Aspiration -- L-aspirazzjoni

 

This word is defined as a strong wish to achieve something.  I recalled the word during the latest federal election in Australia, where the unexpected victory of the governing Liberal-National coalition was partially interpreted by some analysts and politicians as part of the population having aspirations in life preferring continuity rather than taking a risk with completely different and economically redistributive policies advanced by the Labor Party.

 

In principle, an aspiration is a good thing.  It is good to aim for a a better quality of life, to have better health, see your children make even more inroads in life than you did, to be more comfortable, have more free time etc.

 

This leads to the person to endeavour, work hard, plan forwards.  He or she would be more energetic than others, as an aim would be in mind that is desired to be reached.

 

Aspiration is also an attribute of organisations. One of the principal communications of the best of them is generally a tiny yet profound declaration about its mission, for example in offering modern telecommunication system to sustain communities, or the development of solutions to human health disorders, or to be good citizens in society etc.

 

These are all positive attitudes, nevertheless might they have a dark side or become negative, or have some negative aspect?  I’d say, of course.

 

For example, when someone desires a better quality of life, be more comfortable etc, many interpret this in society today as being financially better off.  Therefore, one might go to work with gusto, often in more than one workplace, undertake lots of overtime etc to earn more money, but if someone were to look at the situation dispassionately might ask whether the quality of life has really got any better.

 

I want to make it clear that some people do work flat out not out of a whim, but due to being paid with such a pittance constrains them to work long hours just to make ends meet.  It is common today to read about the working poor.

 

I sometimes ask myself if what we see on TV, in apparently innocuous everyday programmes, with so many sparkles, attractive, beautiful, so many people laughing and smiling, seeming so content surrounded by objects that some can only dream of, aren’t in fact intentioned to entice us to change the dream world we see to become our dream that we spend the rest of our lives trying to convert to reality.

 

Perhaps the clearest example I can give you of this attitude is the program Better Homes and Gardens on Australian TV, which provides lots of useful information on how one might improve his/her home and garden.  They had a segment in the program in which houses with fabulous architecture were presented, ones you’d be difficult to imagine anyone residing in unless they were millionaires, or were able to get into one massive loan.  What was the aim of this segment, if not to fan the flames of desire?  At the end of the program, you cannot avoid hearing the jingle ‘life is getting better all the time’.  Really?  For whom?  For everyone?

 

I wrote a bit earlier about organisations and their positive ambitions.  They might have other ambitions, perhaps unstated, but ones that can be expected, which might not be negative but can become so.  The first that springs to mind is the aim of commercial enterprises to turn a profit.  This is not bad per se, not at all, but many times there is the expectation that profit increases every hear, and this can happen with legitimate and illegitimate means, with ethical means or not.  For example, decisions can be made which result in employees being squeezed more, stressed more at their workplace, customer service no longer being adequate, product or service quality being reduced etc.  In other works, organisations slowly become simply machines where profits are first and foremost, with other considerations being only hot air that is issued only to avoid criticism.

 

How could one explain an organisation like Volkswagen, one of the best vehicle manufacturers in the world, install software in its cars to literally lie while being emissions tested?  How could one explain why Australian banks deduct funds from their clients’ accounts for services that were not provided, or for financial advice that was supposedly being given while the clients were actually dead?

 

I say it would be wise for us individually to think long and hard about what are our aims and motivations in mind, whether they are reasonable and also whether they are worth the sacrifices that need to be made to achieve them.  Some might be well worth the investment of our time and labour, others perhaps not.

 

We have only one life!

 

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

 

Id-dizzjunarju ta’ Aquilina jgħid li din il-kelma tfisser xewqa kbira għal xi ħaġa.  Ftakart fiha waqt l-aħħar elezzjoni Federali tal-Awstralja, fejn ir-rebħa xejn mistennija tal-koalizzjoni governattiva Liberali-Nazzjonali ġiet parzjalment spjegata minn xi analisti u politikanti b’parti mill-popolazzjoni meqjusin li għandhom aspirazzjoni fil-ħajja jippreferu l-kontinwità milli jirriskjaw politika kompletament differenti u ekonomikament ridistributtiva tal-partit Laburista.

