Don't Forget To Call Future Professionists Idiots

Before reading this blog, I encourage you to read the following linked article:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20091208/letters/graduation-glee-horrors-at-junior-college

I didn't intend to write a blog for a short period of time now, but events today have left me with no choice but to do otherwise. Needless to say, such events are stimulated by a controversial incident that would not have been brought up had a certain Charles Caruana Carabez not mentioned it on the local newspapers in the first place.

Mr. Caruana Carabez (herein referred to as CCC), who was perhaps slightly in the right regarding the circumstances which he criticised, wrote a letter to the newspaper regarding the unruly behaviour of certain students during graduation. Up to there, I'll give the author a certain amount of credit, as more often than not, things do get out of control sufficiently enough to cause chaos and public disorder, something which is not right at all. Indeed, I do not condone such behaviour. However, what was stated by CCC after this general notion was, I felt, demeaning to all University students and extremely out of place. Basically, CCC labelled such graduates 'louts' and 'idiots', among other terms; a generalisation of sorts that was completely uncalled for and strongly downplayed the University graduates' successes. Yeah, it's always smart to call those people that you're going to have to rely on in the future; all those lawyers, teachers, accountants, architectures and doctors, among others, idiots.

What initially struck me was that CCC wrote his letter in the belief that this only happens at Junior College, whereas in reality, this also takes place at St. Aloysius' College and De La Salle College. And, in the case of the law students, in front of the Law Courts as well. Anyway, the only difference is that till now, both SAC and DLS have not issued a complaint of any sorts. Indeed, it is well-known that at SAC, the graduates are allowed to enter the building (although requested to leave any alcohol external to the premises) and celebrate among the Sixth Form students accordingly before proceeding to their next destination. Obviously, CCC seems to be oblivious to the fact that Junior College is not the only institution that is affected accordingly by a bunch of graduates celebrating.

The coup de grace in CCC's letter came about when he stated that "[he is] not a spoilsport, nor a wet blanket" but was totally against this "hedonism". With all due respect to the author, taking away the buscades for graduates as a mode of celebration could readily compare to him having his English Literature books stolen and him not being able to read them accordingly and teach them to his pupils. The fact that CCC also claims that "there will be a court case" vis-a-vis loss of earnings, noise pollution etc. in relation to such buscades can only make one laugh out loud at what has degenerated from a solid, initial argument to one that is impertinently stupid.

Of course, however, the best is reserved till last... Comments about the letter obviously show both sides to the story, with some Junior College students defending the lecturer and labelling these actions as ridiculous as well; and University students defending their right to enjoy their graduation and not be muted by a select few that think that such actions are not apt of graduates. Perhaps, for the lecturers, their University days were back in time immemorial; while for the students, this reeks of irony as in a few years up the road, the current crop of JC students will be graduating for the first time and going on a buscade of their own! I highly doubt that they'd then be defending the College... they don't know what they are yet to face when they reach their tertiary education years, poor souls. Furthermore, certain comments went down to the level of personal insults, one of which was directed towards me. Of course, the Times now refuse to answer emails regarding the original commenter... I'd love to have his email in hand so that I give him a piece of my mind and tell him who was brought up badly and whose family should be insulted.

It may be "degrading" for some, but I, for one, am looking forward to next year's buscade. Where I think having a go at CCC would only be a justified reaction for the ton of tripe that he wrote and the ton of insults that he directed towards us. And yes, the buscade is definitely happening, now, irrespective of the public transport reform.

Furthermore, I obviously have nothing against Junior College, but please don't play the victims and act as if you're the only ones that are affected on an annual basis by this as you're not!!

And don't forget to call your future professionists idiots.

God Bless You all!
Matti

Let's GO, Melita!

Finally, something actually worthwhile that I can write about.

I have to admit, when reading the recent news that Melita had lost the rights to transmit Barclays Premier League matches from season 2010/11 through to season 2012/13 to GO plc, I was extremely shocked. To say the least. This means that a large chunk of sporting action that I see on the weekends would indeed be gone from my very eyes, provided that I remain with Melita for the next three odd years. Which, judging by the way how it's going downhill, I don't think will really be the case, but anyway. Anyhow, as a response to this, Melita claimed that they are still the leaders in providing sports to local households, and they also still retained exclusive rights in items such as the UEFA Champions League, UEFA Europa League, Serie A and the Bundesliga.

