Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1075590
18 maltatoday EXECUTIVE EDITOR Matthew Vella MANAGING EDITOR Saviour Balzan Letters to the Editor, MaltaToday, Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016 E-mail: dailynews@mediatoday.com.mt Letters must be concise, no pen names accepted, include full name and address maltatoday | SUNDAY • 27 JANUARY 2019 28 January 2009 Gonzi spikes Muscat's motion Lawrence Gonzi yesterday tabled a procedural motion to change parliament's timetable for the first time in 30 years, in a bid to buy time ahead of a private motion by Joseph Muscat to stop EU funds for the extension of St John's Co- Cathedral. The procedural motion comes after a ruling by the Speaker of the House on Monday, against the Opposition's request to adjourn the House on Thursday, and debate Muscat's motion. Muscat's motion calls on government to re- voke its backing for the Cathedral project, which has €14 million in EU funds approved by the Planning and Priorities Coordination Division (PPCD) of the Office of the Prime Minister. The motion notes the presence of Malta's Permanent Representative to the EU, Richard Cachia Caru- ana, as one of the members of the Co-Cathedral Foundation, "which presence – in the absence of a clear indication of the government priorities for the use of EU funds – creates a conflict of inter- est". But Gonzi also has to contend with the fact that PN backbencher Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando has spoken very strongly against the extension of the Cathedral to house its armoury in an under- ground vault, having even called on government to divert the funds to more deserving initiatives. Pullicino Orlando has refused to declare his vot- ing intentions on the motion tabled by Muscat. Muscat's motion and Gonzi's strategy were in fact discussed yesterday during a PN parliamen- tary group meeting. Gonzi's motion seeks to change the time- table of the House, so that when a division (a vote) is called, it will be taken on the following Wednesday. That way, government – which has a one-seat majority – can ensure it will have all its members present for the vote. The new motion says changes to the timetable are needed because ministers and MPs occasion- ally need to be away on official business, and no pairing agreement yet exists between the two sides. Government Whip David Agius said that ministers and MPs were often occupied with EU business and that they have a duty to attend EU and other international fora. He said the changes were needed so that the House could function effectively in the absence of a pairing arrangement – eight months after parliament opened. The PN accused Labour of hindering the efficient running of the House. But Joseph Muscat has already stated that an agreement on pairing is unlikely. Opposition whip Joe Mizzi said Labour's re- quest to discuss the motion on Thursday came from House standing order 8. Mizzi said that if the government wanted the House to meet on Tuesday and Wednesday, it was the Opposition's right to meet on Thursday, which is usually left to the Opposition. But the Speaker turned down the request. MaltaToday 10 years ago Quote of the Week The Halal Hullaballoo Editorial ''People once feared the onset of the computer: you must always accept progress.'' Corinthia Chairman Alfred Pisani on how the public should view the inevitability of his six-star project for St George's Bay COMMENTS made by Imam Muhammed El Sadi in a recent TVM interview seem to have once again provoked a social media furore. The Imam was asked specifically about his views on the Islamic, scriptural tradition of 'halal' meat: a method of slaughter that uses a well-sharpened knife to slit the animal's jugu- lar vein, so that the blood drains fully before the meat is cut. The head of the slaughtered animal is made to face the direction of Mecca. A prayer is usually uttered during the ritual. In its strictest form, the halal method requires the animal to be conscious at the moment of slaughter. There are other rules which are not always observed, such as the animal not being slaughtered in the presence of other animals. Being both a Muslim and the spiritual leader of Malta's Islamic community, it is only natural that El Sadi would defend this practice, which many people – raised in dif- ferent cultures – may find abhorrent or repul- sive. So far, so good. Yet when the Imam also revealed that he had submitted a request to government for the halal ritual being allowed to be practised in Malta, all hell broke loose. The request was interpreted as an attempt to 'impose' Islamic culture onto Catholic Malta; and for a brief (but ironic) moment, the same people who once organised a public 'maj- jalata' to protest against Islamic influence, joined forces with vegetarians and animal rights activists to express outrage at the halal proposal. Without unduly trivialising the underlying issue – for there are valid arguments on both sides – it can be seen at a glance that many of the more populist objections have little, if anything, to do with the animal rights aspect of the controversy. It is admittedly difficult to justify the slaughter of any animal under con- ditions many would consider 'primitive'. But it is no easier to defend the 'civilised' practice of battery chicken farms, or the transporta- tion of live animals, or the treatment of cows on dairy farms… or even the regulated, State- sanctioned slaughter that takes place, under supervised conditions, at the national abat- toir. We can point towards the practice of 'stun- ning' an animal, to minimise physical pain, as an insurance policy against charges of animal cruelty, or even to assuage our own guilt. But while it is possibly 'kinder' to stun an animal before slaughtering it… we cannot escape the natural, inherent cruelty of the act in itself. Still – as it turns out, the halal ritual is already allowed inside the national abat- toir for a select amount of animals, only that the animal is first stunned and then finally slaughtered; the Imam says a certain segment of Malta's Muslims want the animal to be slaughtered without being stunned. Reducing the pain as much as possible is a noble pursuit; but unless we can also elimi- nate the trauma faced by an animal as it is led to the slaughter, we can never really talk about a 'kind' way to kill. This, on its own, is reason enough for many millions of people around the world to be- come vegetarians (regardless of any religious or cultural influence). But if that is the con- cern underpinning public reactions to the Imam's comments… it applies just as much to all forms of meat, bought and sold at all butchers or supermarkets. It is certainly not exclusive to the 'halal' or 'kosher' method. On a more practical level, the response seems to ignore the established reality that halal slaughter is already practised in Malta, and has been for years. It may surprise many of the objectors to discover that they them- selves might often unwittingly consume halal meat when they order kebabs from a Turkish kebab house (of which there is no shortage in Malta at the moment). There are even Islamic butchers who openly advertise halal meat. Clearly, then, the objection is not specifical- ly targeted at the practice in itself; but rather at the Imam's apparent attempt to – in the eyes of many – 'sanction' the practice through legal channels. This initiative, it seems, was received as the 'thin end of the wedge': or to paraphrase one online comment out of sev- eral: If it's halal today, it will be polygamy and the public execution of adulteresses/apostates tomorrow. It is unfortunate that local discussion al- ways veers so far to the extremes of any issue. For one thing, not all the practices/traditions observed in different Muslim countries arise directly out of Islam in itself. Halal is one that does, as it stems from verses in the Koran; po- lygamy, on the other hand, is both a cultural and scriptural phenomenon. In any case, all such customs and practices vary from region to region of the Islamic world. And anyway, what concerns the slaughter of animals does not necessarily lead to a discus- sion of human values or practices. It bears mentioning also that halal slaughter is already sanctioned – with varying restric- tions – in several EU member states. One might agree or disagree; but the Imam's re- quest, in itself, is nothing unusual by Europe- an standards. Nor is it in any way unhealthy to have a national discussion on such issues; on the contrary, it is to be expected. At the end of the day, there is an additional irony involved here: it is precisely because the European Union – whose values we believe we share – permits and encourages freedom of religion, that the Imam was free to make his request in the first place. European values demand that such requests be treated seri- ously. To date, however, there has been far more misplaced hysteria and furore than serious- ness in the 'halal' hullaballoo.