In the middle of August, the news on everyone’s lips was the incident that took place in Marsascala.
Just to remind the readers, five campers were fined €60 each after admitting to swearing in public and breaching the peace in an incident following a protest which was originally planned to be a peaceful one but unfortunately turned nasty when a group of men got into an argument with one of the protestors. The incident was captured on camera and this helped to augment the public’s interest. Public attention, especially that in the social media, was further fuelled following a front-page picture carried in a local paper showing the five men entering the law courts building in the afternoon wearing shorts and T-shirts and carrying soft drink bottles.
Judging from the reaction displayed in social media and blogs, these persons found little support. Many felt insulted by the fine imposed and demand more severe action. In a way, this type of reaction is understandable, although not totally justified. Nor is it limited to our shores. More than a year ago, more or less the same sentiment motivated magistrates in the UK to jail 1,292 people for stealing bottles of water. Such action was later criticised in influential quarters based on the suggestion that judges ‘ruined’ the lives of hundreds of young people, at great public expense and to no advantage to their victims. One does not necessarily have to have sympathy for these people but you may also agree that the politicised response to such a ‘crime’ was disproportionate.
This seemly urge to punish a particular action while at the same instance making extraordinary efforts to justify the same action is captured perfectly in the Russian band Pussy Riot. A couple of weeks ago, the western media took to task the Russian authorities following their decision to jail for two years the three components of the rock band after they had staged what, by all accounts, was an obscene publicity stunt, videoing an anti-Putin song, defamatory of the Virgin Mary in front of pious worshippers. In the UK, this outrage was followed by the Foreign Office professing itself “deeply concerned” at the fate of Russia’s Pussy Riot trio.
Those angered by the judgment pointed towards free speech. But stating that that act has outraged public decency is an understatement. As reported in the Guardian, a poll of Russian public opinion showed that just 5% thought the girls should go unpunished and 65% wanted them in prison, 29% with hard labour. Artists round the globe may plead free speech, but to treat the Pussy Riot gesture as a glorious stand for artistic liberty might be a bit too far.
For the western media to get on high horses about Russian sentencing seems tainted by a good dose of hypocrisy. One can only imagine what the reaction would be if a rock group invaded, lets say Westminster Abbey or the Vatican, and gravely insulted a religious or ethnic minority before the high altar. In all probability, a big howl for “exemplary punishment” would be echoing all around. A parallel example is the case involving Julian Assange, where at one point in time, there was a threat by the British authorities to use military force to enter into Ecuador’s embassy in London to arrest the WikiLeaks founder who had taken refuge there. This threat was subsequently withdrawn, with the British authorities proclaiming their commitment to diplomatic solutions.
Reverting to the local scene, the twists and spin to which some events are treated is at times breathtaking. It is often a coordinated attempt to blow some minor accidents with the evident aim of diverting attention. Recently, we had two examples of such behaviour. One involved a TV presenter who had to resign from his TV show after reacting to some very unpleasant comments by a priest written on the Catholic Herald in connection with the critical obituary of Labour Prime Minister Dom Mintoff. Just a few days later, the communications office of the Nationalist Party released a statement over an image of Lawrence Gonzi’s face pasted on the ceremonial uniform of former Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi. Many would agree that those involved would have better restrained themselves and avoided getting the attention in the first place but nonetheless, the reaction from some quarters was outright unjustified.
When different sets of principles are applied to different people in the same situation and when certain concepts are perceived as acceptable to be applied by one group of people but are considered unacceptable when applied by another group, then those engaging in such practices cannot but be accused of applying double standards. Unfortunately, such behaviour is widely common in our national political landscape.
Dr Anton Refalo is Opposition spokesman for Gozo