Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/664438
Opinion 21 maltatoday, SUNDAY, 10 APRIL 2016 The PN's divine right to govern Busuttil asked those present not to react to what he termed as provocation, when it was he himself that initiated this provocation Karl Popper referred to as 'The Paradox of Tolerance'. In his 1945 classic entitled The Open Society and its Enemies, one of the greatest philosophers of science of the twentieth century wrote that "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." Some years later, in 1971, the American philosopher John Rawls disagreed, arguing that a just society must tolerate the intolerant otherwise it would be intolerant and thus unjust but having said that he agreed with Popper that "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger." The University of Malta regularly hosts events that give Muslims a voice on campus, no fewer than three in the month of March. One of the most interesting recently was a 'Peace Symposium' organized by the KSU and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat (AMJ) Malta, entitled 'Sharia and State: The relationship between religion and state. Is Sharia a source of peace or violence?' Setting aside the fact that the AMJ is itself a strand of Islam which has been branded heretical in Muslim countries from Palestine to Pakistan, and has been subject to persecution and had its followers systematically killed as infidels, it is also unfortunate that its 10/20 million adherents represent but a drop in the ocean of 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide. As a consequence, the mild-mannered message of peace which they had to give is regrettably not representative of the Muslim religion in general. More pertinently the speakers did not, in my opinion, satisfactorily address my point that in decisions of 31 July, 2001 and 13 February, 2003, the European Court of Human Rights unequivocally declared that "…the institution of Sharia law and a theocratic regime, were incompatible with the requirements of a democratic society…" and held that Sharia represented a system of law that was in marked contrast to the values embodied in the European Convention of Human Rights. Where do we go from here? In my opinion it is incumbent on the 'silent majority' of peace-loving Muslims to demonstrate to the societies which have welcomed them in their midst that they will not allow a vociferous and violent few to speak and act on their behalf. They, better than any number of law-enforcement personnel, can best clear the thrash from their communities, which for better or worse are now also our communities. In the longer term they must also learn to tolerate, or as the prominent political theorist Michael Walzer put it, behave "as if they possessed this virtue". If it is the full Sharia experience they seek I, for one, shall not place any obstacles to them departing for Saudi Arabia. Prof. Carmel Vassallo is an academic T his week, a PN member of parliament was arraigned in court on a charge of slander. Big news! I for one, as well as a number of colleagues from both sides of the house, have been sued both criminally and civilly on several occasions. During my 24 years as a Parliamentarian, persons from within the PN have taken me to court on accusations of libel and/or slander under the same Criminal Code and under the same chapter of the law. None of us has ever felt that such an action was a threat to democracy. Although the leader of the opposition should know that the judicial process is one of the main pillars of democracy, he has taken offence at the fact that a private citizen is seeking redress in court. None of us is above the law. Some might enjoy parliamentary immunity – this could sometimes be deemed improper but legal; expecting PN immunity is both improper and illegal. The leader of the opposition has said that he actually won a similar case he himself instituted. But this is beside the point, the question is that he had used his democratic right at law without the shenanigans of the last few days. It is manifestly clear that Simon Busuttil is leaving no stone unturned to cause as much civil unrest as possible. His mini mass meeting in front of the law courts was such an instance. The gathering which he addressed can serve to intimidate and disrupt. He asked those present not to react to what he termed as provocation, when it was he himself that initiated this provocation. He is taking us back to the times when party leaders asked people to take to the streets. The PN feel they have the divine right to govern and cannot accept their status in opposition. On that same day there were other members of his party appearing in court on similar charges of slander and libel but he did not see these as an opportunity to generate an anti- government sentiment. The Opposition leader is a lawyer by profession. He knows well enough that the particular chapter in the criminal code is the same applicable to the many court cases of the type. I will not go into the merits of this particular case. It is the right of a private citizen who feels injured with the remarks of a third party – be it an MP or otherwise – to seek redress at our courts of law. The court will decide on the matter. What is definite is that the government has nothing to do with it and I sincerely hope that no government will ever hinder any private citizen's rights. By accusing the government of initiating such an action, Simon Busuttil is showing he has either lost touch with his profession or that he has a memory of convenience. Busuttil's antics can be put down to his party's attempt to regain some lost political ground. But the comments made by the EPP Group chairman, Manfred Weber, are a grave concern and indicate that the PN are back in the game of using EPP to cause as much harm as possible. In his statement, the EPP chairman attacks the government of Malta, again completely missing the point – that this case was NOT instituted by the government. Where was Manfred Weber on all the other instances where PL Members of Parliament were taken to court on similar charges? In Italy Beppe Grillo was taken to court for slander. Will Manfred Weber now accuse Italy's government of threatening democracy? The PN continue to believe that they have the divine right to govern and that they should be above the law. Evarist Bartolo is Minister of Education and Employment Evarist Bartolo