A couple of weeks ago, the most PN-loving newspaper in Malta, Malta Today, ran an editorial calling on the PN to adopt a more socially-liberal agenda. Needless to say, it is MaltaToday that would like to see a socially-liberal Malta, with abortion-on-demand and other such follies. I remember once chiding the brother of one of that paper’s editors for posting a partial-birth abortion image on Facebook.

Then again, whereas MaltaToday clearly does not root for the PN and its advice is not worth the paper on which it is written, the PN has to stop being a timid Opposition. At times it is even a perfunctory Opposition. There are a lot of calculations to be done, and urgently. The PN needs to find its feet, a revamped identity and, most importantly, unity. Otherwise it will waste important years in people’s lives.

 

Doctors for Life

In the meantime, an admirable group of doctors, called Doctors for Life, has been established with some clear objectives. Its aim is to inform the public discussion about the scientific facts related to pre-born children, to sensitise the public to the intrinsic value of every human life, to support initiatives that care for women facing a crisis pregnancy and to inform the medical community about such initiatives, to correct misinformation and misunderstandings about abortion, and to encourage measures that ensure the sharing of full responsibility between both parents.

I like the pun in the name: yes, when you become a doctor, it’s for life. And it’s more than a profession: it’s a life-long vocation to saves lives.

The other, minority group of ‘doctors’, who follow an agenda similar to Malta Today’s, should rethink their priorities and values. But mostly they should widen their reading.

These other doctors should read a little about the history of philosophy and politics in order to understand the roots of the abortion industry – for, indeed, an industry it is. Only recently, a group of American companies published an advertisement in a US nation-wide newspaper arguing that no abortion means less business for them.

This is easy to understand. On the one hand, there are three industries directly related to abortions: 1) the industry providing the service – it’s a multi-million-dollar industry; 2) the research industry which uses aborted foetal tissue; 3) the organ-harvesting industry, which apparently buys foetal organs. (The facts on this last one are still the subject of controversy, from what I can understand.)

On the other hand, there are a lot of industries which are indirectly related to abortions. Given that we live in a society with an imperfect distribution of wealth, much wealth goes to the ultra-rich, and the middle and lower classes are earning less and less. This is one of the reasons why the Panama Papers was so important: it uncovered where the so-called uber-rich hide their money to the detriment of national coffers which cannot then distribute wealth fairly among the weaker classes of society.

Because of this imperfect distribution of wealth, and the ensuing poverty, big business supports abortion. Abortion allows families from the middle and lower classes to maintain a level of spending power adequate to keep many industries going. If you have fewer children, you have more money to spend on (possibly useless) gadgets, on renewing your furniture (to be like the Joneses), on travelling to Disneyworld...

Just ask yourselves why Disney is in favour of abortion? The answer: because it requires small family units with enough money to spend on its (essentially useless) products. If you have been to Euro Disney in Paris, you know that it’s expensive and has no educational value whatsoever. It’s nothing but the elevation to cult-status of the American non-culture system. If you visit St Peter’s in Rome, you leave the basilica enriched by the impressive art you have just admired. If you visit Euro Disney, you leave with less money in your pocket and your head full of Mickey Mouse, silly Sleeping Beauty castles, and other inanities.

But this is the essence of Late Capitalism. Rubbish endowed with nonsensical worth sold to you as if it were precious. You could tell me, panem et circenses – give (cheap) bread and the (valueless) circus to the masses to keep them quiet and under control. I would agree. It is indeed like that, and to make people pay (and keep the economy growing), give them abortion instead of a pay rise.

This same logic applies to so many other products and services which, all told, are essentially useless and intrinsically valueless – to the extent that after some time they are thrown away, to be replaced by new, equally valueless, objects. It’s a never-ending cycle of futile consumption, which is wasting the planet’s resources while depleting the little wealth middle and lower class families possess. And instead of trying to increase their wealth – via a just distribution of wealth – these families are offered abortion, as a means of reducing expenses, by killing the new member of the family.

 

Malta Air

Incredible but true, I have found an article in The Irish Times which seems to hint that Ryanair might be somehow involved in abortion! I could not believe my eyes.

So, first things first. Let’s say something about Ryanair and its shameful and shameless treatment of its clients. The client is king, but elsewhere – not with Ryanair. Ryanair is a mind-boggling example of “treat your customers badly, and they’ll keep coming”.

Survey after survey carried out in the UK has come up with the same result: Ryanair is by far the worst short-haul airline serving the British market. Last January, the BBC reported: “The airline... also left passengers unimpressed with its boarding processes, seat comfort, food and drink offering, and cabin environment.” The Guardian reported: “Ryanair has been rated as the worst airline for the sixth consecutive year by Which?, with the consumer group claiming the Dublin-based carrier is still catching out passengers with hidden costs.” The Independent (the UK paper) reported that Ryanair had “spent the last two years cancelling thousands of flights, ruining hundreds of thousands of holidays and flouting the rules on compensation as well.”

