28 August 2009
Some of my non-Maltese colleagues in the European Parliament have a running joke with me.
Like other MEPs, I sometimes invite groups of my Maltese constituents to Brussels, in order to introduce them to the workings of the European institutions. Some of my colleagues wise-crack that they can always tell a visiting group is from Malta from… the voluble noise.
If I earned a euro every time that joke was cracked, I would probably have a new interest to declare to the Parliament!
However, I am not sure whether I would be able to rebut it. Nor am I so sure that I would want to. Volubility, or noisiness if you insist, is a common Maltese trait. It can be irritating, even offensive, at times. Sometimes it is even meant to be. But it can also be endearing, a sign of involvement in what goes on around us.
The number of times when Maltese noisiness is aggravating can be balanced by the number of times when it stands for a rejection of social indifference, for enthusiasm and love of life. I believe many tourists can see both sides of the equation.
I also believe they can see, perhaps more easily than we can, the degree to which the noisiness is generated not so much by national character than by geography.
We have a high concentration of people sharing a very small space. The petards that engross an entire village may be less entertaining for the ones in its close proximity.
Once less building in green areas is going to be permitted, the jackhammer is bound to move closer to people’s homes, and although better law enforcement would limit the hours during which it is heard in one’s living room, it will not be entirely eliminated.
National character is part of the equation, too, of course. The bells, the street-criers declaring the fresh lampuki catch, the horn of the baker’s van and the tinkle of the ice-cream vendor… these can be both charming and annoying.
Eliminating them would be a decision to change the character of public space just as much a decision to permit higher buildings would change it. On the other hand, keeping them is a decision to subordinate individual rights to ‘tradition’…
…Or to economic interests. For there is no doubt that many elements of Maltese noisiness are really not traditional. What they are is part of Product Malta that is sold as “traditional” to tourists but which is as dubiously traditional as some of the food and experiences we sell them. Nonetheless, the economic angle is still one to be kept in mind.
So, there are many angles to be taken into consideration. A legislator, however, may need to go beyond seeing angles. He or she may be called to take decisions on what kind of noises and sounds are to be permitted and under what conditions. There is an increasingly polarized debate in the country, which peaks in the summer, the season of fireworks and deafening petards, of afternoon siestas rudely interrupted by mobile discos, and of quiet nights shattered by loud hoarse cars or a neighbour’s barbeque on the roof next door.
My impression is that the debate used to be more marginal. Now it is claiming centre-stage. I think this is because of the increasing pluralism in the country. Different life-styles, side by side, mean there is no longer the wide consensus there used to be about the beauty of petards or of church bells.
In addition, when village or town life was more close knit, people had to pay more attention to respecting this or that neighbour’s need for quiet, because of a sick family member, etc. A more pluralist society is one in which people are not only free to live their own lives. They are also freer to disregard others.
My inclination is that despite the complexity of the issues, legislators can make some inroads that strike a balance between different interests.
In the first category, one should place those noises that are “in your face”. Admittedly, that is not a legal category but we all know what it includes: those noises made to colonise space that also belongs to others, whose “fun value” is based on asserting oneself at the expense of others.
Such noise should not, as a rule, be permitted since it violates the basic rule that one should not cause harm to others.
In the second category, one should place those noises that cause annoyance unintentionally.
Some of these may need to be curbed, anyway. For others, different solutions are possible. For example, if a village is delighting itself and drumming up tourist trade with its fireworks, there is no strong reason why some of the money collected for the festa, or some of the MTA’s money, should not be used to double-glaze the homes of the elderly or chronically sick people.
The point is there should be many creative ways in which individuals and communities can respect and recognize each other’s interests. Our maturity as a society can be measured by the number of such solutions we reach.
That conclusion may not end this article with a bang… but I wanted to set an example.
