pertaining to resits state that, short of absence for a proven health reason or for some other reason arbitrarily decided to be good enough to justify absence, a student resitting several months later would be able to achieve a mark no greater than 45% of the mark, or a ‘D’ grade respectively. This when it is very clear that the paper being sat for is every bit as challenging as the first sitting session.

In other words it does not matter how good a student ultimately is within a given subject unit, if for any reason whatsoever short of the above reasons that student should fail, be excessively late for or even absent for the first sitting, that student would not only deservingly get an ‘F’ for that sitting but would then effectively be asked to swim with a brick chained to his or her ankles, the resit process severely weighted against success at a stage far more delicate than the  first sitting had been.

This is supposedly done to cut down upon abuse of the system. Yes, a student ‘might’ well decide to shun the final examination in order to brush up his or her grades within other study units but then why not implement a system similar to that of the Matriculation certificate? In other words why not charge a fee for every resit examination sat for? In that way the true abusers would pay without scuttling the chances of those genuinely unable to make the grade for whatever reason.

In case readers are wondering why it would be at all important to allow students to gain a fair grade, kindly reflect upon the following. The difference between a ‘C’ and a ‘D’ can make the difference between a distinction and a merit. The difference can also make the difference between being able to progress to the next academic year or repeating the present one… and it can also make the difference between a student remaining within the game and that student failing the course entirely, effectively meaning that several years of that person’s life have effectively gone to waste.

In the run up to the election the Nationalists lambasted the Labour party’s suggestion of a repeater class and yet they persist in failing to realize that they have been presiding over a repeater system for many years now. For how is one to ‘pass’ through one’s resits if the system sets the student at a disadvantage before they have even sat at the table? Just because other places have such a backwards system in place does not necessitate that the university of Malta is justified in persisting in this folly. The student organizations should take note and make their voices heard because this is every bit as serious a situation as any delay in the release of results.

It is not such a difficult issue to decide upon. What I am calling for, and I believe that other students and representatives should be calling for, is the right of a student to be assessed upon the basis of one’s own performance within a resit session and not upon some medieval dumbed-down mockery of a session intended to see if the quality of that student’s writing is sufficient to make a pass. Dolores Cristina please take note. This issue will come back to haunt you if it is not promptly rectified. The election is no longer at stake but the futures of thousands of students are.

This question was put forward by Simon in a comment on the ‘Ask James‘ page.

Simon: – James, as the mainstream parties political continue to move towards the centre, would you say that political ideology still has a realistic place in Maltese politics?

Me: – As regards the mainstream political parties, it is true that their policies seem to be heading towards a common mono-rail. However at times I have been given reason to question whether it is truly two political parties whose’ manoeuvres we are witness to and not a puppet act; with the Labour party thus far playing the puppet, seemingly taking a fall at too many important junctures in the past decade to shrug off as mere misfortune.

1998 – Was Labour taking the heat for utility price rises and CET to pave the way for the Nationalist’s surcharge and VAT increases?

2003 – Was “Switzerland in the Mediterranean/ Partnership” ever properly explained? Why were voters against EU-entry instructed to split their vote (don’t vote, spoil the vote, etc.)?

2008 – How did Labour retain Alfred Sant as leader and manage to lose the election… again? Who kept him there and why? Isn’t it interesting just how friendly and comfortable the Nationalists seem to be with the new leader?

Would you like a cheese burger or a hamburger Mr. Voter? 9_9

…But that wasn’t your question. ;c)

I would say that political ideology not only has a realistic place in Maltese politics but that the Maltese Islands are desperately in need of ideology. Without ideology reality is destined to deteriorate as you would get little progress (progress itself resulting from ideological processes).