I personally concur. It’s third-class travel. Let me give you a personal anecdote. I missed a Ryanair flight and asked to be reimbursed the tax. I received an email from Ryanair stating that since Ryanair charges £20 to reimburse tax, and the tax was less than that sum, they would not be reimbursing anything! This is nothing short of daylight robbery. If you try to use their travel insurance services, they ask you for so many documents in such a short time that most people would simply give up. It’s essentially a dishonest company, inspired by the dubious, relativistic principle that honesty depends on price.

Now it seems that our phenomenal Minister, Konrad Mizzi, has thought of relegating travel to and from Malta to a perennial third-class category. If I understand correctly, AirMalta will be branded as a first-class (or business class) airline (with cargo-carrying as a side-business). Malta Air will be branded as a third-class (or low-cost) airline. So what has happened to second-class (or economy) travel, which is the class in which the vast majority travels? We have been cheated of the second class! If I understand the model being proposed correctly, we will end up either having to travel first class (and then not to so many destinations) or else third class (to many destinations). This is the great, phenomenal idea our Minister had!

Ryanair is the least customer-friendly airline I have ever used. They care about the passenger as much as the Titanic cared about its third-class passengers – remember, the Titanic didn’t have enough lifeboats. I’m not saying Ryanair does not have safety features, mind you. What I am saying is that the mentality is the third-class mentality, where only a very subtle, almost imperceptible, distinction is made between passengers and cargo. Lest some toga-wearing cretin misunderstands, this is called hyperbole and it’s a rhetorical device. I am not saying that passengers are treated like cargo. I am comparing to the Titanic, not to the slave trade. What I am saying is that the mentality is not customer-friendly, but raw capitalistic.

This was made clear to me in absolute terms when I was last in Stansted Airport, London. If you ever happen to use that airport, you will see a big sign telling you that there’s no rush as now all passengers have numbered seating. Now this can only make you think.

Up to some time ago, Ryanair did not provide numbered seating. Passengers would usually scramble to get first to the “good” seats (usually those where there’s an emergency exit and therefore more legroom). Then suddenly this policy changed. The naive among us would have thought that the change was due to Ryanair suddenly seeing the light and adopting a customer-friendly attitude.

But no! The Stansted Airport sign explains the reason the why. As you might know, airports make money through sales from the outlets that overcrowd its passageways. That’s why, on your way to the gates, you are literally subjected to a barrage of marketing messages and product displays. Airports need you to stop and buy, because they get a commission or other sorts of payment as a result of your purchases.

Needless to say, at the time when Ryanair did not have numbered seating, passengers would not stop to buy because they needed to hurry to find a “good” seat. Now, with numbered seating, there’s no rush. You can take it easy and buy to your heart’s content.

So there you have it: Ryanair is guided not by ensuring a good customer experience but by the raw capitalist principle of fleecing your customer.

And this hyena of a company will now become the primary provider of travel services in Malta! Up until yesterday, the Maltese, who are imprisoned on their little island, were served by a company that gave something close to a social service: AirMalta. Now, they will be served by a company whose ethos is: fleece, fleece, fleece.

Bravu Konrad-Ċirillu, għalhekk jgħidulu hekk! (Apologies to my non-Maltese readers: please ask your Maltese friends to explain this beautiful Maltese expression which, by the by, should be sung to the tune of Les Toreadors from Bizet’s Carmen).

But I said that, unbelievably, Ryanair is somehow involved in abortion. I repeat, I could hardly believe it myself. The Irish Times of Thursday, 20 June reported: “Some women [contract] pilots in Irish-registered airlines are being told they have a choice: terminate their pregnancy or terminate their employment, the president of the Irish Air Line Pilots’ Association (IALPA) has claimed.” The Irish Transport Department, reported the newspaper, asked one of the captains it interviewed on this subject “if Ryanair was one of the airlines which employed contract pilots, and was asked by the chairman of the Committee John Curran to desist from naming any individual or company”.

 

Perit-Advocate Musumeci

In the meantime, the construction (or demolition) industry has now overstepped the limits.

I particularly admired that activist who, on a TV talk-show, told Perit-Advocate Robert Musumeci that he should not be involved in drawing up the rules and then appear for clients before tribunals. The activist is right: Perit-Advocate Musumeci is clearly flouting the separation of powers. It is true that he needs to “work” – but he should choose: either be a government consultant (usually, in normal countries, such consultants are University professors or other researchers, and therefore don’t have conflicts of interest) or be in private practice. Being both at the same time amounts to what we in Maltese call, jiekol b’żewġt iħluq. Apologies again to my non-Maltese readers. And this time, it’s so disgusting, there’s no melody to sing along to. It’s just noises from the sty.

 

My Personal Library (54)

The British Colonial Experience 1800-1964: An Impact on Maltese Society, published way back in 1988 and edited by Victor Mallia-Milanes, might at first blush appear dated. But in reality it is not. It is an excellent collection of essays that are still worth reading today. They serve to help the intelligent reader understand that many of the ideas we import from Britain are not imported because they are good but because, as a by-product of imperialism, we became accustomed to importing from that country. This is important not just for the abortion debate, but for many other debates too.

As I said, the intelligent reader will gain more understanding upon reading this book. The goat-like ignoramus (to quote Vittorio Sgarbi) or the sheep-like reader (to quote the Maltese proverb that refers to Bendu – for the third time, apologies to my non-Maltese readers), should not even bother.