 

L-aspirazzjoni fil-prinċipju hija ħaġa tajba.  Huwa tajjeb li wieħed ifittex kwalità aħjar tal-ħajja, li jkollu livell ta’ saħħa aħjar, li jara lil uliedu javvanzaw anke iktar minnu, li jkun iktar komdu, li jkollu ħin liberu iktar eċċ.

 

Dan iwassal biex bniedem jistinka, jaħdem, jippjana.  Ikollu enerġija iktar minn ta’ madwaru, għax għandu skop f’moħħu u jrid jilħqu.

 

L-aspirazzjoni hija wkoll attribut ta’ organizzazzjonijiet.  Waħda mill-komunikazzjonijiet prinċipali tal-aħjar minnhom ġeneralment tkun stqarrija ċkejkna imma maħsuba fil-fond, li biha tistqarr il-missjoni tagħha, per eżempju li toffri sistemi moderni ta’ telekomunikazzjoni li bihom jisseddqu l-komunitajiet, jew li jiġu żviluppati soluzzjonijiet għall-mard tal-bniedem, li jkunu ċittadini tajba fis-soċjetà u l-bqija.

 

Dawn l-attitudnijiet huma kollha pożittivi, madankollu jistgħu jduru u jsiru negattivi, jew ikollhom xi aspett negattiv?  Jien naħseb, dażgur li iva.

 

Per eżempju, meta bniedem ifittex kwalità aħjar tal-ħajja, ikun iktar komdu eċċ, ħafna jinterpretawha fis-soċjetà tal-lum li jrid ikun finanzjarjament aħjar.  Għalhekk, jista’ jinfexx f’ħafna xogħol, ġieli f’iktar minn post tax-xogħol wieħed, ħafna sahra eċċ biex jakkwista iktar flus, imma li wieħed iħares lejh minn barra jista’ jistaqsi jekk verament il-kwalità tal-ħajja qiegħda tiġi għall-aħjar.

 

Irrid nagħmilha ċara li hawn ukoll min jaħdem daqs kelb mhux b’kapriċċ, imma li tant jitħallas biċ-ċenteżmi li bilfors irid jaħdem ħafna sigħat biex ikun jista’ jlaħħaq mal-ħajja.  Illum spiss sirt tisma’ bil-ħaddiema li jibqgħu fqar (working poor).

 

Jien kultant nistaqsi lili nnifsi jekk dak li naraw kultant fuq it-televiżjoni, f’programmi apparentement innokwi u ta’ kuljum, b’ħafna tlellix, tant attraenti u sbieħ, b’ħafna nies jidħqu u jitbissmu, jidhru tant kuntenti mdawrin b’ oġġetti li ħafna jistgħu biss joħolmu bihom, humiex fil-fatt intenzjonati biex iħajruna nibdlu il-ħolm li naraw fil-ħolm tagħna u nagħmlu minn kollox biex indawruh f’realtà.

 

Forsi l-iktar eżempju ċar tal-attitudni għalija huwa l-programm Better Homes and Gardens fuq it-TV Awstraljan, li jagħti ħafna informazzjoni utli fuq kif wieħed jista’ jtejjeb id-dar jew il-ġnien tiegħu.  Imbagħad għamlu żmien iġibu segment fil-programm li jippreżenta djar b’arkitettura favoluża li diffiċli li timmaġina ‘l xi ħadd fihom ħlief jekk tkun miljunarju, jew tidħol f’xi dejn ta’ barra minn hawn.  X’inhu l-iskop, ħlief li jxennqu lin-nies?  Fl-aħħar tal-programm, ma jonqosx li tissemma d-daqqa ‘life is getting better all the time’ (il-ħajja kull ma jmur qed titjieb).  Iva?  Għal min?  Għal kulħadd?

