Saturday, 2nd January 2010
CLARIFY PLEASE
Would the six NGOs who feel hard done-by because their own tactics have been used against them please clarify what they’re on about? I only ask because on a significant number of occasions, I, both in this guise and wearing my Beck hat, have been accused of denying people their right to have an opinion, simply because I have an opinion about their opinion and I express it.
So I think I can be forgiven for wondering whether I’m one of the nasty people who harass the poor dears who make up these NGOs.
Am I, for daring not to kow-tow to the (some of whom are only so-called) pro-environmentalists, in breach of the Aarhus Convention too? Am I going to be dragged before some sort of administrative tribunal, accused of lese majeste’ because I am critical of some of the positions taken and the methods used by some of the NGOs or their component members?
It’s also necessary for the NGOs to clarify what they’re implying vis-à-vis MEPA.
I hold no brief for this august institution, which can stick up for itself quite adequately, but it’s concerning that the NGOs are whining about the fruits of MEPA’s transparency in making available so much information on-line.
What is this, double standards or something? Is it OK to use MEPA’s web-site to dig up stuff on Victor Scerri or some other politician, but not OK for the same information to be accessed by people like Dr Scerri? Is it only legitimate for the NGOs to have an opinion or to use facts as they want to use them?
To take the NGOs’ whine at face value, it is not equally legitimate for us, in the blogosphere or merely as members of the commentariat, to have an opinion of our own or seek to use facts as we please.
It’s fine if you agree with Ms Vella or the other newly canonised members of the new religion, you can screech and wail and obstruct all you like. But woe betide you if you dare raise your head above the parapet and venture the thought that maybe all is not as black and white as all that.
Cast your minds back to the St John’s Project.
I, whether in my Beck column or this blog I do not recall, had said simply that – just maybe – it would have been appropriate to wait and see what the relevant experts had to say about the project before stamping our little, elegantly-shod, feet and demanding that the whole thing be moth-balled, otherwise we’ll hold our breath and go all red in the face, so there.
I had not advocated that the project goes ahead willy-nilly, or even ventured any thoughts about the appropriateness or otherwise of the thing. I didn’t know enough then to have an opinion – in fact, I don’t even know enough now, because the net effect of Astrid Vella’s obstreperousness combined with spoilt back-benchers and political opportunists to ensure that the project was still-born.
Some genius, meanwhile, had found out that I sometimes offer professional services to the people who run St John’s – not in any area connected with the project, of course, but the aforementioned genius managed to turn this irrelevant fact into a hue and cry about my objectivity and, consequently, fitness to comment.
You see how these people argue? They are always right, anyone who does not agree with them completely and utterly and unquestioningly is always wrong, and there’s an end to it. If you argue that facts should be examined by experts, you’re told that the experts are venal or biased or whatever.
That’s unless they’re the NGOs’ experts, of course, in which case they’re imbued with scriptural qualities and their words are writ in gold. And you’re also informed, generally in the same breath, that MEPA is working overtime to discredit the NGOs, as if they don’t do a good enough job on their own with the hysteria they employ.
Come on people, we need NGOs that act as watchdogs and keep developers on the straight and narrow, but this constant bitchin’ and moaning that the everyone is out to get you all the time is getting a bit tedious.
RSS
Comments
I wonder who is putting in what is coming out from the pen of some Gonzipn apologists!
"It would be interesting to see what comes out of it."
What will come out of it will be what you have put in.
Nature Trust was referring to recent events involving leading activists working within environmental and animal rights NGOs “simply because they were exercising their personal and social rights to raise concern on environmental issues.”
In today’s age the right to freedom of expression has become fundamental, and that therefore the unassailable right of NGOs to voice any concerns without fear of reprisal should be respected, especially since Malta has for more than two decades been a party to the European Convention on Fundamental Human Rights.
After_making a big step forward with the setting up of the Commission for Voluntary Organisations, civil society is now taking two steps back. The reason is mainly the hostile environment which other sectors of society are creating for NGOs. Considering that among the Commission's intended aims have been the fostering of NGO development and the strengthening of civil society in these Islands.