So far, all is fine and dandy. It was the typical response that I expected from Melita, one which obviously tried to make them look in as little a bad light as possible while, at the same time, promoting the programmes which they show. Of course, they did forget to mention that Saturday afternoons will probably be spent, after August 2010, with replays of old Italian and German football matches being shown on their (now excessive) eight different channels dedicated to sport; these interspersed with everyone's favourite show, a bout of horse racing from Sweden. Naturally, I'm hoping you're noting the sarcastic tone here. Furthermore, they also conveniently forgot to tell us customers that the price of the sports package will probably still be going up due to some fabricated administrative cost, or something of the sort. In brief, Melita will indeed become more pathetic than they already are come the end of Summer 2010.

However, while thinking over it, I ended up by coming to another conclusion vis-a-vis what is happening with GO and Melita. Perhaps it is a bit far-fetched, but I think it's worth stating it nonetheless. I noticed a trend in Melita's declining sporting list year after year: in 2007, GO announced that they would be transmitting Wimbledon from 2008 onwards; in 2008, GO announced that they had managed to obtain the exclusive rights to transmit Formula 1 from 2009 onwards; and now, in 2009 GO announced that they will be transmitting the Premier League from 2010. (Of course, Melita's prices never decreased despite the fact that two major sporting events were not transmitted over the last two years; and I fully expect this trend to continue come 2010, hence the reasoning for my logic above). Coincidence? I think not.

My belief is that both Melita and GO are currently in breach of the law. To be more specific, I think that these two companies are breaching Articles 5 and 9 of the Competition Act (in Malta), or Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU, the ex-EC Treaty), i.e. there is collusion going on between both Melita and GO with regard their television services, meaning that there is the notion of market distortion in this sector and abuse of a dominant position. I will start with the latter point though, as this seems to be easier to tackle.

For a start, with regards abuse of a dominant position, there must be two criteria satisfied; i.e. dominant position in the relevant market and abuse. It can clearly be argued that combined, both Melita and GO have got a majority share in the television market, especially with regard to the relevant product market (sporting events), as both providers show pretty much everything, be it football, Formula 1 or wrestling. The geographical and temporal markets do not have any relevance in this circumstance. Secondary to this, there must be abuse. Now, while this is not a notion that us students have exactly tackled just yet, I can understand that there is the potential for the constant switching of services from one provider to another to be classified as abuse. Both providers may indeed be doing this to simultaneously increase their shares in the market relating to sporting events, and hence increase clientele and profits accordingly. If this is proven, and of course, it is obviously much more difficult to do so other than just stating that which I am currently stating, then there already is a breach of Article 9 of the Competition Act or Article 102 of the TFEU.

This brings me to my second point. Is there collusion going on between Melita and GO, which are, for the purposes of the law, classified as two undertakings? If I had to apply my theory, as I briefly outlined in bold above, then one could argue that there is a horizontal agreement between both television providers. However, such a horizontal agreement would have to be proven by means of oral or written communication; and quite frankly, I doubt both companies would do something as stupid and as ridiculous as that; and is hence extremely difficult to prove. Prima facie, one might also argue that this could fall under the heading of a concerted practice between undertakings, but upon further examination of this notion, one must realise and understand that this is "a form of coordination between undertakings which, without having reached the stage where an agreement properly so called has been concluded, knowingly substitutes practical cooperation between them for the risks of competition". Therefore, one cannot classify that happening between both companies as such a concerted practice, for the purposes of Competition Law.

The second part of Article 5(1) speaks of market distortion. The law states that "any agreement between undertakings... having the object or effect of preventing, restricting or distorting competition" is prohibited. It is necessary to look at the conjunction 'or' over here, as this means that not both the object and effect must be proven, but if one is proven, then it is enough. One could seriously argue that both undertakings' actions are currently having the desired effect. But do these actions fall under the exceptions to the articles in question? After analysing the law accordingly, I cannot see how the exceptions as outlined in Article 5(3) or 101(3) apply to absolve both companies of colluding to distort competition. However, it must be noted that this line of attack, I believe, is significantly weaker than that found in Article 9/Article 102.