 

Ktibt ftit qabel fuq l-organizzazzjonijiet, u l-ambizzjonijiet pożittivi tagħhom.  Jista’ jkollhom ambizzjonijiet oħra, forsi mhux mistqarra, imma li wieħed jistennihom, li forsi ma jkunux negattivi imma li jistgħu isiru hekk.  L-ewwel eżempju li jiġini f’rasi huwa l-għan tal-impriżi kummerċjali biex jagħmlu profitt.  Dan mhux ħażin fih innifsu, xejn affattu, imma ħafna drabi jkun hemm l-istennija  li l-profitt irid jiżdied kull sena, u dan jista’ jsir b’mod leċitu jew illeċitu, b’mod etiku jew le.  Jistgħu jittieħdu deċiżjonijiet li jfissru tagħsir tal-ħaddiema, żieda tal-istress tagħhom fuq il-post tax-xogħol, nuqqas ta’ servizz adekwat lejn il-klijenti, it-tnaqqis tal-kwalità fil-prodotti jew servizzi.  Fi kliem ieħor, l-organizzazzjonijiet bil-mod il-mod isiru biss magni fejn il-profitt jiġi l-ewwel u qabel kollox, u l-bqija huma biss kliem fieraħ li jingħad biex ma ssirx kritika.

 

Biex nagħti eżempji, kif wieħed jista’ jispejga li organizzazzjoni bħall-Volkswagen, waħda mill-aqwa produtturi tal-karozzi fid-dinja, tistalla softwer fil-karozzi biex litteralment tigdeb waqt li qed isirulha testijiet ta’ kemm tarmi dħaħen?  Kif wieħed jista’ jispjega li banek fl-Awstralja inaqqsu flus mill-kontijiet tal-klijenti tagħhom għal servizzi li ma tawx, jew għal pariri finanzjarji li suppost kienu qiegħdin jagħtu meta l-klijenti kienu fil-fatt mejta?

 

Jien ngħid li jkun jaqbel għalina li individwalment naħsbu sew fuq x’inhuma l-iskopijiet u ambizzjonijiet li għandna f’moħħna, jekk humiex raġjonevoli u jekk jiswewx is-sagrifiċċji li rridu nagħmlu biex nilħquhom.  Uħud forsi jistħoqqilhom investiment ta’ ħinna u xogħolna, u oħrajn forsi le.

 

Ħajja waħda għandna!

 

Might is right -- Ir-raġun tas-saħħa

 

As you all probably know, there is currently a trade war between the United States and China, started by the belligerent leader of the former Donald Trump with wide political support domestically, and the latter not holding back from responding in kind.

 

The war consists of these countries imposing import duties on each other’s products.  We are talking about an astronomical value of commerce.  The US imported $539 billion from China in 2015 (half a trillion dollars!), and China imported $120 billion from the US in the same year.  This difference is interpreted by the American President as evidence that China is taking advantage of the US.

 

Now this economic activity consists of independent and commercial decisions by private or state organisations in both countries, and no one is forced to buy from the other.  The theory of free trade between countries is that products and services would be able to be sourced from the most efficient source, which should lead to better quality and lower prices, than if they were constrained to be purchased solely from those made in the same country as the buyer.

 

The problem of free trade is that if country A is more efficient than country B in producing products and services, these will have the tendency to be made in country A, which therefore employs its capital (money, machines and labour) more and better than being employed by country B which then leads to a reduction of work in its economy.  Economists say that this is an incentive for efficiency to be added where it is absent.  In practice, there could be social, cultural, historic and political reasons why this does not occur, and lack of work becomes permanent.

 

In the case of the US and China, there are other reasons which have led to a trade imbalance.  The first is an accusation that China has manipulated its currency, the renminbi.  Another critique is that organisations from foreign countries investing in China have to pass over intellectual property to local organisations.

 

In the US, the tendency to buy ‘made in China’ has led to many people being unemployed, or under-employed.  Several states in the country which are considered to form the ‘rust belt’, such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and others, all in the north-east of the country, where strong industrial activity in the past has faded, replaced by to strong importation from a number of countries, primarily China.  Here, this effect is felt strongest, and was one of the factors which gifted our planet with one Donald Trump, one of whose electoral promises was to fix this problem.

 

It seems to me that free trade between countries does increase global prosperity for the ones involved, but have also led to poverty and lack of work opportunities to many people, who in the past were hard working and skilful, and today are out of work.  The problem is that the benefits gained have been too concentrated in the hands of industrialists, business people, professionals and some of the workers, but not everyone has taken a share of the benefits.  I blame the political class of many countries, who only care about global indicators such as the Gross Domestic Product, and take no initiative when seeing other indicators of inequality in society getting worse.

