Friday, 20th June 2008
Laws, other asses and obscenities
Terrible is the country where the rule of law is not respected. Worse is the country where law is the only measure applied to guide human acts and relationships. This would be especially true where a positivistic approach to the law is taken. In such cases the law is based on the power of those who enact it and can verge on being arbitrary. Many obscenities have been sanctioned and justified by the law. Many injustices have been committed in the same way.
A civilised country needs other things besides the law. It also needs, for example an ethical ethos and like minded citizens. The law regulates the minimum. Lower than this one should not stoop. Ethics looks at a higher target. Just justifying one self in terms of law is not the right approach in several cases. Let me look at two such cases.
The age of the self employed?
In more senses than one the self-employed are the motor of the economy. They risk, they sweat and they achieve results. At first glance the increase in the number of self employed can signal a more vibrant economy. But when one looks closer some surprises ensue. Gejtu Vella writing in The Times of May 31, 2008 informed us that “security personnel, chambermaids, waiting staff, swimming pool attendants and clerical workers, mostly of tender working age, are being served with self-employed contracts of service by their respective employer.”
What these employers are doing is totally legal. So should that be the end of the story? This is absolutely not the case. Legal it is, but obscene it is even more. The law stipulated that if you work part time for 20 hours then you have a right for pro-rata sickness and leave benefits. Some bloodsuckers a.k.a. employers starting employing people for 19 hours and less. The law was changed. If someone is employed even for eight hours a week then one is entitled for pro-rata benefits. End of story. Justice regained. Exploitation kicked on the backside. Trade unionists patted each other above the backside.
Unfortunately this was not the scenario that emerged. The bloodsuckers a.k.a. these particular employers, probably aided by members of a profession, whose title should not be mentioned in a respectable society, struck back (Clue number 1 for profession: Their number in heaven is slightly smaller than the number of virgins in brothels). Stop employing people. Make them employ themselves and then they come to you on their knees. (As Gejtu wrote: “The realities of life - family, children, mortgage payments and many other financial commitments - impose certain obligations on the workers' possibility to quit.”) You don’t have to give them any benefits but a wage. (Quite naturally some member of the same profession is working on this detail as well. Hint 2: Some members of this profession do their level best to enable paedophiles and drug traffickers to roam the streets. ) Legality respected! Obscenity triumphant!
Gejtu Vella told us that the government should do something about it. He suggested that these bas***ds (one can find this word in the RVS English version of the Bible without any asterisks) should not be granted government contracts. Well spoken and may government heed. But then Gejtu disappoints. He said that “the UĦM will cross swords with those employers” who so behave. Come on Gejtu is that all? Don’t tell us what you WILL do. Tell us about something effective that you ARE doing. An idea? Book adverts in all the papers; name the bloodsuckers, give us their office and home number as well as emails. A photo wouldn’t be a bad idea. And then let the honest people of this country phone them and email them to tell them what they think about them. I’m sure that these bloodsuckers pose as respectability itself. Let us expose them in public in their naked obscenity.
The law should not be the bastion of exploiters.
A drink called Cocaine
I am told that on the way to Paceville two gigantic billboards are gracing Regional Road exhorting the revelers to drink Cocaine. The substance usually takes the form of powder which one sniffs. It is said that in Malta it is consumed during the parties of the rich and the powerful. The Cocaine being advertised is of another kind. It is drunk not sniffed. It is also wholly legal since its contents are totally dissimilar from those of the nefarious drug.
It seems that everything is in order. It is another case of legality respected.
Based on the importer’s claim to legality the advert for Cocaine made it to one of Malta’s most respectable newspapers i.e. The Times. It also made it to the programmes of the production house with the best claim for a social conscience i.e. WE.
But it is another case of obscenity triumphant.
Earlier in the week the Broadcasting Authority joined the fray. In a statement signed by the chief executive, it declared that:
“In so far as Cocaine Energy Drink is concerned, it breaches the Broadcasting Act's provisions concerning offence to public feeling. Moreover, such an advert encourages behaviour prejudicial to health or to safety and runs counter to the efforts made by agencies like Sedqa to combat the drug problem in Malta. I am of the view that by referring to 'Cocaine' in the name of the energy drink, by association, the impression could be given that the use of cocaine is legitimate. Therefore I do not consider it to be in the public interest to allow the said advertisement," the CEO said.
