The conscience vote -- Il-vot ta' kuxjenza

One of the secondary aspects coming out of the Maltese Parliament's vote in favour of gay marriage was the fact that just one member of parliament voted against, Edwin Vassallo from the Nationalist Party (PN), voting contrary to his party's instructions.  It seems that there were others who were also against but decided to follow the instructions received.1

 

The members from the other party, the Labour Party, all followed instructions to vote in favour, although I didn't hear about anyone not in favour of this measure.

 

Do you, like me, find it strange for parliament to have 66 votes in favour and one against, that is 98.5% in favour and 1.5% against, when in the country around 77% are estimated to be in favour?2

 

If parliament's vote reflected better the mood of the country, the question would still have passed, however do the 23% that are against feel that they have been represented in the Maltese parliament?

 

I'm saying this, not out of disagreement with the outcome of the vote, i.e. that the proposal passed, as argued in the last issue of The Voice, however I agree absolutely with Edwin Vassallo who voted according to his conscience.

 

To my way of thinking, it's a shame that the others who were against did not do the same as Vassallo.

 

Whom do members of parliament represent?  Their electors or the party?

 

I feel that right after votes are counted during general elections, the people's representation in fact terminates, and members of parliament start representing their party, not the people any longer.  Even if a party follows its electoral programme, it's when coming to vote for or against a particular law presented black on white in parliament that you can look at the detail, and see whether this reflects what you had understood was your promise to the people.

 

Many times, I observe elected members simply parroting their party's lines, and behaving like puppets on a string when having to vote in favour or against proposals in parliament according to their party's instructions.  Do we want in parliament robots whose remote control rests with the party, or people who use their head, mindful of electors in their own district and committed to represent them?

 

This thing about having someone shadowing you whip in hand, telling you what to say or do, is a defect of the political party system.  In principle, it is fine for people to unite around an idea or group of ideas, finding support and the ability to collaboratively develop beneficial solutions to the social, economic and security problems of today.  It's also good to have consensus, but to enforce this consensus, by threatening some sanction or consequence if you don't toe the line, to me is neither ethical nor acceptable.

 

Naturally, I do understand why parties feel the need to impose discipline on their members in a democratic system, where implementation of an electoral programme depends on votes that are counted, and whose total needs to be higher than that of the other side.  Nevertheless, are we comfortable knowing that our representatives constantly have someone at their back twisting their arms?

 

In democracies around the world, it is being noticed in different contexts that people are not happy with the results being observed, are asking themselves whether the rules that parliament are legislating are in the people's interest or in that of friends of friends, and whether the electoral pact is being undermined.

 

There is a limit how much parties can stray far from their constituencies before these abandon them.

 

Coming back to Edwin Vassallo, he (naturally) is threatened by punishment from the party for his challenge to orders received.  I don't believe for half a second that there will be any consequence for what he did, though I do understand why this suspense is necessary as a warning to those who in future might consider doing something similar.

 

Just imagine if all members of parliament voted according to their conscience, sincerely according to what they really believe rather than how they are compelled.  What a disgrace it would be, would it not?

 

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

 

Wieħed mill-aspetti sekondarji li ħarġu mill-vot fil-Parlament Malti favur iż-żwieġ għal persuni tal-istess sess, kien il-fatt li membru parlamentari wieħed li vvota kontra, Edwin Vassallo mill-Partit Nazzjonalista (PN), kontra l-istruzzjoniji li rċieva mill-partit tiegħu.  Jidher li kien hemm oħrajn li kienu kontra imma ddeċidew li jobdu l-istruzzjoni tagħhom.1

 

Il-membri tal-partit l-ieħor, il-Partit Laburista, kollha obdew l-istruzzjoni li jivvutaw favur, għalkemm ma smajtx li kien hemm xi ħadd li ma kienx favur din il-miżura.