 

What people need are actions that result in an improvement to their lot.

 

This does not mean that Trump’s actions will necessarily lead to what he is promising.  His administration, supported by both main American political parties, has initially stuck a 25% tariff on almost half its imports from China, and the latter retaliated similarly, and now the situation has escalated.  Discussions to reach an agreement are proceeding with fits and starts, and so far there is no positive outcome.

The impression I take however from the American attitude and rhetoric, mostly from Trump, that this is being led by a gorilla, the biggest one on the planet (anyway being blond definitely the most handsome), threatening he can do whatever he likes, attempting to intimidate by beating his chest and forcing the other side to negotiate with their tail beneath their legs and therefore at a psychological disadvantage.

 

I can see no indication that the Chinese are pissing in their pants.  Naturally the situation is very delicate, and there will be an effect on the country’s economy.  However we need to remember that today China is already the biggest economy in the world, bigger than the United States and also bigger than the European Union.  It had already recognised that its own interest dictates it needed to reduce its’ economy’s dependence on exports and focus more on internal consumption.

 

One needs to keep in mind that commerce, apart from providing economic advantages, leads also to reduced conflict between the countries involved, as it would not be in their best interest to disrupt their own economies.

 

If on the other hand, countries become protectionist, only looking inwards and not outwards, caring only about themselves and not giving a hoot about anyone else, there is a higher likelihood or resulting in suspicion and conflict.

 

China will not defer.  Until today, its’ conduct has been relatively benign in terms of foreign relations, compared to the United States, which has long been playing the cowboy around the world – just think of Iran, the Vietnam war, the Iraq invasion etc etc.  Bad examples have been provided without bound.

 

Then you might remember about the nineteenth century, where another world power, Britain, also had a huge trade deficit with China, as it used to buy Chinese products, notably porcelain, tea and silk, paying for them in silver.  In those days, it had the brainwave of solving the deficit by starting to sell opium to Chinese people, getting them dependent on the drug and being paid back in silver.

 

When the Chinese emperor of the Qing dynasty decided to put an end to this travesty, the British sent the navy over, causing the so-called Opium Wars and humiliated China, which then was also the largest world economy, impoverishing and reversing its progress by a hundred years.

 

Do you really think that China will permit itself to be humiliated once more?

 

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

 

Bħal ma probabbilment tafu, bħalissa għaddejja gwerra fil-kummerċ bejn l-Istati Uniti u ċ-Ċina, mibdija mill-mexxej belliġerenti tal-ewwel Donald Trump b’appoġġ politiku wiesgħa, b’tal-aħħar ma joqogħdux lura milli jirrispondu.

 

Il-gwerra tikkonsisti f’li l-pajjiżi jimponu dazji fuq il-prodotti ta’ xulxin meta jiġu importati.  Qed nitkellmu fuq valur astronomiku ta’ kummerċ.  L-Istati Uniti importat $539 biljun miċ-Ċina fl-2018 (nofs triljun dollaru!), u ċ-Ċina importat $120 biljun mill-Istati Uniti fl-istess sena.  Din id-differenza hija interpretata mill-President Amerikan bħala evidenza li ċ-Ċina qiegħda tieħu vantaġġ mill-Istati Uniti.

 

Issa din l-attività ekonomika tikkonsisti f’deċiżjonijiet indipendenti u kummerċjali minn organizzazzjonijiet privati u/jew statali taż-żewġ pajjiżi, u ħadd mhu sfurzat jixtri mill-pajjiż l-ieħor.  It-teorija tal-kummerċ liberu bejn il-pajjiżi hu li prodotti u s-servizzi jkunu jistgħu jinkisbu mill-iktar sors effiċjenti, li għandu jwassal għal kwalità aħjar u prezzijiet iktar baxxi, milli kieku kellhom jinxtraw bil-fors dawk magħmulin fil-pajjiż tax-xerrej.

