Author: Jacques René Zammit

Categories
Immigration Values

The push-back effect

As the dust settles on the 24 hours push-back saga we can begin to draw a few conclusions as to how the different participants fared. Away from the noise and static of the instinctive reactions there might be an opportunity to examine whether or not the issue of “immigration” has seen any development. First of all there is no way we could ever conceive of a policy on immigration that is apolitical. That is a load of rubbish. A policy on immigration is by its very nature political. Parties are not there to simply echo popular demands but they should be clearly stating their position on the matter and offering their ideas.

In fact what we really do not need is the “partisan” approach where policy is either pulled out of the pocket in a knee-jerk reaction or simply phrased in such a manner as to serve short-term government or opposition goals without any eye for a holistic policy that clearly enunciates Malta’s position vis-a-vis the complex problem of migration. Let us see how the participants fared then:

The Sabre-Rattling Prime Minister (or The Blind Man’s Bluff)

Joseph Muscat has a problem. He is now being judged by what he does and not simply by what he promised to do. There’s a huge difference between Jane Marshall saying she believes in Joseph because he does what he promised (and he still had done nothing yet) and what every citizen is able to see for his own eyes now. Muscat is finding it hard to understand that while promises only have consequences in the mind of whoever wants to believe them, real actions have consequences in the real world and these consequences cannot be as controlled or doped as a propaganda message.

Does Joseph genuinely believe that he could pull off such a stunt as he did yesterday? Is it possible that his was an elaborate bluff full knowing that in the end the planes would leave for nowhere? Even if we did consider it to be such an elaborate bluff it falls apart immediately as was said so well elsewhere. The reason is because his bluff involves stoking the flames of intolerance and racism. Joseph created the expectancy of a full-fledged push-back programme turning the insipid Times commentator’s dream into reality – a ro/ro service of planes sending the despicable pest back where they came from. Taghna Lkoll had a new corollary. It was go back to your country.

And who was the bluff supposed to impress? Ah yes. Joseph’s second protracted gaffe. He insists on dealing with Europe as though it is somebody else. He insists on reinforcing the idea of Europe and Brussels as the enemy. Many a bleating donkey will repeat this notion before sundown. There might be an opening here for insisting on more burden sharing but Joseph simply ploughs his way into any hope of EU solidarity and reintroduces the Mintoffian roughness and lack of diplomacy. Sure he got plaudits (“Leader bil-bajd”) but is it from the right crowd?

The third gaffe from the supposed sabre-rattler is the appalling idea of showing publicly that our government is prepared to flaunt international law and join the ranks of international tantrum throwers like some latter-day Ahmadinejad. Only a while back somebody was calling Joseph Muscat a mature PM – we already struggled to come to terms with that before this charade. Now that it is over we see nothing more than a man incapable of understanding his role and the importance of international law.

Finally Labour’s treating of immigrants as pawns in this sabre-rattling saga was the cherry on the cake insofar as proof of Labour’s absolute loss when it comes to the real treatment of real human rights. The fallacy of all things progressive from gay rights to emancipation of different religions and more was never more evident than with Labour’s “selection” of which migrants to send back. In the same week when our Foreign Office had issued a travel warning for Maltese in Benghazi (Libya) we had a nazi-style selection progress to send the strongest among the lot (we care about women and children) to face the troubles. Weep if you remember how to.

Simon and the Moral Issue

The nationalist party had a hard time getting everyone to forget the ugly baggage it has stored in Dar Centrali when it comes to immigration policy. Over the years in government we cannot really say that the PN had provided some sort of moral standards when it came to dealing with immigrants. It’s all too well for ex-PM Gonzi and co. to stand up in parliament and insist that morality should come before the law (which we agree 100%) when not too long ago a nationalist government had no qualms in using a boat-load of immigrants as a negotiating pawn with that sans-pareil of democracy from the Italian government – Mr Frattini.

