Referendum, not plebiscite -- Mhux plebixxit imma referendum

 

These past few years has seen a massive debate about how Australia will decide whether to give same sex couples the right to marry.

 

In this article, I won't be discussing the pros and cons, not as I don't have my views, however today I wanted to talk about the process itself.

 

The position of the current Liberal-National coalition government is to hold a plebiscite where the Australian people will be asked to provide its verdict, whether this social institution that to date was (generally speaking in countries with a Christian tradition) monogamous and reserved between a single man and single woman, should be changed to a monogamous one between two people of any sex.

 

Australia is not the first country to have this conversation.  In fact, around twenty countries around the world already permit marriage between same sex couples, including countries with a Christian tradition  such as Spain, France, Ireland, parts of the UK and others.1

 

I think this is one of those subjects where it's good that people directly give their views on this particular issue.  Many people have strong views one way or the other.  For example, those who are gay will likely be strongly in favour of this change, whereas those having traditional Christian beliefs or is conservative in outlook will probably be strongly against.

 

Those having strong views on the subject are unlikely to be persuaded to change, however I think it is good that everyone understands the prevailing view in the country.  At least if a change is made to which one is categorically against, it is more likely that one accepts that the will of the majority has prevailed, rather than if the decision was made by elected members of parliament.

 

Several polls have shown that while a decade ago those in favour of same sex marriage were in a minority (38% in 2004),2 they are in a large majority today (70% in July 2016).3  Nevertheless, there is a gulf between a poll (made by a query to a few hundred people) and a country-wide vote.  In a democracy, the will of the majority as expressed at the voting booths should prevail, always.

 

Nevertheless, I have my reservations on the plebiscite and the reasons for which it is being proposed.  The Labor Party, the Greens and other senators are against a plebiscite, and favour a vote in parliament.  In fact, one could argue that members of parliament pass or terminate the country's laws continuously, so why shouldn't this be treated as another (hot) issue like the others?

 

These also point out that discussion on this topic is likely to be heated, with lots of name calling and people might get hurt.  It is also being said that the process is very expensive ($160 million estimated).4

 

I do think this is all true, but this is not the reason why I'm against the plebiscite.  In my view, the main problem is the intention of the Liberal-National coalition, when it adopted the position of the plebiscite, was that after the plebiscite, the members of parliament be asked to amend the law according to the result of the vote, but would not be constrained in their vote.

 

In other words, we could reach a situation where the plebiscite goes one way, and the members of Parliament go the other.  They can do so as the plebiscite is a system for government to ask for advice, but is not tied by the result.

 

In a matter so fundamental for society, and after that people would have debated the matter passionately and finally expressed its view, it is for me incomprehensible and unacceptable that members of parliament have the audacity to decide otherwise.

 

My thoughts are that this is a matter in which almost everyone has profound views, even if not directly affected (for example by being heterosexual, and affecting the social fibre of the country.  I feel that the people need not only to have a say, but the final word.

 

I therefore prefer that a referendum is held instead of a plebiscite, where the people's decision is final, and parliamentarians are bound to implement the people's will.  It is also a method for members of parliament, who also probably have their own strong views one way or the other, to rest their conscience that they would be implementing the direct will of the people.

 

After all, that is their function.

 

----------------

 

 

Għal dawn l-aħħar snin, ilu għaddej dibattitu sħiħ dwar kif il-pajjiż Awstraljan se jiddeċiedi jekk jagħtix id-dritt taż-żwieġ lill-koppji tal-istess sess.

 

Jien f'dan l-artiklu, m'iniex se niddiskuti l-argumenti favur jew kontra din il-ħaġa, mhux għax m'għandix opinjoni, imma għax illum xtaqt nitkellem fuq il-proċess innifsu.

 

Il-pożizzjoni tal-gvern tal-ġurnata, iffurmat mill-koalizzjoni Liberali-Nazzjonali, hi li jsir plebixxit fejn il-poplu Awstraljan jiġi mitlub jagħti l-verdett tiegħu, jekk din l-istituzzjoni soċjali li sal-lum kienet (f'pajjiżi ġeneralment bi tradizzjoni Nisranija) monogama u rriservata għal raġel wieħed u mara waħda, għandhiex jinbidel għal waħda monogama bejn tnejn min-nies ta' kwalunkwe sess.