I can't wait to see what your beloved Party's and your relationship with Astrid would be like when your Joseph finds himself at Castille and she tries to pull the same stunt(s) as she is at present! Of course, the chance of such things happening will be somewhat slim since she cannot hold hands with Joseph and at the same time hit him on his head.
@ Adrian Borg Cardona
How come your comments, provocative as they invariably are, seem to be OK with you but when someone has different opinions you term them as " blue tinged venom"?
Did FAA do any favours to St.John's Foundation or Dr. Scerri (or the government) by, in the first instance denying the public of a professional independent opinion (EIA), and in the second case by going into hysteria, describing excavations ordered by MEPA for a water cistern as a 'quarry'?
FAA will do well as an NGO, to state its position and back off. It should not assume the stance of a decision maker or that it speaks for the majority.
Here’s another ostrich who couldn’t keep quiet with his head deeply submerged in the sand . He opens his gobble box only to protect Gonzipn and its Mepa not our environment. Please continue doing what you’re very good at and ignore him,he’s not worth your time either.
@ Joe ZL:Further to my comment below,I would ask you to consider that your expression "whipping up hysteria to achieve their aims"can be mistaken for the "mob rule" accusations levelled for the sole aim of silencing the slightest murmur of dissent.
It is true that in the St John's case we immediately went into high gear for the reason that we only discovered the project when it was quite advanced.It been slipped past the public by applying for it immediately before the elections,and the correspondence to MEPA constantly stressed the need to fast-track the project,one application being vetted in an incredible 19 days,when some minor ones can take two years!
In spite of this, all the information we issued was gained from the MEPA files,research from experts on St John's like Dane Munro, and consultants.
Our campaign was run mainly through the staid pages of the Times,anything but a hawker of hysteria and official online objections to MEPA.No protests were held,no marches were called.As you were not present on the Island at the time, I don't know how you can judge a campaign as hysterical when it was signed by countless academics and lawyers; hardly hysterical types!
Oh Martinelli, this is a beaut! Of course we took up the St Angelo case, repeating ad nauseaum that it, and not the St John's underground museum, was a national priority.
We provided the material for a Times double-page spread on the deterioration of St Angelo this Spring and issued a press release about the scandalous state of deterioration of the fortress on the 27th of September, when the news of its dangerous state and closure was made public; you can read it here:http://www.faa.org.mt/heritage_priorities
St. Angelo was also one of the main subjects of the Environment Forum we organised on the 12th of December. We also wanted to take a further initiative on the matter,a strictly non-partisan one, bringing together the main stakeholders and the public,but the Government asked us not to. You will have to ask your buddies why. As we are not in this business to gratuitously embarrass people, we dropped our plans even though we feel there is a dire need for the public to share the responsibility for its heritage. So we respected this request and now get scolded by you. It really is a case whatever we do is wrong, isn't it?
Astrid Vella. I don't think you are feeling very happy with the flattery being heaped upon you, mostly coming from the PL 'Lil'Elves' brigade.
How interesting! Then why did FAA not pick up Fort St. Angelo's cause with the same vigour as it did with the St. John and Bahrija cases?
Never mind ... I feel bad for these NGOs that are trying to knock some sense but clearly even respected individuals like yourself ABC cant help but recognise your bread's best buttered side. Your "obstreperous" (I had to use this new word ... golly-gosh you have really outdone yerself here!) behaviour vis-a-vis NGOs is totally uncalled for.
I concur with other commentators here ... these gents aint worth the trouble.
A month ago I was taking out a friends dog we were dogsitting while they were abroad and being the enterprising lazy maltese through-and-through person that I am I walked it to a huge fig tree over a dump of stones and garbage next to a WWII pill box (clearly suffering from willfull neglect) to avoid having to clean up after it. BTW a stones throw away are Knights and late medieval era structures consisting a lovely farmhouse, Castle and stables.
There hidden under the tree attached to the WWII pill box was one of those MEPA green forms that people have been sticking up in PROMINENT points for all to see that yet more flats will be built.
I checked online and incredibly there are listed for 09 just a handfull of applications for Marsaskala but not this one. Give us a break ...
JoeZL: "Legitimate projects" is a relative term.In the countries you are used to,it has relevance.Here projects born illegitimately struggle to gain legitimacy.
