Saturday, 8th August 2009
So much, so wrong, so what?
It has taken me unusually long to update my blog, because I usually pick on the most annoying thing of that week and write about it, but this week was so tragic that I simply couldn’t decide what to take the axe to.
So, instead, I compiled my own dark comedy from this week’s series of errors.
Underwear shenanigans!
First there was the story about the young Spaniard who was essentially taken to court for prancing around drunk in his own balcony. Although the headline of the story read - ‘Caught with his pants down’ –showing off his private parts was not the reason why he was summoned to court. Since it was a friend who pulled the Spaniard’s trousers down, he could only be charged with offending public morals when he ‘uttered’ obscenities at a passerby. If this is the law, and if this is how seriously we take it, then how come we do not arrest at least 100 men a day? Or is it easier to pick on young drunk tourists whom we will never see again?
To park or to box!
Then there was the story of the 19 year old guy who was trying to park his car in Sliema and, who got into a brawl with the two policemen that were stuck in the car behind him. He was arrested for assaulting the officers, disobeying the police and swearing in public. In turn the driver, who was accompanied by his girlfriend, accused the police of allegedly beating him up and refusing to provide medical attention when he requested it. Whatever the true version of the facts is, the magistrate’s comments were most amusing. Apparently it was quite a hassle for the magistrate to come in to work that Saturday, so he reminded the police that such cases need not be arraigned with urgency over the weekend. Now I’m thinking that we should construct (legally of course) a few beach houses around the Valletta coast so that those who are paid to be on duty on the weekend do not go so much out of their way when justice calls!
DUI or DIY Law?
The story of Cliff Micallef and his fatal accident shocked us all, and because it was a case of hit and run people went mad with anger, and became desperate to find and punish the culprit. Granted, had you known Cliff at all you’d want revenge, and had you not known him you’d still want justice, but the power point email that is doing the rounds, together with the media’s slandering of the accused, is appalling on so many fronts. I am NOT in any way defending drinking under the influence (DUI), or driving dangerously and without insurance, but let’s call a spade a spade. Trying to influence an ongoing case via the media and viral campaigns, is just wrong. Even if the accused turns out to be as guilty as a Nazi it’s still wrong.
This very paper had a headline that read - ‘Unemployed motorist charged with manslaughter, drink driving’ – forgive my ignorance but how is the fact that he’s unemployed relevant to the story? Haven’t we all been unemployed at some point, especially when we were 21? And with a 24% increase in unemployment over last year, how is this important?
And finally, for those circulating the smearing email, please note that such vilifying speculation could work in favour of the accused in court. His lawyer is already hinting that he might use this to proof that his client will not be given a fair trial. In fact, as his lawyer, I would probably be thanking the heavens that someone was silly enough to conjure it up and circulate it. It will probably turn out to be the best defence that the accused could have hoped for.
The power point presentation that I’m talking about can be found here - http://www.alisonbezzina.com/diy-law/ but let it be known that I’m only providing it for information purposes and in no way endorsing. In my opinion this is an undemocratic Neanderthal form of judgement.
RSS
Comments
You say 'the wanton slaughter on our roads all too often by "young persons" having a good time and driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol' - have you got any statistical information to back this up.....? or do you mean 'insignificant amount by the word WANTON?'
I do not believe that your real concern is about any difficulty in finding judges or jury mature enough to deliver justice in this case. Your real concern would appear to be the maintenance of the present status quo of ridiculously light sentences so that our “young persons” would be encouraged to continue with their irresponsible life style no matter how many corpses are left on our roads. Those with the same frame of mind are afraid that society would eventually succeed to make its pleas for sanity to be heard by those entrusted to mete out justice not only to the accused but also to the victims and their families.
The contents of e-mails, H15 and Facebook cannot justify the suppression of freedom of speech. What concerns me is the attitude that being a "young person" somehow mitigates the senseless killing of a cyclist and the attempt to muzzle freedom of speech exercised by a public rightly alarmed by the wanton slaughter on our roads all too often by "young persons" having a good time and driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Things have come to a pretty pass if we cannot rely on judges or juries to do their duty if they are made aware of the public concern about this horrible state of affairs.
Aren't judges part of our society anyways..... ? aren't they too subject to emotional lobbying? and aren't they also likely to please the public for popularity's sake or not to have their families bullied? It's not like we have never heard these stories before..... but regardless of the court case and the possibility of biaising it.... public disgust is fine to express...but the email doing the rounds is unfounded...based on HI5 and Facebook pictures and emotional presumptions....which mean nothing except that Anthony Taliana is a young person....that's all. Also as 'christians' we should be ashamed of all this!
I notice no one has said a word about the parents' responsibility in all this. Now, before you all pounce on me and start explaining that 21 is over the legal majority age, like I didn't know(!) ask yourself this: If you had a son or daughter whose behaviour is putting others at risk, how far would you go to make sure no one paid for his or her foolishness? Can you, as a parent, in all conscience, cease to be vigilant on the day they turn 18 if they are still irresponsible?
But:
Mr Cuschieri: you speak about being fair to the accused. Was the victim treated fairly, then?
The very fact that you state that you were close to running down cyclists NOT under the influence of drink has nothing to do with the present case.
We have to agree that, as soon as you, whoever it is, who are not sober enough to drink, switch on that car's engine, you are a murderer. To me, it's as simple as that. The very fact that you 'get off' lightly by being lucky enough not to have killed someone, is immaterial. Today, we all know how dangerous it is to drive under the influence of drink, so it's only killers who do it. I am no killer. I can be holier-than-thou because I have never driven a car under the influence of alcohol. So there.
Please, don't tell us how to read hi5. Many of us have seen what there was to see and we can make our own judgement.
The very fact that he is now under house-arrest may show why that email started doing the rounds in the first place.
One of the things that REALLY bugs me though is people (in this corner of the web too, for example) who readily ASSUME that since we inhabit this island and are all, ostensibly, Maltese (it doesn't follow, but go figure), then it also stands to reason that we are all (1) Christian, (2) Heterosexual, (3) Caucasian and (4) belong to a traditional family unit. This is the same strain of twisted logic that would assume that: All Maltese swim in water; All goldfish swim in water; goldfish and Maltese are both found in Malta, ergo all Maltese are goldfish!
@R.Vella.... "Please let us be Cristians at all times" (I assume you mean CHristians!)... What about those of us who do NOT belong to the Christian faith, Mr. Vella? Does that non-association render us non-entities by default?
1. We live in a world dominated by the internet. Some people are going to vent their anger over it. However much you may not like it you have to accept this fact.
2. Generally people have little faith that the judicial system metes out fitting punishments. Their anxiety that such will be the case this time too is, I suspect, one of the motives behind that ppt.
3. Keep in mind that had the judicial system come down harder on Mr Taliana in the first place, Clifford would be abroad and cycling with his team mates just now. Instead . . .
4. For once people can trace a clear line starting with a person who advertises his squalid values on the net, then takes those values out on the road, next gets caught driving dangerously and is released and finally refuses to learn a lesson and kills a man.
5. @R.Vella. Being Christian also means distinguishing clearly between good and evil, and being free to feel righteous anger when there is a call for it. Insejt li Kristu qaleb l-imwejjed meta kien hemm bzonn?