The jury seems to still be inexplicably out as to whether Joseph Muscat’s bluff about the pushback strategy was commendable or otherwise. I say inexplicably because it does not seem to me to be a matter of opinion but of fact. Yet, there are plenty who would advocate that Joseph did the right thing and that his waterfall of badly mixed clichés – from “stamping of feet” to “waking up an smelling the coffee” are the necessary ingredients to get Europe going. The sad part is that it is not only your usual set of suspects who have swallowed the Taghna Lkoll happy pills but even persons who you would expect to have a critical mind. Let’s look at some facts:
1. The ECFHR is not the EU
They keep repeating this mantra that the European Human Rights Court decision is part of some conspiracy and that we should stick two fingers up at them and send the migrants to Brussels. Idiot’s guide to the EU number 1: The Court in question is part of the Council of Europe – an organisation based in Strasbourg with 45 member states including Russia and Turkey. Not the EU then.
2. The Illegality of the act
When Muscat chose to prep the planes and get the engines of forced repatriation running he was doing so knowing that he is in full violation of European law on Human Rights. Not EU Law. Not just that. His bit of sabre-rattling actually meant he was jumping onto the world stage by threatening to do something illegal. Let me put it into perspective for the slower among you. Think Saddam Hussein using human shields to prevent US bombing of targets. Think threatening to unleash Sarin Gas on protesters. Think threatening to drive with tanks over protesters. Think shooting border crossers on sight. Yes. That kind of illegal.
Does it matter that Muscat claims to have been bluffing? Hell no it doesn’t. Imagine I walked up to you and threatened to kill you if you did not hand over your cash. Then once you hand over the cash I tell you – “Hey, I’m only bluffing, but that got you to wake up and smell the coffee”. Right? And don’t give me the “ends justifies the means” bullshit. This government has proven to be so inept at understanding the boundaries of the rule of law that it is enough to give any ordinary citizen the creeps.
3. That Muscat’s Mental
It’s not my words. It’s the gist of the international press. His “bluff” had one effect and one effect only. He is being seen as an insane nutball who is willing to resort to illegal threats to try to get what he needs. Think Ahmadinejad meets Hussein meets Bush. While you were busy harping about some trumped up “national interest” your prime minister was busy flushing our national reputation down the drains. I can’t wait to see what the Economist’s side columns will make of this.
And another thing….. it’s not about saving face with the neighbours. Our reputation abroad is important because we work in a community of nations and should bear that in mind before we torpedo it with some ridiculous tantrum.
Don’t feed the animals
It’s a sign you see most time in the zoo. Our government needs some sobering up after this fiasco caused by its not being half as clever as it imagines itself to be. Right now the last thing the government needs is applause from the inane movement that cannot be made to understand why respecting human lives and dignity is at the basis of 21st century civilisation. You cannot pick and mix which lives to respect. You cannot selectively apply dignity. Just as you should never ever think about separating the healthy for the weak in some nightmarish remake of a nazi concentration camp simply because you wanted to “stamp your feet”.
So the next time that you think of praising our “gutsy” Prime Minister think of the human shields in Iraq at the time of Hussein and ask yourself: Would I have applauded Saddam for his gutsy standing up and being counted to the American forces?
I guess you know who should be smelling the coffee now.
7 replies on “Murder they wrote”
[…] Murder they wrote […]
And not even a mention of the migrants and their plight, and much less about how to alleviate this sorrow state of affairs!
And you are too late … Fr. Joe Borg, Dr. Andrew Borg Cardona, Daphne, Michael Falzon, Mario de Marco, all have had their say on this matter. All used this unfortunate incident to, not help the migrants, but to bash the prime minister. And there is no end to their political bludgeoning of Dr. Muscat and his Party. And the plight of migrants be damned! Shame on them all.
And now, along comes Jacques, singing the same inane song. Shame on you too.
Here’s my suggestion to all of you, bright lights:
Put away your poison-pen, and bring out your calculator …
According to HRW – Human Rights Watch – during the last 10 years, there was an average annual influx of 1470 irregular migrants who made it to our shores.
How can any numerate person possibly consider that number to be a problem, burden or threat?
That number is about One-Third of One Percent of Malta’s population — a statistically insignificant number. Taken in terms of the EU population (we are an EU State, right!), it is infinitesimally less!
So, why all the fuss?
What to do about the unfortunates who, after cheating death in their home country, trekked across the Sahara and tested the harshness of the Mediterranean only to end up in that cauldron of toxic political venom, known as Malta?
Here’s where lawyers should step in to give a hand (where the hell is the Chamber of Advocates in all this?).
Is it feasible to grant them, say, a limited 5-year Citizenship during which time they are free to live like Maltese citizens do, that is, work and pay taxes? … and then, full Citizenship?
And before anyone tells me that this would mean an invitation to have the population of Africa land on our shores, my answer is simple: You are nuts! Boats don’t grow on trees!
Thank you for your comment CJohn. To begin with you are confusing two distinct issues namely the way our government responds to the problem of immigrant influx and the problem itself. This post “bashing” the Prime Minister deals with the first of the two. The handling of the issue by Joseph Muscat is as unconventional as it is dangerous thanks to its promotion of sabre-rattling through illegality. The post was inspired by the continued level of arguments being made that our PM’s move was some sort of bravado that should be applauded.
