Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/803478
24 maltatoday, SUNDAY, 26 MARCH 2017 Opinion T he 'exception that makes the rule' must be one of the most maddeningly misused idioms in the English language. I know, because I've maddeningly misused it myself for years. Until not too long ago, I had always taken it in the same spirit as that very different maxim, 'rules are there to be broken'. Every rule has an exception, so one can only realistically be expected to 'follow the rules' up to a certain point. "Hey, don't look at me... I didn't 'break' that rule; I merely proved to be the 'exception' that made it in the first place." That sort of thing. Well, after using it in that sense for over two decades – mainly to justify all sorts of rule-breaking of my own - I eventually discovered that it doesn't mean that at all. The real meaning is actually much more interesting: it implies that the existence of a 'rule' can only be determined by cases where that rule may be broken. If committing murder (for instance) were actually a physical impossibility... it wouldn't even be possible to have a rule against it. It takes the ability to commit a murder to necessitate legislation against homicide. There is a beautiful paradox in there somewhere, struggling to get out. But the difference in meaning has significant ramifications. 'The exception makes the rule' does NOT in any way justify the rule being broken. On the contrary, it emphasises the need for rules to be enforced: they're there to prevent exceptions... even if the exceptions prove that they actually exist. There, that paradox again. Isn't it gorgeous? And aren't we just the luckiest nation on earth, to be surrounded by so many glaring examples of it everywhere you look? Consider the following gem of a specimen. The Planning Authority has just announced a new set of regulations for billboards erected in public places. It might not, I'll admit, be the single most pressing issue the country has ever faced; nor even the one in most urgent need of regulation. But hey, you can't expect all the PA's decisions and statements to be earth-shattering every single time, you know. There's an exception to every rule, remember? Sometimes, the PA takes decisions and issues statements that don't cause immediate panic and uproar. But it happens rarely, and I'm beginning to doubt if this really is an exception. On closer scrutiny it turns out that the PA has proposed regulating some billboards, but not others. And you'll never guess which billboard advertisers are going to have to follow these rules, and which have been given carte blanche to just carry on with their unregulated business as usual. Oh well, here goes: "Subject to the provisions of this regulation, the following advertisements shall be exempt from the requirements of permission: [...]; a political advertisement [...] an advertisement for a national or town or village feast, including sponsored advertisements, provided it is displayed for not more than 30 days prior to the date of the feast." There were other inbuilt exceptions, but the rest all seemed eminently sensible to me. "An advertisement which Exceptions break rules, not make them Raphael Vassallo Why are billboards advertising political slogans or village feasts automatically 'safer' than any other billboard?