Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/943656
Opinion 25 maltatoday SUNDAY 18 FEBRUARY 2018 For what it's worth, then, my own interpretation is that the article (intentionally or otherwise) places its finger very squarely on the root of the entire malaise. It lampoons the violent streak that prompts the vandalism, not the vandalism itself. In so doing, it also exposes the underlying cause of this violent streak. If Swift's cannibalistic proposal pointed towards the horror of the famine itself, Falzon's 'encouragement of vandals' points towards the underlying absurdity of belligerent antagonism. By spectacularly failing to distinguish between 'subjective' and 'objective' viewpoints – and I can only assume this is done deliberately, because like Swift it is simply too preposterous to be otherwise – his article posits the following, utterly absurd basic premise. If something is objectionable to one person, it will be automatically be objectionable to all other ordinary, decent people. Anyone who sees things differently, by definition, becomes extraordinary, indecent and therefore undesirable. From this premise it follows that anything favoured by these people, and abhorred by all the ordinary decent folk (who, incidentally, always talk about themselves as if they represented some form of overwhelming majority – that, in itself, was a satirical masterstroke) can simply be destroyed at will. And... well... guess what? This utterly absurd, preposterous and hopelessly unworkable worldview is EXACTLY how people are starting to react to absolutely everything in this country. Political tensions have now risen so high, that many people would willingly do (and some have already done) what Falzon merely joked about them doing. It's like the Daleks in 'Doctor Who': we are passing through a phase when our automatic reaction to any manifestation of the political 'other', is an instant, violent urge to EXTERMINATE. And like all good satire, Falzon homes in on the very crux of the matter. The issue of 'public space' – how and with what it should be occupied – is now a foremost theatre of our internecine political war. Even before that article appeared, at least one woman had already taken it upon herself to try to 'clear up' the Daphne memorial shrine in Valletta. She had been photographed doing so, and – oddly enough – most of the people who cried aloud in Facebook horror and disgust, would go on to 'like' and 'share' a satirical call to do exactly the same thing to other examples of 'public space' being 'occupied' by 'unwanted structures'. This raises a question. On what basis do we distinguish between those two scenarios, exactly? Why is one regarded as an 'outrage' and a 'crying shame', while the other held up (however satirically) as an example to be applauded and followed? Meanwhile, the same controversy has taken a new twist. Rather than vandalise the monument (as so many have threatened to do in online comments), somebody chose to dilute its impact by adding another three photos to the existing one of Daphne Caruana Galizia. I don't know if they'll still be there by the time I finish this article, but at the time of writing you can also see Karin Grech, Raymond Caruana and Dom Mintoff commemorated by the same shrine. Exactly why is something I haven't worked out yet. Perhaps its an elaborate 'Spot the difference' puzzles ('Three of these people were violently murdered, and one died of natural causes at 93. Who's the odd one out?', etc). But whatever we make of the stunt itself, at face value it complicates an already complicated situation quite considerably. Who actually owns the 'space' we call 'public', anyway? Who gets to decide what can and cannot be erected in it? Going on terminology, the obvious answer would have to be 'the public'. But that's not going to help us very much, is it? The mourners who spontaneously created a shrine for Daphne are part of 'the public'. But so are the individuals who added those other photos, and the woman who tried to sweep the whole thing away. And so, for that matter, so are all the people who publicly call for the removal of that shrine in online comments; and all the others who insist on it remaining. Not to mention the vandals who wrecked those Jablo horrors. The people who applauded them, and those who howled in indignation. And you can keep adding to the list forever, with no end in sight. So perhaps it's a good thing so many people took (or chose to take) that article literally. There is a sense in which it should be taken literally. It presents a chilling picture of the vandals we have all allowed ourselves to become. And believe me, that makes us no prettier than those darn Jablo horrors... The brutally honest truth is that a lot of people in Malta feel precisely the same way about the Daphne shrine, as Falzon does about the 'Jablo junk' It presents a chilling picture of the vandals we have all allowed ourselves to become