 

Tarawha stramba bħali li l-vot fil-parlament kien 66 favur u wieħed kontra, jiġifieri 98.5% favur, u 1.5% kontra, meta fil-pajjiż huma 77% li huma stmati li huma favur?2

 

Kieku l-vot fil-parlament kien iktar jirrifletti s-sentiment tal-pajjiż, xorta l-miżura kienet tgħaddi, madankollu dawk it-23% li huma kontra ħassewhom irrappreżentati mill-parlament Malti?

 

Qed ngħid dan, mhux għax naqbilx mar-riżultat aħħari tal-vot, jiġifieri li din il-miżura tgħaddi, bħal ma argumentajt fil-ħarġa ta' The Voice li għaddiet, imma assolutament naqbel ma' Edwin Vassallo li vvota skont il-kuxjenza tiegħu.

 

Għalija għajb li m'għamlux l-istess l-oħrajn li wkoll li ħassewhom bħal Vassallo.

 

Il-membri parlamentari, lil min nistennewhom jirrappreżentaw?  Lill-eletturi, jew lill-partit?

 

Jien inħoss li dritt wara li l-vot ikun ingħadd fl-elezzjoni ġenerali, ir-rappreżentanza tal-poplu tispiċċa, u l-membri parlamentari jibdew jirrappreżentaw lill-partit tagħhom, u mhux lill-poplu iktar.  Anke jekk il-partit jimxi skont il-programm elettorali tiegħu, huwa meta tiġi biex tivvota favur jew kontra liġi li tressqet fil-konkret fil-parlament li tista' tħares lejn id-dettall, u tara fil-fatt jekk din tirriflettix dak li int fhimt li kont wegħidt lill-poplu.

 

Ħafna drabi, inqis li l-membri eletti ikunu qed jaġixxu ta' pappagalli meta jirrepetu u jitħambqu biss fuq il-linji li jgħidulhom tal-partit, u ta' pupazzi meta jkollhom jivvutaw favur jew kontra l-proposti tal-parlament skont l-istruzzjonijiet tal-partit.  Aħna robots bir-remowt kontrol f'idejn il-partit irridu fil-parlament, jew nies li jużaw moħħhom, jafu l-eletturi tad-distrett tagħhom u impenjati li jirrappreżentawhom?

 

Jien din il-ħaġa li jkun hemm xi ħadd bil-frosta jiġri warajk biex jgħidlek x'tgħid u x'tagħmel, hija difett tas-sistema tal-partiti.  Fil-prinċipju, huwa tajjeb li nies jingħaqdu madwar ideja, jew grupp ta' idejat, fejn isibu appoġġ, jistgħu jiżviluppaw soluzzjonijiet ta' fejda għall-problemi soċjali, ekonomiċi u ta' sigurtà ta' llum.  Huwa wkoll tajjeb li jkun hemm kunsens, imma li tisforza dal-kunsens, bit-theddida ta' xi sanzjoni jew theddid ta' konsegwenzi jekk ma tobdix, għalija mhux etiku jew aċċettabbli.

 

Naturalment, nifhem għalfejn il-partiti iħossu l-bżonn li jimponu d-dixxiplina fil-membri tagħhom f'sistema demokratika, fejn it-twettiq tal-programm elettorali jiddependi fuq voti li jingħaddu u li jridu jkuni iktar mill-voti tan-naħa l-oħra.  Madankollu, inħossuna komdi nkunu nafu li r-rappreżentanti tagħna 'l ħin kollu b'xi ħadd wara jilwilhom idhom?

 

F'demokraziji madwar id-dinja, qiegħed jiġi nnutat f'kuntesti differenti li n-nies mhumiex kuntenti bir-riżultati li qed jaraw, qed jistaqsu lilhom nnifishom jekk ir-regoli li l-parlamentari qed jilleġislaw humiex favur il-poplu jew favur il-ħbieb tal-ħbieb, jekk il-patt li sar mal-eletturi hux mittiefes.