 

Il-problema tal-kummerċ liberu hu li jekk pajjiż A hu iktar effiċjenti minn pajjiż B biex jipproduċi prodotti u servizzi, dawn se jkollhom it-tendenza biex jinħadmu fil-pajjiż A, li allura jħaddem il-kapital tiegħu (flus, magni u ħaddiema) iktar u aħjar milli jħaddimhom pajjiż B li għalhekk jitnaqqaslu x-xogħol fl-ekonomija tiegħu.  L-ekonomisti jgħidu li dan hu inċentiv biex tiżdied l-effiċjenza fejn m’hemmx.  Fil-prattika, jista’ jkun hemm raġunijiet soċjali, kulturali, storiċi u politiċi għalfejn dan ma jsirx, u x-xogħol nieqes isir permanenti.

 

Fil-każ tal-Istati Uniti u ċ-Ċina, hemm raġunijiet oħra li wassal għal żbilanċ fin-negozju.  Waħda minnhom hi l-akkuża li ċ-Ċina timmanipola l-munita tagħha r-renminbi.  Kritika oħra hija li pajjiżi barranin li jinvestu fiċ-Ċina huma kostretti li jgħaddu l-proprjetà intellettwali tagħhom lil organizzazzjoni fil-pajjiż.

 

Fl-Istati Uniti, it-tendenza li dak li tixtri jkun magħmul fiċ-Ċina wassal għal ħafna nies li jkun bla xogħol, jew bi ftit xogħol.  Hemm stati fil-pajjiż li jitqiesu li jiffurmaw ‘ċinturin tas-sadid’, bħal Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio u oħrajn, kollha fil-grigal tal-pajjiż, fejn l-attività industrijali qawwija tal-passat majnat, mibdula b’importazzjoni qawwija minn diversi pajjiżi, ewlieni fosthom iċ-Ċina.  Hawnhekk, dan l-effett jinħass bil-kbir, u kien wieħed mill-fatturi li wassal lid-dinja r-rigal ta’ Donald Trump, li waħda mill-wegħdiet tiegħu elettorali tkun li din is-sitwazzjoni jirranġaha.

 

Jien jidhirli li l-kummerċ liberu bejn il-pajjiżi żied il-prosperità globali tal-pajjiżi involuti, imma wassal għall-faqar u nuqqas ta’ xogħol ukoll lil ħafna nies, li fl-imgħoddi kienu beżlin u ta’ sengħa, u illum jinsabu bla xogħol.  Il-problema hi li l-benefiċċji li seħħew, ġew ikkonċentrati wisq f’idejn l-industrijalisti, in-negozjanti, il-professjonisti u parti mill-ħaddiema, imma ma tgawdewx minn kulħadd.  It-tort nagħtiha lill-klassi politika ta’ ħafna pajjiżi, li moħħhom biss fl-indikaturi globali bħall-prodott gross domestiku (GDP), u ma jieħdu l-ebda inizjattiva meta jaraw indikaturi ta’ inugwaljanza fis-soċjetà qiegħdin jeħżienu.

 

Il-poplu azzjonijiet li jwasslu għal riżultat fejjiedi għandhom bżonn.

 

Dan ma jfissirx li l-azzjonijiet ta’ Trump neċessarjament se jwasslu għal dak li qed iwiegħed.  L-amministrazzjoni tiegħu, b’appoġġ miż-żewġ partiti prinċipali Amerikani, waħħlet tariffa ta’ 25% fil-bidu fuq kważi nofs l-importazzjoni miċ-Ċina, u tal-aħħar irritalja b’mod simili, u issa s-sitwazzjoni reġgħet eskalat.  Taħdidiet biex jintlaħaq ftehim qiegħdin isiru bis-sulluzzu, u s’issa ma wasslu għal ebda riżultat pożittiv.

 

L-impressjoni li nieħu madankollu mill-attitudni u r-retorika li toħroġ mill-Amerikani, u iktar u iktar minn Trump, li din qed titmexxa minn gurilla, l-ikbar wieħed fid-dinja (insomma l-isbaħ għax bjond) jhedded li jista’ jagħmel li jrid, jipprova jbeżża billi jħabbat fuq sidru u jġiegħel lin-naħa l-oħra tinnegozja b’dembha bejn saqajha u għalhekk b’inferjorità psikoloġika.