Unfortunately I do not believe that the Maltese Islands have sufficient ideology in politics. This has resulted in a knock-on effect. Without political ideology there is no means by which a population can truly relate to the structures of governance that they have endorsed. The people become apathetic, just as they are today. The people worry about the cost of food and the lowness of the wages – important – but miss the wood for the trees. Tuna does not give a human being a purpose in life and neither does a one-Euro increase in wages (though welcome). What gives a human a feeling of purpose in life is to feel that one belongs, that one matters, that one has a role that one has chosen and that one will be appreciated for, that one is able to grow within their society, rather than wither beneath the jealous, vindictive or malign stares of others.

Realism can give Malta more of the same, and a practical means to achieve – but without ideology the best that one can aim to achieve is what one already is… and as they say, you need to aim for the mountains to reach the peak of a hill.

Do let me know if I fall short of answering your question in any way. :c)

Simon: – No, you haven`t fallen short at all. I appreciate another informed and well-expressed opinion. Like you, I would like to see political ideology return to the domain of political debate or, failing that, for the political actors to just come out and admit that they have no ideological convictions if that is the case.

At the moment, it seems that they want to have their cake and eat it by paying lip service to the ideological traditions in order to curry favour with certain parts of the electorate but essentially ignoring it when it comes to governance.

Me: – You’re welcome and thank you for another excellent question. While things do not look positive for the future of Maltese politics, what with both sides of the mainstream party locking down upon power in whatever means they deem necessary (under the pretence of “strengthening democracy”…). Indeed it seems that they are having their cake and they are eating it and this cannot very well be denied considering the mess that I witnessed at the counting halls during the last election.

However defeatism never ever brought about progress even in the most seemingly hopeless hollows.

This question was put forward by Simon in a comment on the ‘Ask James‘ page.

Simon: – James, is Satanism a problem in Malta? If so, what can be done to tackle it?

Me: – Hello Simon.

While I am of the impression that there is a presence of Satanism in Malta I am also of the impression that public opinion on the matter has been sculpted by a Roman Catholic manipulated media and is hence likely not as reliable as one would be led to believe.

For instance, the article carried on illum a month or so ago about “Satan” being born in Mater Dei hospital was an exercise in misinformation and sensationalism – the child was born to a Pagan mother who, as an individual of a different religion, refused access to the child for the clergy on-site. It naturally doesn’t help that Pagans are sometimes mistaken for Satanists if they aren’t too overly careful about blending into Catholic society.

There is also the misconception that every person who wears black and a few piercings, tattoos or trinkets is probably a Satanist, which again is taking public perception a lot further than the bounds of logic.

Is Satanism a problem in and of itself? It is, to the Roman Catholic institution, but Satanism is an anti-religion and is therefore itself a sect of Catholicism. What the Catholic institution should do therefore is ask itself this same question and look within for the answer.

My own stand on the matter is that an individual is entitled to believe, or not believe, whatever he or she wishes to – even in some divine fluffy dice in the sky, if they should wish to choose to. However I also am of the stand that religious freedom should begin and end with the individual and should not cross the threshold into state or active influence of the state as this is where there lies the greatest potential of subjugating minorities as the Catholic Church has done within Malta (Just one example in the form of a question: – should the academic future of a child be jeopardized by a compulsory religion exam should that child fail?).

In conclusion Satanism in and of itself is not the problem per se, it is the acts of Satanism that contradict the rights of others that are potentially the problem and this is where action should be aimed. Trying to raise the status of minority religions to the point of permitting non-socially invasive shrines is one thing that I would like to see done as I suspect that there do exist minorities whom are forced to the fringes of society in order to practice whatever legitimate worship that they would wish to practice.

I hope that that long-winded response sufficiently answers your question. :c)

Simon: – Thank you very much for your informed and detailed response. It has provided ample food for thought and given me some previously unconsidered perspective on the issue.

You’re welcome Simon and thank you for such an interesting question.

Well this is a right mess. The transportation workers have decided to go on strike, possibly inspired somewhat by their counterparts in Europe. Busy roads came to a standstill, the city was besieged and the shopkeepers felt rather lonesome. Tempers flared and acts of aggression, intimidation and vandalism took place in the presence of locals and tourists alike and many opted, voluntarily or otherwise, to remain at home.