In this case there is an Authority saying that the advert is illegal when aired on radio or TV. In the case of newspapers there still is the veneer of legality since the Broadcasting Act does not cover print. But the statement of the Broadcasting Authority gives other reasons – besides the legal ones – why that kind of advert should not be aired …. And I add “nor printed”.
Any item that uses the name of a drug – whatever it is – should be blacklisted by both the print and the broadcast media.
RSS
Comments
BTW - how wrong you are Fr. Borg to think that cocain is limited parties of the rich. I am sure that the police can tell you that it's use is widespread all over Malta even amongst teenagers and school goers.
I have followed the comments on this newspaper about Cocaine energy drink and I am honestly baffled at how we seem to cannot agree that the naming of a legal product with that of an illegal substance is irresponsible and it is not a question of 'personal conscience' but it is a question of protecting children from a dilution of the possible damaging effects of illegal substances. I am sure that Mr Kenneth Cassar and his ilk can make sound decisions based on 'personal conscience'. Let us ensure that children can reach that stage in the future.
To people who would demand the banning of a harmless product just because of its name, I would say, what's next?...the burning of "dangerous" books? I thought we have waved goodbye to that period in history.
I have made myself clear enough. Concerned people should condemn unreservedly trade names and songs whose anti-drug message is confessedly "ambiguous" and far-fetched. Including them in a list of other popular songs with a clear anti-drug message is insidiously subversive.
I suspect that the employers of people in this fashion are too cheap to take on appropriate shysters, who could have advised them of the state of the law, in between faciltating pedophilia and drug dealing, of course.
As always, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and, in this context, confirms how little respect there is for the rule of law in this country.
Not if there is an underlying anti- message
These are all anti-drug songs. A few not overtly so - especially Heroin by Velvet Underground. This one narrates the story of a user and the consequences. These are all hugely popular songs that hit a nerve with young people. Go have a look at the lyrics.
The Pusher - Steppenwolf
The drugs don't work - The Verve
Heroin - Velvet Underground
The Needle and the Damage Done - Neil Young
Cold Turkey - John Lennon
Mr. Brownstone - Guns N' Roses
Salvation - The Cranberries
Cocaine, drink and song, carry a subliminal advertisment that minimises the danger of cocaine as a drug of abuse.
Don't shoot the messenger... take the matter up with Eric Clapton.
On a more serious note, though, yes, music and any other art form do make people reflect on life since all art forms are an expression of what people think and feel.
So, according to Clapton, the song "Cocaine" is "ambiguous" and requires "reflection" and "study" "from a distance" before one realizes that it is actually an anti-cocaine song.
I do not believe that very many of its average listeners actually do retire to meditate, to reflect, to study and search diligently for this elusive "anti-cocaine" message and if any do make that discovery!
This is what he had to say about it: “It’s no good to write a deliberate anti-drug song and hope that it will catch. Because the general thing is: people will be upset. It would disturb them to have someone else shoving something down their throat. So the best thing to do is offer something that seems ambiguous--that on study or on reflection actually can be seen to be ‘anti’--which the song “Cocaine” is actually an anti-cocaine song. If you study it or look at it with a little bit of thought... from a distance... or as it goes by… it just sounds like a song about cocaine. But in actual fact, it is quite cleverly anti-cocaine.” (The Best of Everything Show, with Dan Neer)
Later, Clapton added the lyrics 'that dirty cocaine' in live shows to underline the anti-drug message of the song. Clapton has also commented:
“…that’s an anti-drug-song. The fans only listen to the refrain: ‘She don’t lie, she don’t lie, cocaine.’ It’s sad how young people destroy themselves with drugs. (Stern magazine, Germany, 1998)
Victoria has asked whether Sedqa and or Caritas took a public position on the COCAINE drink. I found out that Sedqa did take a position but i could not find any public position by Caritas.
On June 19 - the day when i wrote my blog - timesofmalta.com had a story in the afternoon.
"Sedqa complains about energy drink called Cocaine
According to this report Sedqa has complained bitterly about the advertising and sale of an energy drink with the name Cocaine.
“To have a product named Cocaine advertised and sold to young people is an act of irresponsibility which creates confusion and conflicting messages for youths,” Jean Claude Cardona, Sedqa operations director said."