 

Mhux ta' b'xejn li l-partiti tradizzjonali (ġeneralment) qiegħdin inaqqsu mill-appoġġ tagħhom, u l-eletturi qed  iduru għal ħaddieħor.  F'Malta forsi din għadha mhix tinħass, imma qiegħdin inħossuha fl-Awstralja, fl-Istati Uniti, dan l-aħħar fi Franza.

 

Hemm limitu kemm il-partiti jistgħu jitbiegħdu mill-kostitwenza tagħhom qabel dawn jabbandunawhom.

 

Biex niġu lura għal Edwin Vassallo, dan (naturalment) għandu t-theddida ta' kastig mill-partit għall-isfida tiegħu għall-ordnijiet li irċieva.  Jien ma nemminx għal nofs sekonda li se jkun hemm konsegwenza għal li għamel, imma nifhem għalfejn isir dan is-suspense bħala twissija għal min fil-futur jażżarda li jagħmel xi ħaġa simili.

 

Int immaġina, kieku kull membru tal-parlament jivvota skont il-kuxjenza tiegħu, b'sinċerità skont dak li verament jemmen hu u mhux iktar kif jisfurzawh jagħmel.  X'għarukaża tkun, hux?

 

 

 

1https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20170720/local/edwin-vassallo-is-still-waiting-for-punishment.653686, retrieved 24/7/2017

2http://www.afr.com/news/politics/election-2016-majority-of-voters-would-say-yes-in-gay-marriage-plebiscite-20160701-gpwg3z, retrieved 10/7/2017

1https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20170720/local/edwin-vassallo-is-still-waiting-for-punishment.653686, retrieved 24/7/2017

2http://www.afr.com/news/politics/election-2016-majority-of-voters-would-say-yes-in-gay-marriage-plebiscite-20160701-gpwg3z, retrieved 10/7/2017

Gay marriage -- Iż-żwieġ bejn l-omosesswali

A vote in Malta's parliament on legalising gay marriage has just been taken.  This is another step after the law passed 3 years ago giving homosexuals the right of civil unions, with rights, responsibilities and obligations equal to those in marriage.

 

The two major parties in Malta both had this step in their election manifestos, and did not permit a conscience vote for their elected members of parliament.  Therefore, as expected, the measure passed, although not unanimously, as one member of the Nationalist Party voted against.

 

This is one other step (after that of divorce) that I never expected Catholic Malta to take in my lifetime, and I was mistaken.  With support by the Maltese people reportedly being 77% in favour for such a step,1 even higher than the 70% support by the Australian people,2 it seems that the Maltese have opted to hear the anguish of another minority that had been emarginated and ridiculed for so many years, or rather for so many centuries.

 

This preference by the Maltese is despite the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, which not only disagrees with marriage between homosexuals, but says that these 'are called to chastity'.3  This new law goes decidedly against this teaching, but on the other hand is consistent with the Catechism's teaching in the previous paragraph, which says that 'every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided'.4

 

In major moral questions such as this, I often hear complaints by members of the church, especially those that are strong believers as well as those who feel they have the role of being guardians of the perfect faith that they learnt and passing it on without blemish to future generations, that say they are not being provided space to make their voices heard, or that their opinions no longer count or are worthless.

 

This argument is also made in Australia.  For example, the Australian bishops published a leaflet, called Don't Mess with Marriage, which concludes that “a view of marriage as between a man and a woman .... is increasingly becoming a truth with cannot be spoken”.5

 

I think that this sentiment has merit - as time passes, the traditional view of marriage will be in a minority, especially in the democratic countries of the West, despite the long history of Christian influence.

 

The question I ask myself is this - should I feel sympathy that the views of the Christian churches, the majority of which maintain the traditional role only of marriage, are being ignored and in turn emarginated?

 

I would answer with another question.  Is the church interested that her solution to those who are homosexual, is denying them the very act that defines their own sexual orientation, for life?