 

L-Awstralja mhix l-ewwel pajjiż li qed tiddibatti dan is-suġġett.  Fil-fatt, hemm madwar għoxrin pajjiż madwar id-dinja li diġà jippermettu żwieġ bejn persuni tal-istess sess, inklużi pajjiżi bi tradizzjoni Nisranija bħal Spanja, Franza, l-Irlanda, partijiet mir-Renju Unit u oħrajn.1

 

Jien naħseb li dan huwa wieħed minn dawk is-suġġetti fejn huwa tajjeb li l-poplu jagħti direttament il-fehma tiegħu fuq din il-kwistjoni partikolari.  Ħafna nies għandhom veduti qawwija fuq naħa waħda jew l-oħra.  Per eżempju, min huwa omosesswali aktarx se jkun b'qawwa favur din il-bidla, u min għandu twemmin tradizzjonali Nisrani jew huwa konservattiv fil-veduti tiegħu se jkun b'qawwa kontra.

 

Min għandu fehmiet qawwija fuq is-suġġett aktarx mhux se jiġi perswadut li jibdilhom, imma naħseb li huwa tajjeb li kulħadd jifhem x'inhu l-ħsieb predominanti tal-pajjiż.  Talinqas jekk isseħħ bidla li bniedem ikun kategorikament kontriha, iktar hemm ċans li jaċċetta li twettqet ir-rieda tal-maġġoranza tal-poplu, milli jaċċetta li din kienet id-deċiżjoni tal-membri eletti tal-parlament.

Diversi stħarriġ juru li filwaqt li għaxar snin ilu dawk favur iż-żwieġ bejn membri tal-istess sess kienu fil-minoranza (38% fl-2004),2 qegħdin fil-maġġoranza kbira llum (70% f'Lulju 2016).3   Madankollu, hemm baħar jaqsam bejn stħarriġ (li jsir b'mistoqsija lil ftit mijiet tan-nies) u vot fil-pajjiż kollu.  F'demokrazija, għandha titwettaq ir-rieda tal-maġġoranza kif espressa mill-postijiet tal-votazzjoni, dejjem.

 

Madankollu, jien għandi r-riżervi tiegħi fuq il-plebixxit u r-raġuni għalfejn qiegħed jiġi propost.  Il-Partit Laburista, il-Partit tal-Ħodor u senaturi oħra huma kontra l-plebixxit, u jiffavorixxu vot fil-parlament.  Fil-fatt, wieħed jista' jargumenta li membri tal-parlament jgħaddu jew iwaqqfu liġijiet fil-pajjiż kontinwament, għaliex din ma titqiesx bħala kwistjoni (taħraq) bħall-oħrajn?  

 

Isemmu wkoll li d-diskussjoni fuq din il-ħaġa aktarx se tkun sħuna, se jsir ħafna tgħajjir u ħafna nies se jweġġgħu.  Jgħidu wkoll li l-proċess jiswa wisq ($160 miljun stmati).4

 

Jien naħseb li dan kollu minnu, imma mhix ir-raġuni għaliex jien kontra l-plebixxit.  Il-problema kif naraha jien hi li l-intenzjoni tal-koalizzjoni Liberali-Nazzjonali, meta adottat il-pożizzjoni tal-plebixxit, kienet li wara l-plebixxit, il-membri tal-parlament jiġu mitluba jammendaw il-liġi skont ir-riżultat tal-vot, imma ma jkunux marbuta kif jivvutaw.

 

Jiġifieri, nistgħu naslu għal sitwazzjoni fejn il-plebixxit jagħti riżultat mod, u l-membri tal-Parlament jiddeċiedu mod ieħor.  Ikunu jistgħu jagħmlu dan għax il-plebixxit huwa sistema fejn il-gvern biss jitlob parir, imma ma jkunx marbut bir-riżultat.

 

F'din il-ħaġa tant fundamentali għal soċjetà, u wara li l-poplu jkun iddibatta l-kwistjoni aktarx b'passjoni liema bħala, u finalment esprima l-ħsieb tiegħu, għalija tkun inkomprensibbli u inaċċettabbli li l-membri tal-parlament jażżardaw jiddeċiedu mod ieħor.

