Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1002137
24 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 8 JULY 2018 OPINION I was reluctant to wade into the mini-controversy surrounding Paloma Faith's refusal to give an interview to One TV last month. For one thing, her reasons re- main vague and obscure to this day. It was initially reported that the artist had 'conducted back- ground checks'; and that her agents told the journalist that her objections stemmed from One TV's ownership structure and political affiliations. This may well be the case – that the agents said that, I mean – but it could just as easily have been an excuse to cancel an already-arranged interview at the 11th hour. It's hard to say with any certainty, because Paloma Faith herself was asked for an explanation at the 'Isle of MTV' press conference... but MTV officials prevented her from answering (against her will, it seems). Meanwhile, there are other reasons to doubt the official version of events. Paloma Faith is known to be very politically outspoken – mostly on feminist issues – and as a small child she had been taken (in a pushchair) to anti-Thatcher protests in the 1980s. Recently, she appeared on stage with The Guardian's ultra- leftwing columnist Owen Jones, who addressed the audience "on everything from social injustice to the NHS and the tendency of the right to blame problems on immigration." This places her very clearly on the left of the political spectrum; thereby raising the question of why a leftwing, feminist celebrity would boycott a left-leaning political station, affiliated with a political party that (whatever its other faults) has consistently been at the forefront of women's emancipation in Malta: from the right to vote in the 1940s, down to the recent Gender Equality legislation implemented earlier this year. In any case: the simple truth is that we don't know why Paloma Faith turned down that inter- view. Let's face it: she might have broken a nail, or been having a bad-hair day, or – who the heck knows? – she may have simply been resting her voice for the show. (It has to 'go on', remember?). But this, naturally, also means that everyone and his dog felt compelled to fill the void with 'explanations' of their own (aired, as always, with the supreme conviction of a high court judge). In the days that followed, we were variously informed that: a) It was because of Daphne Caruana Galizia's murder, and the widespread suspicion (fanned endlessly by interna- tional media) that the Labour government was somehow behind it; b) It was because of the Pan- ama Papers scandal: i.e., Faith refused to associate in any way with a political party that had defended ministers and officials revealed to have held undeclared overseas accounts; c) It was a principled objection to the idea that political parties are allowed to have radio and television stations to begin with; d) It was a logistical screw-up that the organisers tried to patch up as best as they could. (Note: That, roughly, was what 'everyone' had to say on the subject. 'Everyone's dog', on the other hand, limited its observa- tions only to 'woof, woof'. I need hardly add that – as always – the dog makes much more sense: if you don't know the answer to a question, even a meaningless bark is preferable to wild con- jecture and fanciful conspiracy theories.) For what's it's worth – and trust me, it's worth nothing at all – I consider scenarios (a) and (b), to be vaguely plausible (or at least, consistent with Paloma Faith's general political outlook); while scenario (d) looks by far the likeliest. That leaves us with 'political ownership of the media' – a serious issue that has plagued Malta's media land- scape for over two decades, and to which people like myself have objected for just as long... …but which I can't imagine would even remotely interest international artists like Paloma Faith, however 'political' their music may be. To be outspoken about political issues, as a ce- lebrity, is one thing; but to dive so deeply into the nitty-gritty of a country's (highly sui generis) political set-up... and even then, only one small aspect of it... that strikes me as pushing the boundaries of conjecture too far. Meanwhile, there is another possibility that no one (that I have seen, anyway) seems to have even considered thus far. Among the international issues raised by Faith in recent years has been mistreatment of migrants and refugees. This year's 'Isle of MTV' took place against the backdrop of repeated stand-offs between Italy and Malta over the fate of hundreds of asylum seekers rescued while crossing the Mediterranean. Just two weeks before the concert, Malta had refused to take in over 200 rescued passengers on board the Aquarius. That, to me, seems an entirely valid reason for a vocal human rights activist to boycott any- thing affiliated with a govern- ment that routinely adopts such hard-line anti-immigration stances. Still, however, it remains conjecture, nothing more. And besides, I think we've already wasted far too much time on this non-event as things stand. And yet, like all such non- events, it does tell us something small about the political set-up that caused all this speculation in the first place. From where I'm sitting, the entire Paloma Faith interlude comes across as a microcosm of the absurdly bipolar nature of Maltese poli- tics in its totality. It spells out an instantly recognisable pattern: something happens; we don't know exactly what, why or how; everybody shoots off an opinion or theory... and lo and behold: invariably, without fail, the theo- ry in question turns out to be an externalisation of the theorist's own political prejudices. It will not surprise any of you to discover that the 'Daphne murder/Panama Papers' hy- potheses were aired exclusively by the same people who now use social media as a permanent platform for their own anti- Labour bias... the 'good govern- ance' brigade, who only ever recognise 'rotten governance' when it comes from 'the other party' (even though we experi- enced 25 years of it under when the shoe was on the other foot... and not a squeak from any of them). Or, conversely, that those who hurled insults at Paloma Faith belong to an online clan of zealous (and equally prejudiced) pro-Labour apologists. Nor should it surprise you – though it might – that the likeliest political objection (our dismal record of dealing with immigration issues) was in- stantly discarded by both sides. Neither party can claim the moral high ground on that front: today's Labour government is merely continuing its predeces- sors' policies, going back some 15 years or more. And the recent stand-offs were in themselves repeat performances of almost identical disputes – 'resolved' in almost identical ways – under successive Nationalist adminis- trations. In a nutshell, both sides are altogether too guilty of human rights violations to even dare point a finger at the other; and in any case: 'sticking up for immigrants' does not exactly translate into a bonanza of instant political brownie points... in a country which talks about 'immigrants' and 'jellyfish' as if the words were interchangeable. This, too, is part of the pattern. If there are no political points to be scored by using a particular argument, or making a Raphael Vassallo Faith? No more...