 

Is the church interested that when people in these countries were predominantly Christian, a social atmosphere developed, inspired by this teaching, so hostile to many homosexuals that they spent their entire life hiding their orientation?  That some ended up marrying someone from the opposite sex just to relieve the pressure on them, leading them to mental health problems and sometimes even suicide?  That they were ostracised by their families?

 

Is the church interested that many countries where the distinction of church and state was not what it is today had laws criminalising homosexuals?  That people ended up being arrested, losing all they had?  Were they defended by the church then?  Or was it complicit?

 

To be fair, attitudes against homosexuals were not made up by the church - these existed before the time of Jesus and still does in places that were never touched significantly by Christianity.  These attitudes made their way into the Bible, and so interpreted that they came from God.  The fact that Jesus never spoke directly about this subject was not taken as an opportunity for moderation to the strong homophobic forces in the world.

 

On the contrary, when the church had a big influence in the social and legal structure of the country, it was intransigent to the extreme, and felt, and still does, justified that homosexuals should not have their place in society equal to the ones who aren't.  Those who were homosexual had neither voice nor influence.

 

The only concession made by the Catholic Church was to declare that homosexuals “did not choose their homosexual state” in the Maltese version of the Catechism6, and call it an “inclination” rather than a choice in the English version7.

 

When one complains that today the Christian voice is being set aside, I say, what do you expect after all this?  After all the continuous discrimination against gays, lack of rights and respect, for years, centuries even, do you think those forming part of the reason why this discrimination exists, will get a look in to perpetuate this discrimination?

 

Of course not.  The more the pendulum swung one way before, the more today it will swing the other, and if not today, tomorrow.

 

To those Christians complaining about lack of influence in society today, in this post-Christian world, it would be appropriate to say, on behalf of the church, “mea culpa, mea culpa, mea massima culpa”.

 

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

 

Għadu kemm ittieħed vot fil-parlament ta' Malta fuq iż-żwieġ bejn l-omosesswali.  Dan hu pass ieħor wara l-liġi ta' tliet snin ilu li tat lill-omosesswali d-dritt li jkollhom għaqda ċivili bi drittijiet, responsibbiltajiet u obbligi ugwali daqs iż-żwieġ.

 

Iż-żewġ partiti l-kbar ta' Malta it-tnejn kellhom dan il-pass fil-manifest elettorali tagħhom, u ma ppermettewx vot ta' kuxjenza għall-membri eletti tal-parlament.  Għalhekk kif kien mistenni il-miżura għaddiet, iżda mhux unanimament għax membru wieħed tal-Partit Nazzjonalista vvota kontra.

 

Hu pass ieħor (wara dak tad-divorzju) li f'Malta Kattoliċissima qatt ma ħsibt li se nara f'ħajti, u kelli żball.  Bl-appoġġ mill-poplu Malti rrappurtat li hu ta' 77% favur pass bħal dan,1 anke iktar għoli mill-appoġġ ta' 70% tal-poplu Awstraljan,2 jidher li l-Maltin għażlu li jisimgħu l-karba ta' minoranza oħra li kienet emarġinata u mżebilħa għal tant snin, jew aħjar għal sekli sħaħ.

 

Din il-preferenza tal-Maltin hija minkejja l-Katekiżmu tal-Knisja Kattolika Rumana, li mhux biss ma taqbilx maż-żwieġ bejn l-omosesswali, imma tgħid li 'huma msejħin biex iħarsu l-kastità'.3  Din il-liġi l-ġdida tmur deċiżament kontra dan it-tagħlim, imma mill-banda l-oħra hija konsistenti mat-tagħlim tal-Katekiżmu fil-paragrafu ta' qabel, fejn dan jgħid li 'ma għandux ikun hemm għalihom ebda sinjal ta' diskriminazzjoni mhux ġusta'.4

 

Fi kwestjonijiet kbar morali bħal din, spiss nisma ilmenti minn membri tal-knisja, l-iktar dawk li jħossuhom devoti kbar kif ukoll dawk li jħossu l-obbligu li jkun l-gwardjani li jwasslu l-fidi perfetta li tgħallmu huma tale quale lill-ġenerazzjoni futura, li jgħidu li mhumiex qed jingħataw l-ispazju li jsemmgħu leħinhom, jew li l-opinjoni tagħhom titqies li m'għadhiex tgħodd jew ma tiswa xejn.