Both the St. John's and the Bahrija projects shared such beginnings.As AdrianBorgCardona said, the Bahrija permits were issued going against rules, regulations,policies and professional advice.In the case of St. John's the case was being rushed through with no public consultation.The irregularities peaked with the EU funding being allotted before a permit was granted in violation of all procedure.The technical studies proposed to find cracks in rocks 4stories down,were the very same studies that failed to detect tunnels just one metre below St George's Square.
The Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) was already illegitimised by the St John's Foundation's declaration that it would not consider any other site,an essential element of any EIA.You may also not be aware of the fact that EIAs in Malta have lost all credibility as, being paid by the developer they never recommend against a development project.Moreover this was declared "A non-starter" by MEPA itself.
However more important than EIAs was the expenditure.Who can justify spending 16million euros on Malta's richest museum when St Angelo is collapsing for want of 2.5million euros?
Regarding the so-called ‘mishandled file’, MEPA has denied your allegations and, as the one making them, it's up to you to offer proof and explain how you’ve been damaged by the employee viewing your file. Sorry but your “it makes you think, doesn’t it?” isn't enough. You need to do much better than that since you’re actually claiming that an international convention has been broken by MEPA.
The same goes for what you refer to as ‘lies’ said about you on television. You need to list them, making very sure that you're quoting correctly, and then rebut them. Let's not forget that you yourself have been taken to court by someone else.
It's only to be expected that those whom you single out for demonisation react, occasionally repaying you with your own currency. At that point, making bombastic claims that the Aarhus Convention has been violated is, frankly, ridiculous.
Lino Bugeja’s “purchase of half a tomna of an agricultural field 40 years ago in no way indicates any attempt on his part to develop it, as was alleged on public service television recently...At no point did Ms Vella or members of her family apply for a pool or house in fields or on virgin land, as is being claimed.” What part of this do you not understand?
Antoine, thanks for your kind offer to teach me logic and the provisions of the Aarhus Convention, but judging from your writings, I think that as Charles Buttigieg said, I will be wasting my time.
Far from being angry that our statement is being challenged, I have loads of patience for genuine enquiries.Less so for those who are disingenuous.Any information in a file can be twisted or taken advantage of by those who have some agenda.And no, I did not bother with Ms Debono but went straight to the MEPA Chairman who had absolutely no plausible explanation of why my file should have been in Ms Debono’s hands.The point, as you well know, is not my application for a small swimming pool, but the mis-handling of files in principle.
Let me see if I follow your reasoning
a) Your file was accessed by a certain MEPA official.
b) Someone told lies about you on television.
How does b) follow a) ? You need to be more specific.
What sort of terribly sensitive, confidential documents could there possibly be in an application for a swimming pool? Before launching your accusations, did you talk to the MEPA official to see why they had the file? What exactly were the lies said about you (during the Xarabank programme you refused to participate in, I assume)? The answers to these and other questions should have formed the main body of your press release in order for it to be credible.
You must feel very angry that your statement is being challenged like this but, really, I’m trying to get you to use method and logic rather than wildly exaggerated claims of broken international conventions. Environmentalism is not a toy.
Re my file,this was traced by the MEPA receptionists,before many witnesses and finally found in the possession of the MEPA ex-PRO where I picked it up.
Of course you would downplay the significance of this;sadly that attitude explains why ethics in public service have deteriorated.Accessing a document in the course of working on it is perfectly in accordance with normal practice.But the MEPA authority needs to explain why one of its officials accessed a case that has been dead for 11years.This is clearly in breach of accepted procedure,and the public expects an explanation from MEPA.
I repeat,as you don’t seem to have understood it the first time,the harassment element involves the lies that were repeatedly publicised on public service television.
As for your conclusion,having met you I find it sad that a person of your supposed stature descends to level of personal insults when you run out of reasoned arguments,just like a common playground bully.
an officer digging up a file in the "normal" course of his duties is one thing
but doing that to feed his political masters' spin is another thing....elementary my dear Watson!
as to your comments about Astrid......I just wonder what you did towards the protection of our environment compared to Astrid's sterling work.
