Question

Considering that Saddam Hussein now faces trial for “systematic torture and abuse” of Iraqi nationals, why have no corresponding charges been brought against either the US government, the CIA, or even the provisional government of Iraq, for what are after all identical crimes?

n

Facts

In June 2001, the Maltese Parliament approved the The Data Protection Act (DPA), which outlaws the collection and storage of citizens’ personal sensitive data. Distribution of such data without consent of the data subject is also strictly prohibited. An exception is made for data used or stored for national security/law enforcement purposes. There are, however, other exceptions which appear to have nothing to do with national security. For instance, Section 14 of the DPA states that: “Any body of persons or other entity not being a commercial body, with political, philosophical, religious or trade union objects may, in the course of its legitimate activities and with appropriate guarantees, process sensitive personal data concerning the members of the respective body or entity and such other persons who by reason of the objects of the body or entity have regular contact with: provided that sensitive personal data may be provided to a third party only if the data subject explicitly consents thereto.” (Source: http://docs.justice.gov.mt). The implication of this section is that political parties are free to process citizens’ sensitive personal data within certain parameters. They are also allowed to collect and store such data without the consent of the person/s concerned. In fact, only the distribution of such data requires any form of authorisation on the part of the data subject.

Question

Was Section 14 included specifically so that the two main political parties can continue to collect, store and process personal and sensitive data about Maltese civilians and their political preferences?

n

Facts

In a joint statement issued last Wednesday, Malta’s bishops condemned the fact that one of the candidates for June’s MEP election was endorsed by a priest. No names were mentioned, but the statement was issued the day after Fr Colin Apap appeared in public to officially endorse the candidature of Joseph Muscat (MLP). However, Fr Colin is not the only priest to fall foul of these directives. Fr Joe Borg, for instance, has made numerous appearances on programmes such as Xarabank, often expressing political views on controversial issues such as the EU. Fr Borg is also a consultant to PBS, and conducted a radio show called Mhux Kelma Bejn Tnejn, in which he discussed political issues with GWU lawyer George Abela, himself very much a political figure. Other priests to have dabbled in politics include former university rector Rev. Prof. Peter Serracino Inglott, who represented the Maltese State in the European parliament’s Convention on the Future of Europe. Elsewhere, Dun Ang Seychell writes a weekly column in the GWU-owned newspaper l-orizzont ... anonymous contributions such as Catholic Outlook in The Sunday Times often dip into matters relating to politics... while Fr Noel Grima, editor of this very newspaper, has long been associated with political commentary.

Question

Why do the bishops of Malta only speak out in some cases but not others?

Jeremy Sivits, a 24-year-old military policeman, will stand trial on Wednesday 19 May to face charges of “conspiracy to maltreat subordinates and detainees, dereliction of duty for negligently failing to protect detainees from abuse and cruelty and maltreatment”.

Sivits is one of seven soldiers facing a court-martial over their role in alleged abuse of Iraqi prisoners. Last Saturday, US President George W. Bush said: “We will learn all the facts and determine the full extent of these abuses. Those involved will be identified. They will answer for their actions.”

Question

Considering that the alleged crime took place on Iraqi territory, and that the victims of abuse were all Iraqi civilians, why are the suspects being court-martialled by the US military, and not by an Iraqi court of law?

n

Facts

Malta’s Income Tax Act, Chapter 123, Article 14, states: “For the purpose of ascertaining the total income of any person there shall be deducted all outgoings and expenses by such person during the year of assessment to the extent to which such outgoings and expenses were wholly and exclusively incurred in the production of the income, including...”

Here follow numerous examples of tax deductible expenses such as rent, money spent on scientific research, and several others.

However, subsection (k) of article 14 states specifies the following example of a tax deductible expense:

“... any sum or expenses proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioner to have been paid or incurred by or on behalf of a candidate for elections to the House of Representatives on account of or in respect of the conduct or management of such election:

“Provided that such deduction shall only be allowed in the case of an elected candidate (our emphasis) and shall not exceed the maximum amount of expenditure permissible under the General Elections Act.”

In other words, a contribution to the election campaign of a candidate in a general election is considered deductible for tax purposes only if the candidate in question is actually elected to Parliament.