 

Dan l-argument isir ukoll fl-Awstralja.  Per eżempju, l-isqfijiet Awstraljani ħarġu fuljett, imsejjaħ Tmissux liż-Żwieġ (Don't Mess with Marriage), li jispiċċa bil-konklużjoni li “il-veduta li żwieġ huwa bejn raġel u mara ..... qiegħda ssir verità li ma tistax tiġi mitkellma.”5

 

Jien naħseb li dan is-sentiment huwa minnu - iktar ma jgħaddi ż-żmien il-veduta tradizzjonali taż-żwieġ sejra tkun il-minoranza, speċjalment fil-pajjiżi demokratiċi tad-dinja tal-Punent, minkejja storja twila ta' influenza Kristjana.

 

Il-mistoqsija li nistaqsi lili nnifsi hija din - suppost li inħoss simpatija li l-veduti tal-knejjes insara, li l-biċċa l-kbira tagħhom li jsostnu r-rwol tradizzjonali biss taż-żwieġ, qegħdin jiġu injorati u anke emarġinati?

 

Jien inwieġeb b'mistoqsija oħra.  Il-knisja jinteressaha li s-soluzzjoni tagħha għal min huwa omosesswali hi ċ-ċaħda, għal għomru, ta' dak l-att li jiddefinixxi l-orjentazzjoni sesswali tiegħu?

 

Jinteressaha l-knisja li meta l-poplu f'dawn il-pajjiżi kien predominantement Nisrani, inħolqot atmosfera soċjali, ispirata minn dan it-tagħlim, tant ostili li ħafna omosesswali kienu jagħmlu għomorhom jostru l-orjentazzjoni tagħhom?  Li wħud spiċċaw jiżżewġu lil xi ħadd tas-sess oppost minħabba l-pressjoni fuqhom,  li wasslithom għal problemi ta' saħħa mentali u kultant anke għal suwiċidju?  Li spiċċaw ostraċizzati mill-familji tagħhom?

 

Jinteressaha l-knisja li f'ħafna pajjiżi fejn id-distinzjoni bejn knisja u stat mhix dik li hi llum, kellhom liġijiet li kkriminalizzaw l-omosesswalità?  Li nies spiċċaw arrestati jew tilfu kull ma kellhom?  Qabżet għalihom il-knisja dakinhar?  Jew kienet parteċipi?

 

Ngħiduha kif inhi, l-attitudni kontra l-omosesswali ma vvintathixx il-knisja - kien jeżisti qabel żmien Ġesù u għadu jeżisti f'postijiet li qatt ma ntmessu b'mod sinjifikanti mill-Kristjaneżmu.  Dawn l-attitudnijiet sabu ruħhom fil-Bibbja, u għalhekk interpretati li ġejjin minn Alla.  Il-fatt li Ġesù ma tkellimx direttament fuq dan is-suġġett ma tteħidx bħala opportunità ta' moderazzjoni għall-forzi qawwija omofobiċi fid-dinja.

 

Għall-kuntrarju, meta l-knisja kellha influenza kbira fil-qafas soċjali u legali tal-pajjiż, kienet intransiġenti għall-aħħar, u ħassitha, u għadha tħossha, iġġustifikata li l-omosesswali ma għandux ikollhomx post fis-soċjetà f'kollox bħal ma għandhom dawk li mhumiex.  Min kien omosesswali, la vuċi u lanqas influenza ma kellu.

 

L-unika konċessjoni li tagħmel il-knisja Kattolika hija li tistqarr li “ma għażluhiex huma l-qagħda omosesswali tagħhom”6 fil-verżjoni Maltija tal-Katekiżmu, u ssejħilha “inklinazzjoni” u mhux għażla fil-verżjoni Ingliża7.