It would always have been hard for the nationalists to appear genuinely concerned on the matter what with all their footshuffling on all things immigrant when they were in the driving seat. Conditions at the immigrant quarters, backing of Italian push-back policies and that ill-fated planeload of Eritreans would still return to haunt the sons of the Ugandan exiles. Only three years ago MEP Simon Busuttil was comfortable writing the following words in an article entitled “Why the hypocrisy must stop” (Times 28.07.2010):

“It is all too easy to condemn and to play the moral card. Bet there is a hint of hypocrisy in those who do so at the international level. For they have no reply when we ask them who is going to shoulder the responsibility”.

Which is where the PN still needs to grow up. As I said I am all for a revamped Nationalist position on immigration. Ideally this would involve a long term approach putting their policy in black and white. I am sure there would  be place for defining moral priorities and help the PN avoid a pick’n’mix approach depending on the latest crisis. As things stand though it is hard to be convinced by a leader who only in 2011 (March 25th) was still prepared to argue in legal terms over and above issues of morality (See “Libyan crisis caused migration policy rethink – Times of Malta). Which is not to say there is not place for hope.

What the PN needs to avoid is gimmicks such as the “65 lawyer” lawsuit. Call a spade a spade. Say that 65 lawyers from within the PN set-up signed a document that would allow the party to bask in the limelight. If it had to be a real lawyer’s lawsuit then why not open it to the whole of our professional brotherhood? Better still why not make sure that you actually have locus standi to see the thing through – as did the very commendable Michael Camilleri in his lawsuit for and on behalf of a number of NGO’s? There was something that smacked of the incredibly opportunistic in this lawsuit business (the PN’s not Michael’s of course). It was the PN trying to do a PL (remember the class action stunts?). A clumsy attempt at flashy PR. Failed.

The Bigot among us

Yes the issue has also shown that there are many, many among us who would have no qualms putting a couple of hundred innocent souls on a plane and send them to their doom. Just pop into facebook or the comment boards and you will see how this is not a case of the factitious loony few. It was not just Normal Lowell popping up his racist head to applaud Joseph Muscat. It was a slew of comments all over the place. It was a train of misguided thoughts and ill-informed criticism. At least Muscat could rest assured that there is more than a modicum of support for his theatrics.

The irony is that those who claim to be acting in the interest of the nation seem to be oblivious of the fact that a push-back policy risks making Malta a pariah in the international community. Their idea of making the country proud (and yes, of standing up to be counted) is one that flaunts international rules, defies moral duty and packages human beings in a lead box with wings before sending them out to the slaughter. Din l-art helwa my arse.

Utopia

Back in the days of the Crimean War Malta was a floating hospital receiving the wounded and injured from the battleground. The country can once again develop its capabilities as a safe harbour, promoter of Universal Rights and liberties, protector of the weak and beacon of light in an indifferent Europe. It is not just barracks for the migrants that could be built but centres for dissemination of information and education, events that focus on the plight of brother human beings across the world. All this and more would allow Malta to become a leader among nations in a Union that is shuffling its feet.

Being at the forefront of this human tragedy is not a danger to flee from but an opportunity to be grasped. A sense of duty is required. A moral fibre and a will to toil with sweat. These are real sacrifices that would not only make a country proud but would make us all better humans. Such a programme would require parties that think above partisan vote-winning interest. It would require genuine commitment and real men (and women) not rhetoric sabre-rattler or opportunistic bandwagon riders.

The Mediterranean sea is our history and our future. We cannot choose to only accept the Saints that are spat onto our island in some shipwreck two millenia ago. Destiny has put our islands at the crossroads of great events. We are either going to choose the path to be men and accept this challenge or tread the paths of many cowards before us who easily bully the weak and cower before the strong.

What will it be? It’s time to stop flogging the sea.

THEN Xerxes made vast provision for his invasion-for the building of a bridge over the Hellespont, and the cutting of a canal through the peninsula of Athos, where the fleet of Mardonius had been shattered. And from all parts of his huge empire he mustered his hosts first in Cappadocia, and marched thence by way of Sardis to the Hellespont. And because, when the bridge was a-building, a great storm wrecked it, he bade flog the naughty waves of the sea. Then, the bridge being finished, he passed over with his host, which took seven days to accomplish.

