Bertolt Brecht in one of the scenes of his play The Caucasian Chalk Circle focuses on two women fighting for the same child. An unconventional judge does a ‘Solomon’ to determine who the real mother is. Finally he hands the child to the woman who refuses to pull the child from the centre of a chalked circle he himself draws. Since she was afraid to hurt the child, she deserved to keep him, said the judge.
Italian journalist Sandro Ruotolo referred to this play at the tail-end of his intervention during the September vigil for Daphne Caruana Galizia. He was invited to Malta by Repubblika to appeal to the government to appoint an independent commission of inquiry to investigate the assassination of Caruana Galizia.
“We need another Berlin judge to materialise from somewhere. We need justice that is just and impartial,” said Ruotolo.
A few days later, the government quite rightly succumbed to the pressure of the Council of Europe (not Ruotolo’s pressure) to set up a three-man commission.
Unfortunately there is no consensus that the famous unconventional judge of Brecht’s play is anywhere to be seen.
The family who expressed their deep concern should be meeting the Prime Minister. No board of inquiry can be credible if the family – which was not consulted – does not give its consent. And no board member should accept the position if this were not endorsed by the family.
Why does he care?
But Ruotolo’s presence in front of Caruana Galizia’s memorial brings to the fore another important issue.
Why is an Italian so intent on finding the truth about the journalist’s assassination while, as I wrote in several commentaries, so many Maltese do not care?
There are two differences between Ruotolo and many Maltese.
One difference is Ruotolo’s personal history. Following a death threat by the Mafia in 2015, he is protected by a police escort wherever he goes to in Italy.
He knows what it means to live in constant danger. He, unlike Caruana Galizia, however, has the protection of the state and is still alive.
The Italian journalist is quite understandably angry that the Maltese state let her down. As a journalist he is deeply hurt that the inefficiency of the Maltese State also let down journalism and consequently every honest Maltese citizen.
“When a journalist is killed for his or her work, democracy is attacked. Without freedom of information, there is no democracy,” he said.
The second difference is between his concept of State and that of many Maltese which is still tainted by the colonialist past that favoured a paternalist State in which citizens are dependants rather than participants.
His concept of State, on the other hand, is built on solidarity, respect for the common good, and the rule of law. He earned the ire of the Mafia not because he wanted to do a journalistic scoop per se. He wanted to do the journalistic scoop as he believes that the fight against the Mafia is first and foremost a fight for the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution.
The glitter of gold (for some bullion, for others just specks) is blinding many while making compromises the order of the day
He concedes that the Mafia existed before the creation of the unification of the Italian nation which was finalised in 1871. But he knows that from Sicily the Mafia has taken root in the rich centre north because it linked up with the centres of power: political and economic.
In more sense than one Caruana Galizia courageously fought a similar battle both against organised crime and against the unholy tandem of criminals wearing pin-striped suits with politicians similarly attired.
She paid the ultimate price. Ruotolo hints that this assassination happened because “Daphne’s investigations had reached the centres of power”.
This is the struggle that all journalists as well as people of goodwill should continue fighting. Unfortunately, many prefer to feast on the ‘carrots’ thrown their way lest the ‘stick’ is harshly applied.
The glitter of gold (for some bullion, for others just specks) is blinding many while making compromises the order of the day.
‘Corruption paradise’
In July 2018, Times of Malta informed its readers that the Claris Foundation inaugurated a playground in one of the Church’s children’s homes. The presentation was made in the presence of Julia Farrugia Portelli, Parliamentary Secretary for Reforms, Citizenship and Simplification of Administrative Processes. This foundation is the Chetcuti Cauchi Advocates’s philanthropic arm. During the inauguration Chetcuti Cauchi said that the foundation felt proud of what it had achieved.
Following the shocking revelations made by French investigative journalists, many people do not feel proud with what Chetcuti Cauchi’s firm and his so-called philanthropic foundation have achieved. In the documentary Malta was given the title of “corruption paradise”.
Our reputation was again dragged in the mud thanks to the ‘contribution’ made by (among others) employees of Chetcuti Cauchi Advocates. The firm is saying that the French journalists have mistranslated their words but no proof has been brought to give credence to this implausible hypothesis.
This incident, I am sure, is just the tip of the iceberg. The selling of passports, as I wrote in previous commentaries, is in reality the mother of all the corruption that plagues our country. After government’s top brass opened secret companies in Panama, the government gave the public signal that everything, even our own identity, is for sale.
The signal was welcomed by lawyers, accountants, auditors, estate agents and a plethora of persons of all shades and colours but who believe in the official policy that money is the measure of all things. The mantra is if something pays then it is good and to hell with ethical considerations.
The Church policy on donations
A dicey donation occurred a couple of years ago. A supremo of Malta’s dark industries played a St Francis of Assisi boosting on the social media his urge to help another children’s home. The donation he was about to give (or has given) pales into insignificance compared to the publicity he got through his video on Facebook.
I have no doubt that among those who are raping our environment, abusing their workers, corrupting politicians, awarded dubious mega-contracts and building permits one finds those who make ‘generous’ contributions to the Church and its institutions.
Incidents such as these prove the urgency of the appeal I made in my commentary of September 1: “the Church in Malta should perhaps have a clear and published policy stating which donations are to be accepted and which are to be refused.” I made the appeal in the light of Pope Francis’ position that not all donations should be accepted by the Church.
The Church in Malta has clear guidelines to avoid it being used for money laundering. Our bishops in a pastoral letter on housing decried the hypocrisy of those who commit injustices but contribute to parishes. I am told that APS, the bank owned by the Church, does not loan money for investing in high-rise buildings and gaming industry. All this is very good indeed.
I suggest that as the Church used to refuse donations from freemasonry it now tries to find a way of refusing donations from the new Mafia that is tainting our country. This is difficult as the new Mafia is fronted by several ‘respectable’ faces. But the effort to do what could possibly be done is worth it.