 

Meta wieħed jilmenta illum li l-vuċi nisranija qed tingħata fil-ġenb, jien ngħid, x'tistenna wara dan kollu?  Wara dik id-diskriminazzjoni kontinwa kontra l-gays, in-nuqqas ta' drittijiet u ta' rispett, għal snin, sekli sħaħ, taħseb li dawk li jiffurmaw parti mir-raġuni għalfejn id-diskriminazzjoni teżisti, se jingħataw xi ċans biex jipperpetwaw id-diskriminazzjoni?

 

Dażgur li le.  Iktar ma l-pendlu kien imxengel naħa waħda, iktar illum se jixxengel in-naħa l-oħra, u jekk mhux illum, għada.

 

Lil dawk li l-insara li qed jilmentaw min-nuqqas ta' influwenza fis-soċjetà tal-lum, f'din id-dinja post-Kristjana, ikun f'postu li jgħidu, f'isem il-knisja, “mea culpa, mea culpa, mea massima culpa”.

 

 

1http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/62293/notable_shift_in_maltese_mentality_in_favour_of_lgbti_people?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook#.WWL5TSdLfQr, retrieved 10/7/2017

2http://www.afr.com/news/politics/election-2016-majority-of-voters-would-say-yes-in-gay-marriage-plebiscite-20160701-gpwg3z, retrieved 10/7/2017

3Cathechism of the Catholic Church, para 2359

4Ibid., para 2358

5Don't Mess With Marriage; Australian Catholic Bishops Conference; 2015

6Il-Katekiżmu tal-Knisja Kattolika; Arċidjoċesi ta' Malta; 1992; para 2358

7http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm, para 2358, retrieved 17/7/2017

1http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/62293/notable_shift_in_maltese_mentality_in_favour_of_lgbti_people?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook#.WWL5TSdLfQr, retrieved 10/7/2017

2http://www.afr.com/news/politics/election-2016-majority-of-voters-would-say-yes-in-gay-marriage-plebiscite-20160701-gpwg3z, retrieved 10/7/2017

3Il-Katekiżmu tal-Knisja Kattolika; Arċidjoċesi ta' Malta; 1992; para 2359

4Ibid., para 2358

5Don't Mess With Marriage; Australian Catholic Bishops Conference; 2015

6Il-Katekiżmu tal-Knisja Kattolika; Arċidjoċesi ta' Malta; 1992; para 2358

7http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm, para 2358, retrieved 17/7/2017

Public nuisance -- Inkonvenjent pubbliku

Last week, a decision was taken to remove a group of homeless people in one of the main central locations in Sydney, that is Martin Place, a financial centre that includes the Reserve Bank of Australia.

 

This decision was taken by the Sydney city council, reportedly for two reasons.  The first was the need to carry out construction work at the location, which is understandable.  The second was that the accumulation of items had been deemed a public nuisance.1

 

Those poor wretches for whom that roofless place came to be considered home were offered alternative places of accommodation, however will and offer of temporary accommodation of a few days resolve anything?

 

That label given by the council, that of a 'public nuisance', to me demonstrates how these vulnerable people, possessing only whatever they can carry, exposed to all types of abuse by people around them apart from the elements, are considered.

 

The important thing is being moved on.  They are no longer visible, the problem is no more.  Now we can forget about them, perhaps it was just a bad dream.  We can finally allay our conscience.

 

Who do we think we're kidding?  What will happen to those people, after their period of temporary accommodation is over?  Will they not become a 'public nuisance' elsewhere?

 

About a year ago, the same exercise was carried out in the public Belmore Park in front of Central Station in Sydney, whose two sides were chock-a-block with tents belonging to those without a permanent home.  They were shooed away from there (though a few went back, but that's bye the bye).  And where did they go?  Who knows?  Do we even care?

 

And what are we proposing to do about those people living underneath the arches at Wentworth Park, or those close to the police station at Woolloomooloo?