I am sure that Caritas shares the same sentiments so a public statement in this regard would be appreciated by many.
Victoria: True, true but then again I think morality is relative so I don't feel the urge to beef it up :P . Focus has been shifted though ;) I did beef it up a little in my last message but I just got home and I'm starving.....maybe next time :P
Workers basic rights should not be curtailed by exploiters and profiteers, and no worker should ever have to endure a deterioration of their working conditions.
It's bad enough having young people employed for a probationary period for an endless amount of time, this is also further exploitation.
I agree with Victoria, the ETC should be more aware of what is going on and together with all the unions voice their concern that workers should not be exploited in any way.
Although this is suppose to be legal, finding loopholes in the law should not be justification in capitalising on workers basic rights. It's just seems so wrong.
I sincerely hope that the unions won't let this rest untill a solution is found.
This is part of ETC's Mission Statement
Social Commitment: The ETC must reflect the specific employment concerns of the citizens, be they registered unemployed, the long-term unemployed, risk category workers, employees wanting to develop their skills and the self-employed. The ETC is guided by the principle of equity and the promotion of environmental awareness.
More here: http://www.etc.gov.mt/site/page.aspx?pageid=2001
Of course, I am by no means implying that ETC are in cahoots with the employers but as an organisation that safeguards the employee, ETC should make its voice heard about this matter.
Let me put my two cents' worth about the first part of the blog.
I do not know the exact status of this organisation so I stand to be corrected: but can't the ETC (Employment & Training Corporation) see to these abuses?
Perhaps pimping is a lesser evil than cocaine *grinZ*
Did Sedqa and Caritas (two agencies that work with people with drug problems) issue a statement? A joint (no pun intended absolutely) statement would show a force of unity.
This product should be banned advertising not on the grounds of illegality but on the grounds of immorality. We all know that law is not equivalent to morality. The law is an ass as Dickens rightly said.
Shame on Where's Everybody for allowing an advert of this product to run during the airtime alloted their programme? Where's their social conscience? What about those programmes you aired about the drug problems in this country? Put your money where your mouth is. It's called integrity. Or are we to think that there are no ethics in business?
http://www.drinkcocaine.com/fda.htm
".......unethical deeds (that) emerge from powerful people who boast of and preach their Christian heritage and beliefs........instead of setting a good example ......do their level best to enable paedophiles and drug taffickers to roam the streets...."
Luke Chapter 18 Verses 9 - 14.
Why worry about that energy-drink COCAINE? Let the young people get every more used to that word and let them tell each other that the previous night they had Cocaine!!!!! After all, there is Sedqa agency to pick up the pieces, no?
This is similar to peppering our country with gaming shops: along the short way from my place of work to home, I count eight such shops! A few of them are close to churches and schools! And I say, let them open more such shops - at the end of the tunnel, there is Sedqa to manage those people who get hooked to such games!
If there was one thing that Mintoff did with which I was always in agreement with, it was the barring of Maltese nationals from the one and only Casino' we had in Malta. His intention was a social one.
Of course, today, this is impossible, with online gaming etc... One can also say that since there is online gaming, let these gaming shops open as much as they want - but it's one thing to have to use the Internet, and another to just pop into your shop next door.
If the same yard stick should be applied, than Cocaine is to be banned. I do hope that under the name of 'free market' these things don't become a norm.
The presence of caffeine (an uncontrolled dug found in tea and coffee) would produce a weaker stimulant effect which could further deceive its users into beleiving that they are actually taking cocaine as suggested by the drink's name.
Its simply a matter of bad taste!
With regards to the energy drink bit.... Common street names for the drug cocaine are coke and coca amongst other. Should we ban coca-cola advertising too? I think people are not stupid...they can make the distinction between an illegal drug and an energy drink...irrelevant of their age!
This drink (cocaine) is full of caffeine, which makes it a very unhealthy...but so is coffee; its full of sugar...but so is candy; it contains taurine....but so does Red Bull and no one's complaining.
Dr Sailiba mentioned misleading advertising presumably referring to the writing on the can saying: "the legal alternative". That probably is because its producers claim that Cocaine (the drink) gives you an instant rush without a crash....and it does.
All one can say is that the name chosen for this drink is in bad taste and the least they can do is change it!