 

Jien naħseb li din hija kwistjoni li kważi kulħadd għandu veduti profondi fuqha, anke jekk mhux direttament affettwat (per eżempju għax huwa jew hija eterosesswali), u li taffettwa l-fibra soċjali tal-pajjiż.  Jien inħoss li l-poplu jrid ikollu mhux biss sehem imma l-aħħar kelma.

 

Jien għalhekk nippreferi li minflok plebixxit isir referendum, fejn id-deċiżjoni tal-poplu tkun finali u l-parlamentari jkunu marbutin li jwettqu r-rieda tal-poplu.  Huwa mod ukoll fejn il-membri tal-parlament, li wkoll aktarx għandhom veduti qawwija kemm naħa kif ukoll l-oħra, ikunu jistgħu iserrħu l-kuxjenza tagħhom li jkunu qegħdin iwettqu r-rieda diretta tal-poplu.  

 

Wara kollox, dik hija l-funzjoni tagħhom.

 

 

1http://time.com/3937766/us-supreme-court-countries-same-sex-gay-marriage-legal/, retrieved 23/8/2016

2http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/AMEpollfactsheet@Jun11.pdf, retrieved 23/8/2016

3http://www.afr.com/news/politics/election-2016-majority-of-voters-would-say-yes-in-gay-marriage-plebiscite-20160701-gpwg3z, retrieved 23/8/2016

4http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-23/same-sex-marriage-plebiscite-labor-ramps-up-opposition/7776060, retrieved 23/8/2016

1http://time.com/3937766/us-supreme-court-countries-same-sex-gay-marriage-legal/, retrieved 23/8/2016

2http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/AMEpollfactsheet@Jun11.pdf, retrieved 23/8/2016

3http://www.afr.com/news/politics/election-2016-majority-of-voters-would-say-yes-in-gay-marriage-plebiscite-20160701-gpwg3z, retrieved 23/8/2016

4http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-23/same-sex-marriage-plebiscite-labor-ramps-up-opposition/7776060, retrieved 23/8/2016

Are Maltese terrorists? -- Il-Maltin terroristi?

 

With my Maltese background, I'm saddened during some prison visit as an Official Visitor to meet with someone whose name is indicative of a Maltese heritage.  Naturally, from a human perspective, it is always good to find common ground between two strangers, however that environment is certainly not a happy one.

 

I feel a similar displeasure hearing about someone of Maltese descent in the Australian media in the context of an alleged illegal activity, sometimes with a story practically on everyone's lips in Australia.  The first person I remember being mentioned in this way was Godwin Grech, who had falsified an email to allege favouritism for the boys by the then Labor government.1  This story was so big in this country that it was mentioned as one of the reasons for Malcolm Turnbull, the current Prime Minister and then Leader of the Opposition, had lost his job.

 

Someone else frequently mentioned is Alex Vella, who in Australia is the national President of the Rebels motorcycle club, who had his visa cancelled by the Australian government during a holiday in Malta, and is thus unable to return to Australia.  The allegation is that this group is outlaw and involved in criminal activity.2

 

The most recent case is very new, occurring just a few days ago.  Phillip Galea is a Melbourne resident reported to have extreme right wing views and member of like-minded groups against Muslims and Asian immigrants.  Galea has just been accused in court of planning a terrorist attack.3  It is being also reported that this is the first case in which anti-terror laws are being used against someone with extreme right tendencies.

 

I have no intention here of speculating whether this is true or not.  Firstly, very little is known on this case, secondly the court case has just begun and thirdly all persons need to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

 

Nevertheless I'd like to take the opportunity to comment about the tendency of some, even of many, to jump to conclusions prematurely and/or generalise what is applicable to one is also applicable to those associated with him.  A Maltese saying, loosely translated as 'you are similar to the company you seek', gives the idea.

 

The most common example in our time is the various extremist groups and terrorists in the Middle East, with their abhorrent attacks, who call themselves Muslim.  Many people around the world who are not Muslim, associate all Muslims with terrorism.