 

Jien ma għandi l-ebda indikazzjoni li ċ-Ċiniżi qiegħdin ipixxu taħthom bil-biża’.  Naturalment is-sitwazzjoni hija delikata, u effett fuq l-ekonomija tal-pajjiż se jkun hemm.  Madankollu irridu niftakru li llum iċ-Ċina diġà hija l-ikbar ekonomija fid-dinja, ikbar mill-Istati Uniti u ikbar ukoll mill-Unjoni Ewropeja.  Ukoll kienet diġà għarfet li huwa fl-interess tagħha li tnaqqas id-dipendenza tal-ekonomija tagħha fuq l-esportazzjoni, u li hemm bżonn li jiżdied il-konsum intern.

 

Wieħed irid iżomm quddiem għajnejh li l-kummerċ bejn il-pajjiżi, apparti vantaġġi ekonomiċi, iwassal ukoll għal nuqqas ta’ kunflitti bejn il-pajjiżi involuti, għax ikun jaqblilhom ma jfixklux l-interessi ekonomiċi tagħhom.

 

Jekk mill-banda l-oħra l-pajjiżi jibdew isiru iktar protezzjonisti, u jħarsu biss ‘il ġewwa u mhux iktar ‘il barra, jimpurtahom biss minnhom infushom u xejn affattu minn ħaddieħor, dan iktar hemm ċans li jwassal għal suspetti u ġlied.

 

Iċ-Ċina mhux se tbaxxi rasha.  Sal-lum imxiet relattivament bir-rażan fir-relazzjonijiet barranin tagħha, imqabbla mal-Istati Uniti, li ilha tilgħabha tal-cowboy madwar id-dinja – aħseb biss fl-Iran, il-gwerra fil-Vjetnam, l-invażjoni tal-Iraq eċċ eċċ.  Eżempju ħażin ingħatat kemm trid.  

 

Imbagħad tiftakar fis-seklu dsatax, fejn qawwa mondjali oħra, dik Brittannika, ukoll kellha defiċit kbir fil-kummerċ maċ-Ċina, fejn kienet tixtri prodotti Ċiniżi, bħall-porċellana, it-te u l-ħarir, u tħallas għalihom bil-fidda.  Dakinhar ġietha l-ideja brillanti li d-defiċit issolvih jekk tibda’ tbigħ il-loppju liċ-Ċiniżi, isseddaq id-dipendenza tal-poplu għal din id-droga, u titħallas lura bil-fidda.

 

Meta l-imperatur Ċiniż tad-dinastija Qing iddeċieda li jwaqqaf din il-ħniżrija, il-Brittanniċi bagħtulu l-flotta navali tagħha, seħħew l-hekk imsejħa Gwerer tal-Loppju u umiljaw liċ-Ċina, li dakinhar kienet diġà l-ikbar ekonomija fid-dinja, faqqruha u tefgħuha lura mitt sena.

 

Taħsbu li ċ-Ċina se terġa tippermetti li tkun umiljata?

 

 

Israel Folau and religious freedom -- Israel Folau u l-libertà reliġjuża

 

Israel Folau is one of the best players of rugby, or as called in Australia, footie.  He has played in the three versions of the game existing in the country, Rugby League, Australian Rules Football and Rugby Union, and excelled in each.  He was also a very important member of the national Australian team for Rugby Union, the Wallabies.

 

Nevertheless, this article is not about the kicking of an oval ball.

 

Folau is a member of the Pentecostal church Assemblies of God, and in the last few years was one of the prominent voices opposing gay marriage, and in the last few months twice declared on social media that homosexuals are all going to hell unless they repent.

 

The first time, the Rugby Australia leadership declared it had accepted his position, even while disagreeing with him, and would not take steps against him even if his declarations went against the inclusive policy of the organisation.

 

The second time, the leadership brought him in front of a disciplinary board which found him guilty of contravening the organisation’s code of conduct.  He already can no longer play the game, and the Rugby Australia leadership decided that his contract worth $4 million a year be torn up.1  The player can appeal to the organisation or the Supreme Court.

 

This situation naturally triggers questions about religious freedom and its public expression.  I’m not surprised by the views expressed by Folau.  I know of other members of the Assemblies of God and even Christians from other churches including the Catholic one, who talk the same way and have identical beliefs.