 

The problem of people without a permanent roof over their head is considerable, even more than one might consider possible in an advanced economy such as Australia.  It's estimated that 0.5% of the population was in this situation in 2011, about a hundred thousand person, and the same figure is still being quoted today.  This statistic varies from 0.3% to 0.5% in the Australian states and territories, except for the Northern Territory, where the rate shoots up substantially to 7%!

 

From those without a permanent home, their age distribution was as shown below:2

 

 

Age	Proportion	Total
<12	17%	17,845
12-18	10%	10,913
19-24	15%	15,325
25-34	18%	19,312
35-44	14%	14,484
45-54	12%	12,507
55-64	8%	8,649
65-74	4%	4,174
>74	2%	2,028

 

Is it really possible that a rich country like Australia, having an economy measured in the trillions of dollars, is unable to find a solution?  That someone ends up in this situation cannot be prevented, as they might be running away from difficult situations such as financial pressure, abuse in the family, domestic violence etc.  However to remain in the same situation, for weeks, months and years, without help that is a game changer, is a tragedy, and a shame (on us).

 

There seems to be an understanding that something has to happen, as the Australian government's objectives in this and related topics, such as social housing, are not being reached.3  In face, in this year's budget, the federal government has proposed a global increase in spending over a three year  period, and financing and incentivising the construction of social housing.4  I have to say these are steps in the right direction.

 

It was John the Baptist that advised us to give one shirt out of two in our possession to those having none, and to do the same with food.5  This is a sentiment that strikes a chord, indicating a moral obligation for us to collectively help these people.

 

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

 

Il-ġimgħa l-oħra, ttieħdet deċiżjoni li jiġu mneħħiha grupp ta' nies li kienu jorqdu barra t-triq, f'wieħed mill-iktar postijiet ċentrali prinċipali ta' Sydney, jiġifieri f'Martin Place, ċentru finanzjarju li jinkludi l-Bank Ċentrali tal-Awstralja.

 

Din id-deċiżjoni ttieħdet mill-kunsill lokali ta' Sydney, skont ir-rapporti għal żewġ raġunijiet.  Waħda kienet il-bżonn li jsir xogħol ta' kostruzzjoni fil-post, li wieħed jifhimha.  It-tieni raġuni kienet li l-akkumulazzjoni ta' oġġetti hija ta' inkonvenjent pubbliku għal dawk l-oħrajn li jużaw Martin Place.1

 

Dawk l-imsejkna li għalihom dak il-post mingħajr saqaf kienu jikkunsidrawh darhom ġew offruti postijiet alternattivi ta' akkomodazzjoni, imma fil-fatt li tingħata akkomodazzjoni temporanja ta' ftit jiem se ssolvi l-problema?

 

Dak it-titlu li ta l-kunsill, 'inkonvenjent pubbliku', għalija jixhed kif dawn in-nies vulnerabbli, li jippossiedu biss dak li jistgħu iġorru, esposti għal kull tip ta' abbuż min-nies ta' madwarhom apparti mill-elementi, jiġu mħarsa.

 

L-aqwa li ġew imċaqilqa.  M'għadniex narawhom b'għajnejna, il-problema spiċċat.  Issa nistgħu ninsewhom, forsi kienet biss ħolma kerha.  Inserrħu l-kuxjenza wkoll.

 

B'min naħsbu li qed nidħqu?  X'se jiġri minn dawk il-persuni, wara li ż-żmien ta' akkomodazzjoni temporanja jtispiċċa?  Mhux li jsiru 'inkonvenjent pubbliku' x'imkien ieħor?

 

Xi sena ilu, l-istess eżerċizzju sar fil-ġnien pubbliku Belmore Park ta' quddiem l-istazzjoni Ċentrali ta' Sydney, li ż-żewġ naħat tagħha kienu miżgħuda bit-tined ta' min dar permanenti m'għandux.  Tkeċċew minn hemm (ħalliha li xi whud marru lura, imma ħalliha).  U fejn marru?  Min jaf?  U x'jimpurtana?