Question

Was Subsection (k) of Article 14 included in the Malta Income Tax Act specifically to encourage financial contributions only to those candidates whose chances of getting elected are higher than others? And if so, why?

Fact

Last month, the USS John F. Kennedy, one of the largest conventionally powered aircraft carrier in the world, sailed into Grand Harbour for a four-day courtesy visit.

As is customary on occasions such as these, Malta’s night-life operators benefited greatly from the brief visit, as many of the ship’s 4,000+ crew availed themselves of shore-leave to enjoy the sights and sounds of Paceville by night.

Meanwhile, also as is customary, the visit was greeted with conflicting reactions, with movements such as Graffiti and Front Maltin Inqumu once more raising the issue that the use of our harbours by American navy vessels is in direct conflict with the principle of non-alignment, as enshrined in the Constitution.

The USS John F. Kennedy was one of several warships to visit Malta over the past year – a year in which USA-led Coalition forces invaded and occupied Iraq, overthrowing the Saddam Hussein regime in the process. Many of the ships to visit Malta played an active part in this invasion, which has divided public opinion in Europe and incurred an escalation of enmity directed against Westerners in general, and Americans in particular, among Arab nations.

Last month, a recording of what many experts believe to be Osama bin Laden’s voice was broadcast throughout Europe. Ostensibly, the founder of the al Qaeda terrorist organisation was offering peace terms with European nations, provided that they withdraw all military presence from Muslim countries. The same source now claims that Bin Laden has established July 15 – next Thursday – as the deadline for European countries to either accept his terms, or face attacks similar in scope to the Madrid bombing from al Qaeda cells operative on the European mainland.

Question

Irrespective of whether these visits are un-Constitutional or not... is it a good idea, from a national security perspective, for Malta to continue welcoming warships in our waters, at a time when all of Europe is bracing itself for renewed terrorist attacks?

n

Fact

According to a study published by Dr Richard Wrangham, Professor of Anthropology at Harvard University, combat among animals of the same species is very rare. In comparison to humans, whose history is dominated by warfare, animals first dispassionately assess the chances of success and, if the likelihood of injury or defeat is judged to be high, most will invariably opt to withdraw from combat.

The widespread use of rituals in anticipation of combat usually determines who is the superior party, thus eliminating numerous actual fights.

According to the same comparative study, human behaviour is almost the exact opposite, frequently engaging in combat when any rational assessment should have indicated low probability of success.

“Inaccurate prior assessment of one’s enemy results in more damage and lower chances of future survival, than if a more judicious withdrawal had been selected,” Dr Wrangham observed.

Question

Which are more intelligent, humans or animals?

Facts

In 1995, the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg delivered a ruling which would change the face of European football. The case had been filed by Jean-Marc Bosman, a Belgian second division player who had sued his club RFC Liege over its failure to release him for transfer despite the expiry of his contract. After a lengthy legal battle, the European Court of Justice filed in Bosman’s favour, arguing that the EU principle of freedom of movement of workers should apply to professional football just as it applies to all other professions.

The overriding implication of this ruling, henceforth referred to as the Bosman ruling, is that any restriction on the number of EU nationals playing for a European football club is interpreted as a breach of the freedom of movement of workers – one of the four main freedoms upon which the European Union was founded.

It seems, however, that the effects of the Bosman ruling have not filtered down as far as Malta – since 1 May 2004 the European Union’s southernmost member state. In fact, while EU directives on all other issues must be followed to the letter, the Malta Football Association seems to be under the impression that EU strictures such as the Bosman ruling do not apply to the local Premier League.

This year, in fact, a number of local clubs have complained about the attitude adopted by MFA president Joe Mifsud, who has openly defied the Bosman ruling by attempting to place restrictions on the number of EU nationals playing for any local club. While Maltese clubs are free to purchase any number of players from EU members states, they may only field three foreigners (EU or otherwise) at any one time.

At least one club, current title-holders Sliema Wanderers, has threatened to take the MFA to an international court over this particular regulation, which is clearly in breach of the spirit of the Bosman ruling. In his response (source: Maltatoday, 18 July), Joe Mifsud claimed that any club which tries to take the case to court will be instantly suspended from MFA competitions.

Question

Does MFA President Joe Mifsud have the power to overturn a directive based on a fundamental EU principle? And if so, does this mean that all other EU regulations and directives are likewise not applicable to Malta?