In the USA, there is a very strong gun lobby which has in effect brought a nation with its back to the wall. Lobbies in the United States are allowed to pay monies to politicians to further their cause and, notwithstanding that the availability of guns in public and personal hands is rife if not universal, and notwithstanding that several people are killed yearly either by accident or intent, politicians there seem to be powerless to act and resolve the situation so that gun ownership is severely restricted and better controls enforced.
I used to think that this situation did not exist in Europe, particularly in our country. Today I realise how mistaken I was. There is in effect a strong gun lobby in Malta in the form of a hunter's lobby, as many people in Malta can carry a gun for hunting. It seems that even 14-year-olds are allowed to have a hunting licence and therefore can carry a gun. This right would be rightly or wrongly defended by the hunters' lobby but the fact remains that the gun lobby in Malta has a strong voice in hunting organisations. A gun however can be used for other things apart from hunting and I disagree that people under 18 should be allowed to run around with guns in their hands!
However, this lobby is not restricted to the above alone. The threat to the peace and tranquillity at the Jesuit-run Mount St Joseph retreat residence shows strongly how powerful this lobby is in terms of shooting ranges as well. I often go for walks in Bidnija where there is an official shooting range. It is very irritating how the beauty and tranquillity of this place is broken repetitively by the constant shooting of these guns. The same can be said for the Archbishop's Seminary where the tranquillity on weekends is often broken by the constant letting-off of guns in a nearby shooting range. Granted, these people have to shoot somewhere and we do have a number of such ranges already, but do we need to increase them further or is the gun lobby here forking out benefits to willing politicians?
The situation has now compounded itself further by the evident threat sent by post to the Jesuit provincial consisting of a bullet and a veiled life-threatening note. Could this show the power these people feel they have, and could they probably feel this power because they feel protected by people in high places who are now protecting the strong against the weak rather than the other way round? Is the rule of law in Malta quickly returning to pre-1987 times where institutions established to protect individuals are simply used as rubber stamps for pre-arranged deals between individuals and corrupt politicians who fail to look at the common good? There is such a thing as objectivity in morals and politics but we are quickly reverting to a subjective state of affairs where some people feel they have a free rein, as they feel protected by those powerful politicians elected by our good selves.
This is borne out by other issues that crop up continually. The strange case of an individual who had raised a ruckus in a police station being arbitrarily protected by ex-Commissioner of Police Peter Paul Zammit because he was a former client of his, and this after the Superintendent responsible for the particular district had already written up charges for his arraignment. Is this being compounded by the fact that the ex-Commissioner is allowed to hold public office now?
The issue of the ex-Minister for Gozo's husband case of alleged using of public funds for obtaining votes is another case in hand. I will not go into the merits of this case which is sub judice but am I wrong in alluding to what was a possible common accepted, though essentially illegal, praxis long extant also indulged in by other Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries both prior to 1987 and also now? If this is the case, then the law is equal for all and if this is the case now, then the law should come down equally on all involved as well. If there is indeed such a case happening today, and the police fail to investigate this effectively as well, this can only lead one to conclude that some citizens are more equal than others.
The issue has overall reverberations, but has the Prime Minister allowed Cabinet ministers to openly break the ministerial code of ethics in the recent past? Has he allowed publicly paid officials to insult the President of the Republic and refugees, with no official repercussions? Has he allowed his politicians a free hand in certain alleged irregularities? Has he allowed public institutions to become mere rubber stamps in dishing out ministerial favour? Is he dishing out continual financial and other public favours for the blue-eyed boys (or red-eyed ones)? If the answer to these questions is yes, what is the overall message being sent to the public? It is none other than the picture that pigs are more equal than dogs or other animal members on the collective farm he is managing!
[email protected]