Democracy 101: Government has no freedom of speech. The whole point of freedom of speech is that it safeguards the right of the relatively powerless to speak (their) truth to power. The road to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 passes through the French Declaration of the Rights of the Citizen of 1789 and the American Bill of Rights of 1791, the two Enlightenment clarion calls for the overthrow of tyranny.
That road was built with blood, for it has been paved throughout the ages with countless bodies cast aside by the powerful who sought to obliterate any contradiction or alternative, any highlighting of their misdeeds.
So, saying that government has the right of freedom of speech is a category error. It is like saying that the lion has the right to roar. That is not its right, but a manifestation of its power. And it is made more terrifying when the lion resorts to silence as it stalks its prey or insolently basks in the sun after it has gorged on its meal.
In functioning democracies, governments understand that they have a duty, rather than a right, to speak. Democratic governments are accountable to provide timely, truthful and correct information even when this may be against their own partisan interests. In functioning democracies, the price for not exercising this duty correctly is high. Ministers resign, as we just saw in the UK with Amber Rudd.
Conversely, a sure sign that the democratic markings of a government are only skin-deep is how the obligation to timely, truthful and correct speech is turned inside-out with a toxic mix of insolent silence and the obscene ‘right’ to freely set its trolls and officials against its hapless opponents.
When our Prime Minister, no less, defends the words of his highest officials who spit on the dead, denigrate women and bully and malign civil society activists as ‘freedom of speech’, he is institutionalising democratic tyranny.
When our Prime Minister defends the words of his highest officials who spit on the dead… as ‘freedom of speech’, he is institutionalising democratic tyranny
When our Prime Minister does not acknowledge and engage with the increasing outrage at the ejaculations of his culturally challenged Head of V18 and the revelations of the Daphne Project; when he instead responds with the partisan roar of his May Day adulation-fest, he is replacing the rule of law with the law of the jungle.
It should therefore come as no surprise that by allowing the public venting of its top officials’ spleen, this government is breaking its own regulations. Directive 5 was issued by the Office of the Principal Permanent Secretary in 2011 and substantively confirmed four years later.
It considers public comment in their personal capacity by senior officers of the Public Service and of government agencies and entities to be ‘inappropriate’, and even more so if there is: “the possibility that the public comment, although made in a private capacity, could be in some way linked or interpreted to be an official comment of Government or of the public officer’s department”.
Jason Micallef, Alfred Grixti, the CEO of the Foundation for Social Welfare Services, and many others have been in merry breach of this regulation multiple times. They have demonstrated abysmal judgement with respect to their ‘personal’ comments on social media. Yet not only has their action been ignored; it has actually been excused and condoned.
It is a measure of the deterioration of the quality of governance in our country that this serious flouting of regulations, which in normal circumstances would have caused a furore and led to beheadings, today raises hardly a ripple.
But this is not a normal country.
Babies Ltd
In the last fortnight the seedier aspects of the IVF Bill have become more apparent. If this Bill was primarily about giving new hope to childless couples, it would not be open for single people. If it was primarily about safeguarding the rights of children, it would not guarantee the anonymity of gamete donors.
If this Bill was not primarily about the commercialisation of IVF, it would provide strong safeguards for the fitness for purpose and intentions of the prospective parent. As it stands, any rich foreigner can waltz in and pay for the production of a baby with the sperm of Donor A, the ovum of Donor B and the womb of ‘Friend’ C. The ramifications are spine-chilling.
But instead of serious and informed discussion, what we get is the unedifying spectacle of gynaecologist Mark Sant, government’s pro bono IVF apologist, apparently salivating at the prospect of the industrialisation of fertility treatments. His recent article was a study in disdain and disparagement, the hallmark of his patron. This was not the measured prudence we have come to expect from our senior medical practitioners.
If, as President Coleiro Preca seems to indicate, there is still some room for manoeuvre, let us hope that sanity prevails. Please, do not shame Malta for a quick buck. Again.
sandrospiteri1965@gmail.com