I am of two minds about the strike. While on the one hand I despise the fact that the transport workers took their protests to the general public, their peers and also the tourists whom we owe a happy holiday (lest we forget that they actually pay to visit the Islands), and while I do not feel that the liberalization of the hearse sector warranted anything of this sort, I have heard rumours that the Nationalist government had offered promises not to liberalize the transportation sector during the election’s eleventh hour. It seems that the transportation drivers are in possession of a letter signed by Mugliett supporting this claim… and I personally do not take kindly to deceit or broken electoral promises. If this claim is indeed true then it would be more than safe to say that the wrong party is in power today, having won an election upon the wings of deceit and misinformation. If true then Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi should both call an investigation and either relinquish a seat to the Opposition in the spirit of stepping up to the plate of accountability or, if he would like to continue dancing the ballad of unaccountability, call for a vote of confidence.

However… a few comments about the Government’s handling of the protest. I am of the opinion that the daily slash in subsidies was an extremely efficient if slightly heavy-handed approach to seek to end it. The setting up of alternative forms of transportation was also commendable, even if it has hit a number of speed bumps due to resistance. While I also commend the initiative to set up an alternative taxi service for chauffeur-driven vehicles I would suggest that € 15 is a ludicrous price for any but the longest journeys upon the Islands, and is in fact a step backwards.

Lastly I would like to point out the obvious. Any situation where drivers own the vehicles is a situation where drivers likewise have a lot of clout. If one were to remove this privilege then the driver would no longer have the protest dynamic of a small entrepreneur but of a regular employee. Hence it would only be a matter of hiring replacements on a short term basis until resolution.

A spokesperson for the EU border security agency Frontex has stated that Nautilus is not the solution to Malta’s illegal immigration. The general feeling gotten is that it is Libya that is to blame for the failure of Frontex to solve the problem. This spokesperson then went on to compare Nautilus with the sister project Hera in the vicinity of the Canary Islands and how relative success was achieved there thanks in no small part to the cooperative efforts of Senegal and Mauritania.

This may indeed be the case and Libya may very well not be cooperating with Nautilus but there is a fundamental question that nobody in Europe seems to be asking. Why should Libya bear the weight in responsibility for the mass illegal migration from an entire continent? Is this truly a productive or constructive attitude towards solving the problem or is it merely provoking the very same stonewalling that Libya is accused of?

Libya is every bit as much of a victim in this matter as Malta is and likewise has every bit as much of an interest in solving the problem of illegal immigration from their own perspective. Libya unofficially has some control over the flow of illegal migrants from its shores; it is almost unfathomable to imagine it being any other way considering the highly engineered flow of immigrant, waxing and waning to conveniently cater for political events.

However how different is this strategy from the concept of “burden sharing” brought up in the run-up to the previous election? It may sound good on paper and I am pretty sure that Josie Muscat had done his homework on the matter (which compares favourably to the Nationalist’s non-plan of action in both its previous term and its current term in government) but I feel that there remain a number of logical flaws, some of which are pungently, if effectively, highlighted through comparison to Libya’s own brand of “burden sharing”.

Returning to Libya as a topic, let us attempt to identify its relationship to the issue at hand, illegal immigration, and classify it accordingly. Firstly Libya is not a source country but a country of transit, just as some people claim that Malta is. Secondly Libya is criticized for its treatment of African immigrants within its borders – it is not a picture of harmony. Therefore to attempt to ‘solve’ illegal immigration from a purely pan-European perspective would be an exercise in futility as too many essential pieces of the puzzle are disregarded.

We will get absolutely nowhere if we continue regarding our closest southern neighbour with this degree of suspicion and disregard to their own interests. Once we successfully adjust our egotistically-geared nationalistic perspectives to more communitarian-geared nationalistic perspectives, where benefit within a neighbouring nation is deemed a positive not only to that nation but to one’s own nation, especially if prominent in its adjacency, then I feel that we would have taken a second crucial step to solving the illegal immigration issue.