Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1436880
the basis of corruption. In a nutshell, the core argu- ment now appears to be that the Electrogas contract should be 'rescinded' altogether… and also, that the EU should (for the same reason) renege on its existing commitment to pro- vide €200 million in funding for the €400m gas pipeline. And, well… this is where the 1992 analogy becomes all the more poignant. Then as now (even if, iron- ically, the Opposition has changed from Labour to PN in the meantime), the arguments against Malta's energy strategy are all still essentially 'ideologi- cal' – as opposed to 'pragmatic' – in nature. In the 1990s, they were fuelled by (real or contrived) 'environ- mental' concerns; today, they are the result of an aversion to corruption and maladministra- tion. Both are, of course, entirely understandable – praisewor- thy, even – considerations; but… well, do I even need to continue? The problem is that neither approach actually an- swers that same all-important question, regarding whether – after all these 'lofty ideals' have faded far into the background – we will even be left with any form of power-generating ca- pability … AT ALL. For let's face it: if Malta really does end up losing those €200 million in funding for the new pipeline… it would happen at a time when the government is already committed to 'ab- sorbing' next year's anticipated electricity price increases: to the tune (as specified by Fi- nance Minister Clyde Caruana, in last month's budget speech) of '1.8% of GDP', or €196 mil- lion, which is just about half the money we would suddenly have to fork out for ourselves (and from where, I wonder?) to ensure that we even have the infrastructure in place, just to be able to import any natural gas. To say that this would 'mess up' government's plans to absorb the impending price- hikes, would be the under- statement of the century. Under those circumstances, government would have no option whatsoever but to pass on those expenses directly to the consumer, in the form of sky-rocketing energy tariffs…. … but in the longer term, it would seriously jeopardize our country's capability to even guarantee a permanent, relia- ble power-supply of any kind whatsoever: even if we contin- ue to rely on natural gas for the foreseeable future… still less, if (or when) we are sooner or later forced to transition to hy- drogen, at our own cost. In a nutshell: if this strategy is successful, we would be driven all the way back the same 'Dark Ages' that we all thought – however erroneously – we had left behind in distant 1987. And, well, I don't know about you… but that's a pretty high price to pay, to assuage our na- tional conscience for a single corruption scandal: especially considering that it will be the entire country (and certainly not just Konrad Mizzi and Yor- gen Fenech) who will end up actually paying it... THE truth is that, in an ideal world, no one, no minister, no government or opposition should feel the need to erect a legal buff- er against hate. But reality says otherwise, particularly in the digital age when social media has become a painful source of utter hatred in all its forms, shades and tones. It was with all this in mind in Parliament last Tuesday that I forwarded for discussion on the second reading of a legal amend- ment to the Criminal Law. The time had come for resolute action to stop hate crime against persons with a disability and the el- derly, either individually or as a group. Incredibly, the current criminal law does not consider such abhorrent acts as being criminal, hence the need for this amend- ment and a robust message of zero toler- ance sent to the kind and caring society we all aspire – or pretend? – to belong to. It is indeed distressing to note that from research carried out in Europe, over the last five years 50% of persons with disabilities had reported to authori- ties being harassed, with 37% of persons in other categories also reporting harassment. I did not mince my words in the House, nor will I in the press: the revised law provides us with a special moment in time which will eventu- ally distinguish the men and women from the hypocrites. It never was and will never be accept- able for a person with a disability to be subjected to intimidation, assault or ridicule because of their disabil- ity. There is no place for compromise or exception. Persons with a disability, their families, their voluntary organisations and all our State agencies expect nothing less from us. That we were among many other Euro- pean nations that had not included this buffer in criminal laws was no justification. We have now acted to fill the pitiful void that existed and which, inconceivably, still exists in the European law. The police are now free to take action over such abuses against persons with a disability and the el- derly, bringing to an end the frustration at having been rendered helpless on so many previous occasions. The two changes to the law leave no room for misinterpretation. Article 82A makes it a crime for someone to verbally, or in writ- ing, as well as by behaviour, insult, abuse or threaten another person out of sheer hate. Article 82C further marks as crime a per- son's attempted impression of indifference or denial, or, even worse, approval of hate action and language, whether against a sin- gle person or a group of persons with the same characteristic. While the law before these amendments offered protection to various groups within society, among them people of different re- ligious belief and ethnicity, in 2014 we made it a point to include persons with a different sexual orientation and identity. Sadly, per- sons with a disability had been overlooked. Hence this government's evident will-pow- er to introduce these and more reforms that give persons with a disability and their families the dignity and peace of mind that they thoroughly deserve. However much it hurts me personally, I purposely opted to mention particular cas- es of hate crime among us by way of high- lighting the need for these amendments to our criminal law. Like the case of Raisa who, only a few months back, was called "a hand- icap" and harmed as we stood helplessly una- ble to take any action against her aggressors. What did they tell her? That she is ugly and that she cannot even move: a person in a wheelchair after nine months in co- ma. Shameful. And the case prior to the last general election when the face of former prime minister Joseph Muscat was callously photoshopped and changed into that of a person with the Down Syndrome condition. The sad insult was obviously to our whole community of persons with a disability. More horrific examples? The sad case this year of my honourable colleague, Kevin Cutajar, who was also a victim of hate crime because of his disability and, again, we could not proceed with any action because of the law. And the case of far-rightist Nor- man Lowell who, at the peak of an electoral campaign, had sought to demonise persons with a disability and their families by heart- lessly referring to eugenics as a need in so- ciety. He said that a disabled baby can be killed even after its birth, while referring to persons with disability as people who have a defect and that should be sterilised. The State is no longer helpless, thank goodness. It has acted on the advice of all stakeholders and as a result of public con- sultations. Justice can finally intervene. 11 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 12 DECEMBER 2021 OPINION A buffer against hate Julia Farrugia Portelli Julia Farrugia Portelli is Minister for Inclusion and Social Wellbeing It never was and will never be acceptable for a person with a disability to be subjected to intimidation, assault or ridicule because of their disability