 

So far, in the case of Galea, his Maltese heritage has not come up, and frankly I don't think it is of any relevance, however let's leave this aside for a moment.

 

Let's imagine that the story was headlined 'Maltese-Australian accused of terrorism', or 'Maltese-Australian found guilty of terrorism' or even 'Group of Maltese-Australians found guilty of terrorism'.  For those that are not Maltese, does this prove that generally Maltese people are terrorists?  Or sympathise with them?

 

Those that are Maltese, or know the Maltese people well, naturally know that this is not the case.  But those who are not Maltese, nor know the Maltese people well, might go 'hmmm'.

 

In Europe, in recent history it's common for right wing extremist groups, generally white and anti-immigrant, to attack immigrants especially Muslims and Jews, so much so that countries such as Germany are taking action.4

 

Does the fact that these groups exist in Europe mean that Europeans generally, or substantially, are anti-immigrant?

 

The answer is no, even if clearly the sentiment of European voters is shifting in favour of right-wing groups.

 

Right wing extremist groups in Europe don't represent Europeans, and their sympathisers in Australia don't represent Australians.  Extremist Muslims in the Middle East and their sympathisers elsewhere don't represent Muslims.

 

And the Maltese against whom allegations of criminal acts and/or terrorism are laid, don't represent the Maltese, whether they are found guilty or otherwise.

 

------------------

 

 

Bħala Malti, huwa ta' dispjaċir għalija meta waqt xi żjara f'xi ħabs bħala Viżitatur Uffiċjali, niltaqa' ma' xi ħadd li minn ismu ninduna li għandu dixxendenza Maltija.  Naturalment, fuq livell uman, huwa tajjeb li jkun hemm xi ħaġa komuni bejn żewġ stranġieri, imma dak l-ambjent ċertament mhux wieħed feliċi.

 

Inħoss dispjaċir simili meta jissemma xi ħadd ta' dixxendenza Maltija fil-midja Awstraljana f'kuntest ta' allegat attività illegali, xi kultant fuq storja li tkun tista' tgħid fuq fomm kulħadd fl-Awstralja.  L-ewwel persuna li niftakar jissemma b'dan il-mod kien Godwin Grech, li kien iffalsifika imejl biex jallega favuri lill-ħbieb mill-gvern Laburista ta' dakinhar.1  Din l-istorja tant kienet kbira fil-pajjiż li kienet issemmiet bħala waħda mir-raġunijiet għalfejn Malcolm Turnbull, il-Prim Ministru Awstraljan tal-lum li dakinhar kien Kap tal-Oppożizzjoni, kien tilef postu.

 

Bniedem ieħor li spiss jissemma huwa Alex Vella, li fl-Awstralja huwa l-President nazzjonali tal-klabb tal-muturi Rebels, kellu l-visa Awstraljana tiegħu mħassra mill-gvern Awstraljan waqt li kien għal btala f'Malta, u għalhekk ma setax jerġa lura l-Awstralja.  L-allegazzjoni hi li dan il-grupp huwa kontra l-liġi u nvolut f'attività kriminali.2

 

L-iktar każ riċenti huwa frisk ħafna, seħħ ftit tal-jiem ilu.  Phillip Galea hu residenti f'Melbourne u rrappurtat li għandu veduti estremisti tal-lemin u li hu membru ta' gruppi tal-istess ħsieb li huma kontra l-Musulmani u l-immigranti Asjatiċi.  Galea għadu kif ġie akkużat fil-qorti li kien qed jippjana attakk terroristiku.3  Qed jiġi rrappurtat ukoll li dan hu l-ewwel każ fejn il-liġijiet kontra t-terroriżmu qed jintużaw kontra xi ħadd b'tendenzi tal-lemin estrem.

 

Jien hawnhekk m'iniex se nażżarda nispekula jekk dan hux minnu jew le.  L-ewwelnett, ftit li xejn mhu magħruf fuq il-każ, it-tieninett il-każ fil-qorti għadu bilkemm beda, u t-tieletnett kull persuna għandu jkun preżunt innoċenti sakemm misjub ħati.  

