When a piece of land gets stamped as an ODZ, that should mean no development or construction can take place on it. One understands this can hardly delight the owners of land labelled ODZ. They would have liked to make some more money out of the land they own when marketing it. One understands as well that they'll do their best to lobby and put pressure to reach their objectives. This does not necessarily mean that their efforts will escalate to the point where corruption and the abuse of power come into play, but the possibility that this will happen also enters into the picture.
Similarly genuine and well intentioned reasons can surface to explain why ODZ land could be given up for development. They range from philanthropic projects mounted by private and public entities, to the use for purposes of public need by public authorities. What has happened and is still happening though is that when for diverse reasons, ODZ land is opened up for development, a window of opportunity for other cases is opened...
There can be only one solution to this problem: without any exceptions possible, land labelled as ODZ can in no way be touched and for no matter which reasons... except possibly when national security is involved. But there you are! - as soon as you allow an exception, isn't that opening up a window for other cases...? And how would an exceptional national security justification be authorised? By a unanimous vote of Parliament? By some ad hoc panel of judges?
***
PRESIDENTIAL DISCOURSE
The way by which US President Trump recently communicated his strongest war threats to Iran's leaders made waves. His language was laced with expletives. Many people were disgusted. Is this how a Head of State should communicate in public? they queried. And the Head of the mightiest state in the world?
Well, it's true that presidents who were in office before Trump did use very colourful language to express themselves. For instance, the publication of the Watergate tapes in the 1970's was studded with cuts that kept out of the way the expletives prevalent in the conversations being covered. But at least, the context there was that of "private" conversations which were not meant for general issue. It is difficult to understand what led President Trump to communicate the way he did. Did the vocabulary he chose have the effect he intended it to have?
***
ON PREACHING TO OTHERS....
The latest story that came to light... it goes back to hardly less than twenty years, and concerns the gang rape of an under-age girl in Gozo... again placed a powerful searchlight on the Catholic Church in Malta and Gozo and its leaders. By official custom and almost as a matter of right, these are given the opportunity on state occasions to present their pronouncements to the nation's political and social leaders.
Normally, they seize the opportunity to preach moral values with great solemnity. In this role, they're accepted by most, or almost, because they seem to have the best credentials for such a task. And that's how they project themselves. In practice, it so happens that over the years they have been just as ready as other leaders in the country - whether for the sake of political solidarity, economic interests or social obligations - to manoeuvre in order to hide and bury huge sins committed by members of their organisations.