|
Last Monday a man was found guilty of sexually abusing his two adoptive daughters over a seven-year time span. His rape and defilement spree started as soon as the girls (5 and 7 years old respectively) were adopted, leading many to think that the children were adopted specifically for the purpose of being used as the man’s helpless, underage sex-slaves. The retch-inducing account of the rapist’s activities horrified people and very rightly lead to cries of condemnation all round.
In the general commotion surrounding the case, a particularly harrowing aspect of the whole story went by without attracting much comment. This relates to the adoptive mother’s complicity in the affair. The detailed court report published in l-orizzont clearly shows that the mother must have known about the constant abuse and preferred to let her husband torture two young children rather than alert the authorities. The girls both testified that the man would have sex with them using contraception. He would lock the door and hit them on the face and head if they complained. His wife must have seen their bloodied bottoms, their bruised faces. Did she ever wonder what her husband was doing behind closed doors with a little girl? Didn’t she notice that his supply of condoms was dwindling as he alternated between raping one sister and the other? She did, you know.
Inspector Sharon Tanti who testified in the case, told the court how the woman had told her that she had once called in the family doctor to carry out a pregnancy test on the elder girl. She said that her husband had told her that he had been fooling around with the girls in the bathroom, and that he was afraid that he might have impregnated the elder girl. There is only one kind of “fooling around” which results in pregnancy, and the woman in question must have known full well that it wasn’t the innocent sort. Despite the stern warnings which were given out in nun’s schools some twenty years ago, stray spermatozoa don’t wiggle up girls’ legs in a determined attempt to fuse with receptive ova. A degree of human intervention is necessary. That form of intervention came from the girls’ adoptive father – something which was shrugged off by the wife.
She blamed the girls saying that they had seduced their father and even suggested that he get into bed with them. The mind boggles at this kind of warped, twisted reasoning. How could the woman have accused the girls for being victims? Did she think they were asking for it – children of primary school age lusting after her husband? Wasn’t it more likely that as orphans who had not previously known the love and affection of a parent figure were simply longing for some warmth and non-sexual cuddles from their father? The ugly truth of the matter is that the woman knew that her husband was raping their adopted children. For reasons of her own, she did not put a stop to the abuse. Instead of doing the right thing, protecting her charges and denouncing her cruel husband, she simply pottered around in another room in the house while he rammed away at their fragile bodies. Her inaction is inexcusable. Even if her husband was the most violent man around, she should have drawn from some inner well of courage and fled with the children. As it is her omission is as repulsive as her husband’s vileness.
There is a lesson to be learnt from this grim story – doing nothing is as bad as actively participating in wrong-doing, if not in the eyes of the law, then certainly by the moral codes which all decent people should live by. Failing to report abuses, crimes and contraventions, not bothering to step in and help out shows us up as the cowards we are and leads to a total breakdown of society. If we do not report the abuse of others and stick up for them we cannot hope to have others show up in our defence when we are on the receiving end of the abuse. This simple concept of human solidarity seems to have escaped us. Most of us prefer to keep our heads down, keeping ourselves to ourselves and remaining unnoticed. We fear retaliation, vendettas or simply the discomfiture of going out of our way to report illegalities. It is our lazy Maltese form of omertà.
The renowned anthropologist and Maltaphile Jeremy Boissevain put Malta on the anthropological map in the late Sixties when he wrote “Saints and Fireworks” – a study of religion and politics in rural Malta. Last week he was back on the island addressing a business breakfast about how Malta has changed over the last fifty years and its prospects for the future. Like the ghosts of Christmas Past, Christmas Present and Christmas Future in Charles Dickens’ “Christmas Carol”, Boissevain described Malta in the past, the worrying present and the even more frightening future. He mentioned political patronage, intense political rivalry, a pro-development bias, clannishness and a weak appreciation of our common heritage as being among the reasons for the environmental chaos and lawless mayhem which the country finds itself in.
He also talks about our self-imposed code of silence and says, “Fear of retaliation for reporting or testifying against illegal activity leads to the Maltese version of Sicilian omertà, collusion through silence. Such fear also reflects the lack of confidence in the ability of the state to protect the rights of its citizens and thus it underlies the need to cultivate influential protectors.” Boissevain is right of course. Most of us have given up on an efficient or even a just enforcement system. We report illegal development, contraventions and nothing happens. We try to pursue the matter through the courts and are treated as nuisances for our efforts. I know a man who has been trying to have an illegal pig farm close to his home, closed down. He’s been battling in vain for the past twelve years. In light of this and similar examples, is anybody amazed at the lack of faith in the legal system? Ebenezer Scrooge heeded the warnings of the ghosts of Christmas Past and Present and changed his ways. If we want to avoid Boissevain’s apocalyptic (although realistic) vision of a barren and amoral Malta in future, we should buck the current trend and start speaking out. And the government should take a break from local council electioneering and enact a Whistleblower Act.
I get the impression that EU rules, like local laws, are only observed when it is politically expedient to do so. So if the imposition of an EU directive has the slightest potential of being a vote-loser, our government and MEPs will beg, borrow and cajole to obtain an exemption or derogation. In which case, I don’t know why we bothered joining in the first place.
Take the proposed directive on pyrotechnics or firework materials. It aims at ensuring that safety requirements for pyrotechnic articles are standardised and respected throughout the EU thus reducing the risk of accidents caused by malfunction. This will enhance consumer safety as sub-standard pyrotechnic articles will no longer be available within the union. Considering that over the last eleven years, 12 men have been killed and another 18 have been seriously injured in fireworks factory explosions, you’d have thought that the legislators would be tripping over their shiny “alakka” shoes to have the proposed directive enforced in Malta.
But no – if the directive had to be imposed in its full vigour, safety costs in Malta would increase and local fireworks enthusiasts wouldn’t have enough cash for the annual colourful show. And if they can’t play with fire and risk living dangerously, the bottom will fall out of their world, they will flounce into a monumental sulk and refuse to vote. The prospect of this happening has mobilised the government and opposition MEPs into an unusual show of solidarity and they are lobbying for a watered down version of the directive to be applicable to Malta and an exception for manufacturers who do not produce fireworks on a commercial basis, as is the case in Malta. Now I love the colourful fireworks and wouldn’t dream of asking for their prohibition, but I could make do with less of them and none of the noisy petards, if this was necessary because of costly safety measures. I can’t understand how our representatives could downplay the need for more stringent safety standards. But then this is a country with no saints and many killer fireworks. Nothing has changed.
cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt
|