And by the way we are not speaking about someone paid by government out of taxpayers funds - but simply about individuals with a sense of altruism who thanklessly work and dedicate their precious time voluntarily.
As for ABC.....seems there were no NY resolutions to start off by being objective when someone takes a stand to get this government in line!
The sentence of the press release you quote is what the Latins call a non sequitur. The first part deals with information given by MEPA to the public while the second says - without providing proof - that information was available to a MEPA employee but not, apparently, to the public.
So, what is this harassment you're talking about? A MEPA file was traced (by whom?) and found to be in one of MEPA's offices. You claim that a particular officer had no "legitimate reason" to view the file but that's hardly up to you to decide, is it? Whether this officer criticises you or anybody else is irrelevant and, yes, this whole affair makes me think: It makes me think you're paranoid and desperate to be seen as a martyr.
I'm sorry but some things have to be said: you have reduced environmental activism to nothing more than theatrical posturing.
Our own tactics???----Our/OWN/tactics????----Eh?????-----What????----I-do-beg-your-pardon,
NGO's "tactics" are not to defame or libel or "dig-up- tuff" on people (or-screech-and-wail-for-that-matter).------NGO's object to projects or developments which are against the interests of our country to put it mildly. Yes---NGO's object to exploitation and architectural vandalism of all kinds which are detrimental to our country. Most people are on our side and NGO's have saved Malta from a number of developments which would have been disastrous.
On the other hand,(ad in plain-straightforward (& not flowery & roundabout))language, Scerri et al dug up two items to build up a false case against AV and LB which had no basis whatsoever in fact. And it bounced back in their face. And you feel sorry for them?
What is under discussion is not a matter of opinion. On the one hand NGO strive for protection of our heritage/countryside from commercial predators and, on the other, we have a case of a permit granted to an illegal development. The response to the NGOs was the "tactic" of disgusting malicious attempts to orchestrate with the object of discrediting two people (and others) whose intentions were 100% honorable. .
Big, big difference, old boy….NO?
G
Here is the original text for your enlightenment: "The six NGOs also deplore the fact that, while MEPA is usually very careful about what information is disclosed to the public,Ms Vella’s file has been traced to persons at MEPA who had no legitimate reason to be viewing it or,more seriously, retaining it."
I remind you that MEPA files contain far more than what is shown on the website, including sensitive information, therefore access to these files is a very serious matter.The fact of my file, which is completely dead, being found in the hands of the greatest critic of NGOs inside MEPA makes one think, doesn't it?
As for Aarhus, we are protesting about lies about NGO activists being publicized on public service television, even on the news. I'm sure that even someone like you would not condone such practices.
I am quite sure the irony of it all escapes you. You are accusing MEPA of violating the Aarhus Convention by disclosing information to the public. Have you actually read the convention's text? It is about the public's right to obtain information from authorities like MEPA.
Since my application has been dead for eleven years, with no reconsideration or appeal pending,don't you wonder why my file was in the possession of the MEPA ex-Pro,the very person know for crossing swords with our NGO in the past.
Oh,probably she was researching how the Case Officer refused my pool on an existing terrace on the grounds that it would block the dams (wot dams?) in Xaghra valley, impede the dredging of said valley and limit its horse-riding potential.The report is one of the most amusing pieces of fiction I've read in a long time,real comic relief!
As for the St John's EIA,you talk of tediousness,surely you've flogged that one to death? I know it will make no difference to you but the MEPA Auditor has stated that in all his years,he has never read a report paid by a developer that recommended against the development.
As for MEPA’s so-called transparency - you try to trace a dead eleven-year old application without the details known only to MEPA and the applicant. Don’t bother, it’s nigh on impossible. Yet strangely enough, all the details of my application were published and still, the Scerri camp managed to get it wrong, announcing on public service TV that I had applied to build a house in ODZ. Sure everyone can have access to information,I have made my application even more public than MEPA did,but no, if your “use facts as they want to use them” includes twisting them, you,as a lawyer, know that’s not on.Of course we researched the Bahrija applications,we would have been pretty unprofessional if we hadn't. That’s why nothing we said has been incorrect or fabricated; that's the difference between the two parties in this case.