 

U x'se nagħmlu b'dawk ta' taħt il-loġoġ ta' Wentworth Park, jew dawk ta' ħdejn l-għassa tal-pulizija ta' Woolloomooloo?

 

Il-problema ta' nies li m'għandhomx saqaf fuq rashom hija kbira, iktar milli wieħed jimmaġina possibbli f'pajjiż avvanzat ekonomikament bħall-Awstralja.  Huwa stmat li 0.5% tal-popolazzjoni kien qiegħed f'din is-sitwazzjoni fl-2011, madwar mitt elf persuna.  Din l-istatistika tvarja fl-istati u t-territorji Awstraljani minn 0.3% sa 0.5%, ħlief għan-Northern Territory fejn ir-rata tispara 'l fuq sostanzjalment għal 7%!

 

Minn dawk kollha li jgħixu barra minn dar permanenti, il-proporzjon ta' nies skont l-età fl-2011 kienet kif muri fit-tabella li ġejja:2

 

Età	Proporzjon	Total
<12	17%	17,845
12-18	10%	10,913
19-24	15%	15,325
25-34	18%	19,312
35-44	14%	14,484
45-54	12%	12,507
55-64	8%	8,649
65-74	4%	4,174
>74	2%	2,028

 

Possibbli li pajjiż sinjur bħall-Awstralja, li għandha ekonomija bi skala tat-triljuni ta' dollari, mhix kapaċi ssib soluzzjoni?  Li nies jispiċċaw f'din is-sitwazzjoni wieħed ma jistax jippreveniha, għax jistgħu ikunu qed jaħarbu minn sitwazzjonijiet diffiċli bħal pressjoni finanzjarja, abbuż fil-familja, vjolenza domestika eċċ.  Imma li jibqgħu f'din is-sitwazzjoni, għal ġimgħat, xhur u snin, mingħajr għajnuna deċiżiva, hija tal-biki, u tal-mistħija.

 

Jidher li hawn għarfien li xi ħaġa trid issir, għax il-miri tal-gvern Awstraljan f'dan il-qasam u oħrajn simili, bħall-akkomodazzjoni soċjali, mhumiex qed jintlaħqu.3  Fil-fatt, fil-baġit ta' din is-sena, il-gvern federali ippropona żieda globali fl-infieq fuq medda ta' tliet snin, u finanzjar u inċentivar tal-bini ta' akkomodazzjoni soċjali.4  Irrid ngħid li dawn huma miżuri fid-direzzjoni t-tajba.

 

Kien San Ġwann Battista li avżana li jekk għandna żewġ qomos, għandna nagħtu waħda lil min m'għandux, u li nagħmlu l-istess bl-ikel.5  Dan huwa sentiment li jdoqq għalija, għalhekk obbligu morali li kollettivament ngħinu lil dawn in-nies.  

 

1http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/after-six-months-clover-moores-council-breaks-up-martin-place-homeless-camp-20170624-gwxqob.html, retrieved 26/6/2017

2http://www.homelessnessaustralia.org.au/index.php/about-homelessness/homeless-statistics, retrieved 26/6/2017

3http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-23/australia-to-buy-58-more-joint-strike-fighters/5405236, retrieved 27/6/2017

4http://www.acoss.org.au/budget-2017/housing/, retrieved 27/6/2017

5Lk 3:11

1http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/after-six-months-clover-moores-council-breaks-up-martin-place-homeless-camp-20170624-gwxqob.html, retrieved 26/6/2017

2http://www.homelessnessaustralia.org.au/index.php/about-homelessness/homeless-statistics, retrieved 26/6/2017

3http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-23/australia-to-buy-58-more-joint-strike-fighters/5405236, retrieved 27/6/2017

4http://www.acoss.org.au/budget-2017/housing/, retrieved 27/6/2017

5Lk 3:11