 

Madankollu, xtaqt nieħu l-opportunità biex nikkummenta fuq it-tendenza ta' wħud, anke ta' ħafna, li jaqbżu għall-konklużjonijiet qabel iż-żmien u/jew jiġġeneralizzaw li dak li hu applikabbli għal wieħed huwa applikabbli wkoll għal min huwa assoċjat miegħu.  'Ma min rajtek xebbaħtek' - qed niftiehmu?

 

L-iktar każ komuni fi żmienna ta' dan huma d-diversi gruppi estremisti u terroristi fil-Lvant Nofsani, bl-attakki mwaħħxa tagħhom, li jsejħu lilhom infushom Musulmani.  Ħafna nies madwar id-dinja li mhumiex Musulmani, jassoċjaw lill-Musulmani kollha b'terroriżmu.

 

S'issa f'dan il-każ ta' Galea ma ssemmietx id-dixxendenza Maltija tiegħu, u frankament ma naħsibx li hi ta' rilevanza fil-każ, imma ejja nwarrbu dan fil-ġemb għalissa.

 

Immaġina li l-istorja ħarġet bħala 'Malti-Awstraljan akkużat b'terroriżmu', jew 'Malti-Awstraljan misjub ħati ta' terroriżmu' jew anke 'grupp ta' Maltin-Awstraljani misjuba ħatja ta' terroriżmu'.  Għal min mhux Malti, dan jipprova li l-Maltin ġeneralment huma terroristi?  Jew jissimpatizzaw magħhom?

 

Min huwa Malti, jew li jaf lill-Maltin sew, naturalment jaf li dan mhux minnu.  Imma min la hu Malti u lanqas ma jaf lill-Maltin sew, jista' jitħajjar jgħid 'ħmmm'.

 

Fl-Ewropa, fl-istorja riċenti huwa komuni li gruppi estremisti tal-lemin, ġeneralment magħmula min-nies bojod u kontra l-immigranti, jattakkaw lill-immigranti, speċjalment lill-Musulmani jew lil-Lhud, tant li pajjiżi bħall-Ġermanja qed jieħdu azzjoni kontrihom.4

 

Il-fatt li jeżistu gruppi ta' dan it-tip fl-Ewropa, jfisser li l-Ewropej in ġenerali, jew parti sostanzjali tagħhom, huma kontra l-immigranti?

 

Ir-risposta hi le, anke jekk huwa ċar li s-sentiment tal-votanti fl-Ewropa favur il-gruppi tal-lemin qiegħed jiżdied.

 

L-estremisti tal-lemin tal-Ewropa ma jirrappreżentawx lill-Ewropej, u s-simpatizzanti tagħhom fl-Awstralja ma jirrappreżentawx lill-Awstraljani.  L-estremisti Musulmani fil-Lvant Nofsani u s-simpatizzanti tagħhom ma jirrappreżentawx lill-Musulmani.

 

U l-Maltin li jiġu allegati atti kriminali u/jew terroristici kontrihom, ma jirrappreżentawx lill-Maltin, kemm jekk misjuba ħatja u kemm jekk le.

 

1http://www.news.com.au/national/malcolm-turnbull-lays-blame-for-ozcar-affair-on-godwin-grech/story-e6frfkp9-1225757885383, retrieved 9/8/2016

2http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-13/stranded-rebels-boss-in-court-battle-to-return-to-australia/6607356, retrieved 9/8/2016

3http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160807/local/australian-phillip-galea-charged-with-planning-terror-attack-following.621344, retrieved 9/8/2016

4http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/20/world/europe/lutz-bachmann-pegida-trial-germany-anti-immigrant-arrests.html?_r=0, retrieved 9/8/2016

1http://www.news.com.au/national/malcolm-turnbull-lays-blame-for-ozcar-affair-on-godwin-grech/story-e6frfkp9-1225757885383, retrieved 9/8/2016

2http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-13/stranded-rebels-boss-in-court-battle-to-return-to-australia/6607356, retrieved 9/8/2016

3http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160807/local/australian-phillip-galea-charged-with-planning-terror-attack-following.621344, retrieved 9/8/2016

4http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/20/world/europe/lutz-bachmann-pegida-trial-germany-anti-immigrant-arrests.html?_r=0, retrieved 9/8/2016