As for whether other columnists or bloggers have mentioned the issue: Should that mean that I stay silent? Or maybe you are wondering whether there is some form of anti-Labour conspiracy beneath it all? Such simple logic targeting the messenger and not the message is only convenient when there is no other argument to be made. Elsewhere I have pointed out that this tactic serves well the current “min mhux maghna kotra taghna (u kontra l-interess nazzjonali)” logic that risks turning into an ugly form of McCarthyism.
Finally I could agree with you that the numbers in question should be cause for a shift in perspective (especially to counter the scare-mongerers of the “african invasion” persuasion). This does not change the fact that once you discard the hopeless methodology deployed by Muscat we need to develop a more coherent system of how to deal with immigrants in full respect of international law. Part of this involves working with our international partners (north and south). Surely you would agree that operating as some pariah state that is ready to break (or threaten to break) its international obligations is not a good start.
That, for me, is worth the fuss.
No, the ECHR is not the EU. Not even the Editor-in-Chief of the Independent seems to know that. I think that it was a bad move to ask the ECHR for a prohibitory injunction; refoulement is equally illegal under Maltese law and the intervention of a Maltese court could have been asked for. That would have pulled the carpet from underneath the feet of those who think that this is all an EU thing. It would have even driven home the fact that the Refugees Act was passed unanimously some ten years ago and some parliamentarians who were egging the PM on were there when it was enacted.
Agreed Fausto. To the extent that rights under the Refugee Act should be highlighted. I am given to understand by sources operating in the sphere that the immediacy of the problem made an application to the ECHR more feasible for one simple reason. The immigrants had no outside contact with the world and had been shepherded in preparation for deportation. An application before the Maltese courts would have required their names and details (as “applicants” under the Act). In lieu of that a chance was taken to take recourse to the ECHR court which thankfully complied notwithstanding the lack of names on the application.
As an aside, this issue of lack of applicant details also points out another manifest hypocrisy of the current government. It made a whole song and dance out of the issue of a access to a lawyer, hooking on to Franco Debono’s complaints – but saw no problem with denying such access to non-nationals seeking asylum. Very animal farm… very some have more rights than others. Not too progressive or liberal. Reminds me of the US treatment of Guantanamo prisoners.
So well put Jacques! Excellent post, bravu
Jacques, this is one of those rare moments in which I’d have to struggle with the urge to strangle you (metaphorically speaking, of course) … you are engaging in what was the norm during a typical heated exchange between denizens of pre-Mintoff Malta’s mandraġġ — found in just about every locality in those bygone days. They were masters of the Irrelevant Argument — irrational.
1) My opening statement points to the fact that you omitted, even so much as a mention, the migrants and their plight; and neglected to offer a solution. — Pointing to an omission is not “mixing two distinct issues”.
2) My next paragraph points to the fact that, the already published comments dealt with “the way our government responds to the problem of immigrant influx” — not out of concern for the migrants, but as a bludgeon with which to bash JM and his government. (Add Simon Busuttil to that list — just read his opinion piece in the Times of Malta — same political-scoring exercise.)
3) And then I chided you for following them.
These unfortunate souls need a good lawyer to take up their cause; not have every lawyer use them as a football in a vicious political game between Utter Ignorance and Crass Disinformation.
I believe in conspiracies to the extent that I believe in a God in Heaven, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and il-Babaw.
So, you think that, “Finally [you] could agree with [me] that the numbers in question should be cause for a shift in perspective … “.
“Could”? “Should”?
Just exactly, what are the conditions which will allow you to fully agree that, talking about “mass migration” and the migrants being a “problem”, a “burden”, or a “threat”, is akin to presenting Magħtab as Mt. Olympus?
Need I comment on your barb of the “pariah state” as being unwarranted and unfounded?
How, on earth, can a suggestion, for lawyers to consider, be deemed to be an attempt at being “ready to break (or threaten to break) [our] international obligations”?
On this one issue, you astound me!
(See why I hate polemics and much prefer a game of chess! It’s the only way I know of to kick ass in a gentlemanly fashion — it all begins and ends with a handshake. — Now, if you were my grandson, there won’t be a need for Chess ☺)
Please, put away that damnable pen, and seriously consider going to bat for these people. Anyone who can elude torture and death in their country, trek the Sahara, and survive the harsh Mediterranean, has already proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, their worth: priceless! An asset!
Focus on the two over-riding points:
1) It’s an issue of Fundamental Human Rights (as enshrined in the UDHR and embraced by the ECHR) — breached with impunity by the various EU-state governments, including Malta’s.
2) The uproar is based on myth and irrational fears:
In the first six months of 2013, there were a total of 8400 migrants who landed in Italy and Malta — our share was 600 (Source: UNHCR).
Anyone who considers those numbers — a trickle, when viewed in terms of current population — to constitute a problem, a burden, or a threat to Malta or the EU, is in need of some remedial courses; Math and Logic, come to mind. A History of Maltese Migration might help (I say, “might”, because the Maltese psyche seems to dwell in what Mark Twain once described as a “diseased imagination”).
Everything else, is just hot-air … which does not help either the migrants or their hosts.