Letters to the editor – May 21, 2021

The thin end of the wedge

Marlene Farrugia’s proposal to allow abortion in certain situations would open the way, through staged changes, to the legalisation of abortion with minimal or no restrictions.

It has happened before in many countries.

Pro-abortion Chris Barbara indicated this probability quite openly, saying that this would be a start for future changes favourable to his cause.

The same would happen if the current risky cannabis legalisation proposal succeeds in being approved; it will spread addiction to  the drug (and, later,  worse drugs) to family members and friends through secondary smoking and peer pressure, leading to progressive social problems that, eventually, encourage more accommodating changes in the law.

These moves use a deceptive old trick that initiates the staged introduction of unwise or unethical laws in order to satisfy devious behaviour in minority groups of the population! The trick is to start with a marginally palatable law that people may accept and get used to in time and then expand the law to full bloom when circumstances allow.

Beware ‘the thin end of the wedge’ driven in a narrow crack to be later pushed in to widen the gap.

The good people of Malta should be mature enough not to be deceived.

John Pace – Victoria

Airspace rights

Regulations do not take into consideration the anxiety caused by an unlocked free-swinging jib pointing downwind towards your house in force seven winds. Photo: Chris Sant Fournier

I refer to Revel Barker’s letter ‘Airspace Rights’ (May 18).

Landlords’ rights over airspace should be sacrosanct and, in line with other countries’ laws, only aircraft should have a right to freely overfly.

Some five years ago, I sought legal advice with regard to a crane jib overflying my property. In Malta, there appears to be no clear legal ruling allowing crane jibs to infringe on third party airspace without the airspace owner’s consent.

The legal advice given to me at the time was such that, if taken to court, judges would probably not support the airspace rights of the landlord over that of the contractor seizing the right to infringe on third party airspace because to do so would bring the construction industry to a halt.

Looking into practices abroad where the law is more clearly defined, our problem could arise from the fact that the type of fixed jib cranes being used are not ideal for Malta’s building density.

Evidence can be seen in countries where the airspace rights of the owners are protected and where cranes used in such circumstances normally have a hinged jib that can be elevated such that, during operations, it does not stray outside the airspace of the property being constructed. This means that, if airspace rights were enforced,  contractors would have a choice of either using a suitable type of crane or negotiating a fee with the surrounding airspace owners for use of airspace by a fixed jib crane.

The right to refuse permission to overfly must always remain with the airspace owner but an established fee should be introduced to prevent excesses. Once permission is granted, the airspace owner should be supplied with a bank guarantee to cover any potential damage, an all-risk insurance policy naming the airspace owner as beneficiary, certification by an engineer for the crane and its operation and a certificate covering the crane operator.

There are existing regulations governing the overflying of jibs such as not allowing loads to be lifted over third-party property but these are only designed to mitigate EH&S risk.

Regulations do not envisage compensation for the inconvenience of having a jib parked just metres above your rooftop and having to put up with the deep moaning noise of a parked crane, especially at night-time, caused by the wind reverberating through the lattices. Nor do they take into consideration the anxiety caused by an unlocked free-swinging jib pointing downwind towards your house in force seven winds and…