Of course, being just a student, I could be wrong in both circumstances. Indeed, after theorising a bit too much about it, I'm starting to doubt the validity of these arguments myself. But I'll leave it to anyone else with proper judgement to go ahead and comment on the situation at hand; even though I still believe that something fishy is going on between these two major players within the Maltese communications market.

God Bless You all!
Matti

It's All About Christmas

I should be studying, but I don't feel like at the moment. So I'll blog. Or attempt to, at least, following the recent debacle where I wrote about nothingness.

Indeed, not much - if anything at all - has happened since then, but the clock continues ticking down towards Christmas. I need it to tick down a wee bit faster though, I'm really looking forward to the holidays so that I can, well, study even more, I guess; but without the added stress of having to go to University every day.

I'm no fan of Christmas. Far from it, actually, I think it's one of the most overrated times of the year; and indeed, sometimes the only reason why I really do embrace it is to wind down a little bit and be slightly less stressed out than usual. I understand and fully appreciate that within the Church, it is possibly the second most important feast after Easter (or maybe even on a par with it), and that with the birth of Jesus, there should be the subsequent rebirth of joy in our lives, but Christmas has long lost its true, significant meaning. Christmas has become, over the years, a commercialised scam. Of course, this is not the only reason why I don't like Christmas much, there are other reasons which I will not delve into. But this is among the main ones.

Christmas is no longer, unfortunately, a time of joy and peace, but a time of giving and receiving presents (be them wanted or unwanted), a time of political discussions at family lunches, a time of 'reuniting' with family members who you haven't seen since the previous Christmas and probably won't see until the next one. Perhaps these situations are a generalisation of sorts, but hasn't anyone ever felt this way before? It has become very much artificial, in many circumstances, and as time goes by, one tends to wonder whether the true meaning of Christmas will indeed ever be recuperated. Don't get me wrong though on the above point. Realistically, I think giving is one of the best things about Christmas, and at least, it is something that is being passed on from generation to generation without any qualms.

Perhaps, ultimately, I'm seeing everything a bit too pessimistically, but having reached an age where my brain thinks for itself and is not strongly influenced by the views of others, unless they are unilaterally correct and I hence agree with them in totality, I struggle to see where this realistic joy, peace and love emerges from over this period. Perhaps my viewpoints, in all fairness, will change when (if) I'm happily married and have children, but till then, I can only see it as another 'event' in my calendar.

God Bless You all,
Matti

About Nothing

Long time no blog. And that's simply because there hasn't been much to blog about, apart from developments in the footballing world, for which one could easily tune into a website that readily sells sports news in order to read up upon. And furthermore, that's also because the roller coaster nature of life has just kept swaying along as if nothing noteworthy has happened. Which it hasn't, apart from in the judicial and political arena, of which I'm not too concerned with, to be honest with you.

So currently, it's official - the world is about as boring a git place as old me. No random adventures, no nothing - it's just plain sailing. I guess you tend to appreciate those topsy-turvy moments when life is actually exciting, when there's absolutely nothing special going on! I could speak for hours at length about University and how it's becoming a little bit more of a headache day after day, and week after week, but that would once again be stating the obvious now, wouldn't it?

This element of 'nothingness' is typified by the fact that blog updates are currently few and far between, and also by that when one opens the newspaper in the morning, nothing more than the same regurgitated crap is being spit out on a daily basis. Wow. As future lawyers, we yearn for those days where we can actually see a talking point being brought up; those days where debating something interesting is possible; those days where we can actually speak our minds about something of relative importance! But alas, it's just not happening at the moment.

What a damned short blog.

Oh well. One month to Christmas. The joy.

God Bless You all,
Matti

Crucifixion of the Highest (Legal) Order

This evening, I read with great shock the news that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled against Italy in a case regarding the placement of crucifixes in school classrooms. Without going into the merits of the case and how the final judgement was reached, I found this to be a particularly shocking conclusion from the Court, especially considering that Italy is predominantly a Catholic country with Christian values. Furthermore, it also sets a precedent for other countries that subscribe to the European Charter of Fundamental Human Rights, i.e. any citizen who should appeal against the presence of the crucifix in a class or, indeed, in a public place, will have such a prior judgement to fall back upon and strengthen his or her argument. However, in what position does this leave us as European citizens?