 

In fact if, as many other Christians do, one accepts every word, full stop and comma that are in the Bible, uttered by whoever, written by whoever and under any circumstances in which they were written, are the word of God, then it is not hard to arrive at that belief.

 

Implications on religious freedom were raised by a number of Christian leaders, who wrote the Prime Minister Morrison and the (then) Leader of the Opposition Shorten, concerned that this case would be establishing a dangerous precedent, if they were no longer to have the freedom of offering teachings based on scripture, in private as well as in public.2

 

This concern is a bit wider than the case of Folau, as no one has indicated that Folau has no right to have or declare his beliefs in private.  They are right however that we are facing a precedent whether similar beliefs cannot be declared in public, although the case is limited to declarations by a person which clash with the values of the employing organisation.

 

In similar controversies, before making up my mind which way to lean, I like to throw the ball on the other foot and see what happens if we apply the same principle.

 

The best example I can think of can be found in the report on religious freedom commissioned by the Australian government, chaired by ex-MP Phillip Ruddock, which recommended that religious schools be able to “discriminate in relation to the employment of staff, and the engagement of contractors, on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or relationship status provided that:

(a) the discrimination is founded in the precepts of the religion

(b) the school has a publicly available policy outlining its position in relation to the matter and explaining how the policy will be enforced, and

(c) the school provides a copy of the policy in writing to employees and contractors and prospective employees and contractors.”.3

 

From my perspective, I prefer that no one loses his or her job due to what is believed or declared, and this would be applicable to employees/contractors of religious schools and also Folau.  I very much fear that if we continue to surround ourselves only with people who have views similar to ours and banish everyone else, we will never have a society with grows in tolerance and the acceptance of diversity.  Instead of a heterogenous yet harmonious society full of peaceful dialogue, we would have many isolated islands, each internally homogeneous, but with closed ears and no dialogue, always shouting slogans at each other, but never listening and learning even less.

 

The choice is yours!

 

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

 

Israel Folau huwa wieħed mill-aħjar plejers tar-ragbi (rugby, jew kif jissejjaħ hawn l-Awstralja, footie).  Lagħab fit-tliet verżjonijiet tal-logħba li jeżistu f’dan il-pajjiż, Rugby League, Awstralian Rules Football u Rugby Union, u f’kull wieħed iddistingwa ruħu.  Huwa wkoll kien membru importanti ħafna tat-team nazzjonali Awstraljan tar-Rugby Union, il-Wallabies.

 

Madankollu dan l-artiklu mhux fuq l-ixxuttjar ta’ ballun ovali.

 

Folau huwa membru tal-knisja Pentekostali Assemblies of God, u matul dawn l-aħħar snin kien wieħed mill-vuċijiet prominenti li opponew id-dritt tal-omosesswali li jkunu jistgħu jiżżewġu, u dawn l-aħħar xhur darbtejn stqarr fuq il-midja soċjali li l-omosesswali kollha sejrin l-infern sakemm ma jindmux.

 

L-ewwel darba, it-tmexxija ta’ Rugby Australia qalet li taċċetta l-pożizzjoni tiegħu, għalkemm ma’ taqbilx miegħu, u ma kinux se jieħdu passi kontrih anke jekk dak li qal kien kontra l-politika inklussiva tal-organizzazzjoni.

 

It-tieni darba, it-tmexxija tellgħetu quddiem bord ta’ dixxiplina li sabitu ħati li kiser il-kodiċi ta’ kondotta tal-organizzazzjoni.  Diġà ma jistax jilgħab iktar il-logħba, u t-tmexxija ta’ Rugby Australia ddeċidiet li l-kuntratt tiegħu ta’ $4 miljun f’erba’ snin jiġi mqatta’.1  Il-plejer jista’ jappella lill-organizzazzjoni jew lill-Qorti Suprema. .

 

Din is-sitwazzjoni naturalment tqajjem mistoqsijiet fuq il-libertà reliġjuża u l-espressjoni pubblika tagħha.  Jien m’iniex sorpriż bil-veduti espressi ta’ Folau.  Naf nies oħra membri tal-Assemblies of God, u anke insara oħra ta’ knejjes oħra inklużi dawk Kattoliċi, li jitkellmu bl-istess mod u għandhom twemmin identiku.

