Respect for others
John Guillaumier’s suggestion (November 3) that, like France, Malta should “push religion out of education and the public sector” and disallow “the display of Catholic kitsch at Malta’s state hospitals or at any other government building” is ironic.
Apart from the disrespectful wording, a religion is a belief. Removing the symbols of religion that reflect a God-centred society, in effect means that you are placing in their stead a blank wall professing the belief in a godless society. A change of beliefs!
More relevantly: should Malta follow this suggestion? Apart from individual religious belief or, otherwise, I see no reason why our society should.
Malta has a historic tradition, definitely since Norman times, of professing the Christian faith. Social life has, throughout, in one way or another, been inspired by the Catholic religion. It is today legally enshrined in the Constitution.
Furthermore, while the practice of religion has waned in recent times, it is still followed by the majority of Maltese.
There is, therefore, no reason why the Christian religion, which, historically, socially and legally forms part of the Maltese culture and homogenous identity, nowadays sadly diluted, should not be displayed through its symbols in our public buildings. The comparison with France, a country which since the Enlightenment (the Age of Voltaire – by Will Durant – an author often quoted by Guillaumier), has been forefront in promoting a godless state, is inapplicable.
En passant, Emanuel Macron’s recent outburst in support of free speech including irreverent caricatures, needs to be chamfered.
Free speech is limited by the rules of libel and defamation. The right is not an absolute right. It is allowed so long as it does not infringe other people’s rights and, while one can believe in what one wants, one should always respect the other’s belief.
Caricatures form part of a mode of speech and should be similarly limited; to furthermore promote a harmonious society, one’s expressions should always be respectful towards others and their beliefs.
I have said my say. I will not enter into further polemics.
Hugh Peralta – St Julian’s
Organic waste
It is so sad – and galling – to learn that organic waste, so carefully separated by thousands of families, has literally gone to waste instead of being used to form compost.
And, as far as we know, no one has been deemed accountable.
Carmel Sciberras – Naxxar
Stop channel traffic for Christmas
There are, at the time of writing, 62 active COVID-19 cases in Gozo, five of them in the General Hospital, possibly fighting for their lives.
A short time ago, there were none.
And it is a no-brainer that the only way the virus reached this island from the other is that it came across the channel.
The time has surely come when all but essential cross-channel traffic should be stopped.
Sadly, this should include visits to elderly relatives but it also means that vulnerable people will be safer.
It most certainly must include young people who cross every weekend, solely to party.
Malta has done some good things (starting lockdown and quarantine for arrivals, earlier than some other countries); it has done some lunatic things (encouraging raves and relaxing rules – especially relating to Paceville – too early, then not enforcing the laws and cancelling fines that had been imposed).
Gozo also reacted stupidly (by reducing the ferry charge for cars, to encourage “local tourism”).
The writing is currently on the wall for this small and tightly knit island but it is not too late to contain it, here.
The victims, who are in normal good health (the average age group is said to be 25-44) can, if they self-isolate, sit it out and recover within a matter of days. Without the reinvigorating of contagion, the virus will disappear.
One month of ‘locking down’ the channel should see a COVID-free Gozo.
In the run-up to Christmas, it is surely worth trying.
Revel Barker – Għajnsielem
Letters to the editor should be sent to editor@timesofmalta.com. Please include your full name, address and ID card number. The editor may disclose personal information to any person or entity seeking legal action on the basis of a published letter.