Almost undoubtedly, the notion of having secular member states of the European Union is the first thing that comes to mind. It is clear that religion no longer has a strong foothold in society as it did in the past; this can be seen through the liberal way how people think and people act in this day and age. Half a century ago, for instance, it would potentially be considered a grave sin to have sex before marriage, while nowadays it's pretty much the opposite - it is a grave sin if you don't have sex before marriage. People have moved with the times and do not want to be 'controlled by the Church', to use the commonly coined phrase. And fair enough - after all, everyone is entitled to live their lives in the way that they wish. However, this judgement seems to imply that not even young students may allow Christianity to form part of their morals and culture now, because otherwise we might offend minority groups in society that don't really give two hoots about the religion that the majority follow. Hence, the judgement automatically implies that although religion, and the crucifix in particular, currently forms an intrinsic part of Italian morals and culture, such a part of the Italian way of life must be eliminated with immediate effect.

The second point that therefore comes to mind is the respect for minority rights. Undoubtedly, society cannot afford to exclude minority groups as that would infringe the basic principles of democracy and, indeed, a basic fundamental Human Right. However, is it fair to say that on the basis of this judgement, the minority is essentially ruling against the majority? After all, in such a case, aren't Muslims the ones who are supposed to integrate into Italian culture, and not make it entirely their own? What in the world happened to the well-known idiom "When in Rome, do what the Romans do"? In defence, it is evident that some Muslims do not really care about the presence of the crucifix in a classroom; it does not perturb them. To quote from the aforementioned article that broke the news about this judgement, "If the crucifix is there and I am a Muslim I will continue to respect my religion. Jesus in the classroom doesn't bother me." This was stated by an Egyptian 14-year-old. Shouldn't that be the approach of the minority groups that the Muslims form within countries such as Italy?

Over and above that, it seems as if the ECHR has admitted, hands up and all, that we live in a Europe so diverse now that all forms of culture must be accepted and not discriminated against at whatever cost. Fair enough, but isn't that contradictory in itself; in the sense that if all forms of culture must be accepted, then the Court is automatically eliminating a form of culture, at least in Italian eyes, by removing the crucifix from classrooms? Although technically the wrong approach to this argument, I would not have been shocked had this judgement been against France, for instance, where it is known that a large amount of the population are practicing Muslims. However, for the judgement to emanate against a member state where 85% of its citizens are practicing Roman Catholics (and hence, Christians) is just absurd. Such a judgement also threatens countries with an even higher percentage of practicing Christians - remember, Malta is hovering around the 96% mark. What will happen if a Muslim citizen living in Malta issues such a complaint against the ECHR? Surely, as mentioned before, the notion of precedent would set in and Malta would have to follow in Italy's suit...

One of the comforting aspects of the judgement, however, is that it has put Italy's politicians on red alert and caused a major outrage throughout the country. Indeed, Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini has labelled the judgement as "mortal blow to a Europe of values and rights." Italy has already confirmed that it will seek to appeal the judgement via the European Court of Justice (ECJ); whether the ECJ appeal will be successful or not though is another story altogether. On the other hand, however, there is another (potentially final) worrying aspect to the entire judgement - the reaction of the Maltese people. On timesofmalta.com, comments have already started to emerge in praise of the judgement. One such author wrote that "Religion is a private matter and that's how it should be. It has no place in our classrooms", while another argued that it is a "Good decision when considering schools need to encourage high IQ attitudes." Such comments, unfortunately, only reflect the ignorant nature of certain people and, indeed, can only be condemned.

And while it is evident from this post that I am completely against this judgement and the notion on which it was decided; and in particular the country which it was decided against, we can only wait for the ECJ judgement in this regard... and see. Having said that, however, there could really be worrying times ahead in this regard, especially if the ECHR's judgement is confirmed.

God Bless You all!
Matti

N.B. Fortunately, since the time of writing, more comments have appeared on the Times' website, most of which seem to be against the judgement. Definitely a positive step.