 

Fil-fatt jekk, bħal ma jagħmlu ħafna insara, wieħed jaċċetta li kull kelma, punt u virgola li hemm fil-Bibbja, qalhom min qalhom, kitibhom min kitibhom u taħt kwalunkwe ċirkustanzi li nkitbu, huma l-kelma t’Alla, mhux diffiċli li tasal għal dak it-twemmin.

 

L-implikazzjonijiet fuq il-libertà reliġjuża tqajjmet minn numru ta’ mexxejja reliġjużi Insara, li kitbu lill-Prim Ministru Morrison u l-Kap tal-Oppożizzjoni Shorten, imħassbin li dan il-każ se jwaqqaf preċedent perikoluż, jekk mhux se jkollhom iktar il-libertà li joffru tagħlim ibbażat fuq l-iskrittura, fil-privat kif ukoll fil-pubbliku.2

 

Dan it-tħassib huwa daqsxejn iktar wiesgħa mill-każ ta’ Folau, għax ħadd ma semma li Folau m’għandux dritt li jkollu jew jistqarr it-twemmin tiegħu fil-privat.  Għandhom raġun però li qed niffaċċjaw preċedent jekk twemmin simili jistax jiġi mistqarr fil-pubbliku, għalkemm il-każ hu limitat fejn l-istqarrija tal-persuna ma taqbilx mal-valuri tal-organizzazzjoni li timpjegah.

 

Jien f’każijiet kontroversjali bħal dawn, qabel ma nieħu pożizzjoni, inħobb nitfa’ l-ġebla fuq is-sieq l-oħra biex nara x’jiġri jekk jiġi applikat l-istess prinċipju.

 

L-aħjar eżempju li nista’ nagħti jinsab fir-rapport fuq il-libertà reliġjuża kkummissjonat mill-Gvern Awstraljan, immexxi mill-ex membru tal-Parlament Philip Ruddock, li rrakkommanda li l-iskejjel reliġjużi għandhom ikollhom il-jedd li, għall-impjegati jew kuntratturi tagħhom, jiddiskriminaw kontra persuni abbażi tal-orjentazzjoni sesswali, il-ġens jew ir-relazzjonijiet tagħhom, basta li din id-diskriminazzjoni ikollha bażi reliġjuża, il-politika tagħha tkun magħrufa u pubblika, u tingħata bil-miktub lill-impjegati u kuntratturi, kemm kurrenti u kemm prospettivi.3

 

Jien ngħid għalija, nippreferi li ħadd ma jitlef ħobżu minħabba dak li jemmen jew jistqarr, u dan ikun jgħodd kemm għall-iskejjel reliġjużi u kemm għall-każ ta’ Folau.  Nibża li jekk se nkomplu ndawru nfusna b’nies li għandhom biss veduti bħal tagħna u nkeċċu lill-oħrajna, mhux se jkollna qatt soċjetà li tersaq lejn it-tolleranza u l-aċċettazzjoni tad-diversità.  Minflok soċjetà etereoġenja iżda armonjuża mimlija djalogu paċifiku, ikollna ħafna gżejjer iżolati, kollha omoġenji fihom infushom, imma b’widnejn magħluqa u mingħajr djalogu, dejjem jgħajtu lejn xulxin imma la jisimgħu u lanqas qatt ma jitgħallmu xejn.

 

Għażel int!

 

 

1https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-07/israel-folau-breached-code-of-conduct-hearing-finds/11089234, retrieved 15/5/2019

2https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-11/israel-folau-religious-leaders-send-letter-to-shorten-morrison/11104094, retrieved 15/5/2019

3Religious Freedom Review – Report of the Expert Panel; 18th May 2018; Recommendation 5

1https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-07/israel-folau-breached-code-of-conduct-hearing-finds/11089234, retrieved 15/5/2019

2https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-11/israel-folau-religious-leaders-send-letter-to-shorten-morrison/11104094, retrieved 15/5/2019

3Religious Freedom Review – Report of the Expert Panel; 18th May 2018; Recommendation 5