 

Categories
Immigration

If that plane takes off

If the information from “informed sources” is confirmed then two planes will take off from Luqa airport (at midnight and four a.m.) in order to return a number of the migrants who had reached our shores in desperation. It is really immaterial whether the obscene policy dubbed “push-back” is legal or illegal by whatever rule you choose to follow. True, there is a judgement of the European Court of Human Rights. True, by EU law the action is not only repugnant but illegal. All that should not count though, for first and foremost the deed that will be committed in the stealth of the night is really a measure of man – a measure of men on this island.

The moment the AirMalta flight’s wheels will lift off from the hallowed ground of this land of milk and honey will be the moment this country has reached if not its darkest hour then one of its darkest. Under the stealth of dark night the world’s ugliest hours have tolled  – from biblical massacres (the Passover, Herod’s cull of the innocents) to Shakespearean tragedy (Come, thick night, And pall thee in dunnest smoke of hell) to the sickly moments of Nazi Kristallnacht  – the history of humanity is replete with manifestations of the dark side of man. The cloaked darkness will not and should not suffice to hide the perpetrators of this latest inhuman act from shame. Yes, shame. Because the moment the first of those planes takes off is the moment we can definitely confirm that we have been divested of a large part of our humanity and dignity.

There is no darkness but ignorance, the poet tells us. It is the fruit of ignorance that is being borne on this very dark and heavy night in those planes of lead carrying the disillusioned dreams back to the darkness whence they came. It is the ignorant bleating of the masses that is being pleased, the ignorant braying of hundreds of mules that are being appeased by the leaders of none. It takes no courage to take a group of helpless men, women and children and place them on a vehicle of transport to be sent back to whatever sad or ill fate awaits them. It does not make you a non-pushover. It makes you a coward, a coward of the worst kind for whom no circle of damnation would suffice.

Is this push-back policy the fruit of misplaced oratory? Is it some misguided ploy to distract from the myriad errors being committed by a government that has proven to be a false hope? Worse still if it is. For I’d hate to bear the responsibility of playing with people’s lives simply as a diversionary tactic and distraction. Can our supposed leaders even for one moment believe that this kind of chest-pounding with the poor and the depraved win them any accolades other than among the very sheep and donkeys who have pushed them to this madness? Even if the herds amounted to 90% of the population this is the moment in which real leaders stand up to be counted. They stand up armed with values, with belief and with a strong vision of humanity that transcends the immediate and the material. They do not “explore all options” but bear the brunt of the difficulty and stand out as beacons that shame the neighbouring countries who refuse to budge in solidarity.

We’ll have none of that though. A pen pusher somewhere in Castille has set the wheels in motion. Our very own one-way trains of doom will take flight tonight. Their destination may not be Birkenau, Treblinka or Auschwitz but what’s in a name? On our heads will rest the responsibility of every life that could be lost.

If that plane takes off at midnight tonight we can definitely say that we will be taking one more step backward to mediocrity, spinelessness and relativism.

Tonight, before you tuck your children to sleep think of the souls that have been sent away into the darkness. There are some people who would have you believe that it is being done for your safety and for our nation’s glory.

Not in my name.

 

NOTICE FROM THE MALTA HUMANIST ASSOCIATION:

YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE. Government is reportedly about to send 102 Somali asylum seekers back to Libya, in what would effectively be a repeat of a policy enacted by Italy in 2010, and declared illegal by the European Court of Human rights in 2012.
The initiative would also be a direct violation of Protocol 4, Article 4 of the convention of human rights – to which Malta is signatory, and which very unambiguously prohibits mass deportation of foreigners.
Hailing from Somalia, all 102 of these asylum seekers are within their legal rights to seek asylum, and Malta is legally bound by various treaties to process their application. Yet government seems to be implying that it intends to disregard its own legal obligations in this sense, and the implications are that governmet considers itself above the law.
A protest has been planned for this evening (8pm) and will be attended by NGOs involved in asylum. The MHA is supporting this initiative, as it is very concerned by the latest developments on at least three counts:
1), the proposed action constitutes a clear violation of human rights, and as such runs counter to the single most relevant article of international law concernign human rights (which, as humanists, we feel duty-bound to uphold)
2) regardless of legality, the proposed plan is a direct affront to the basic dignity to which all humans are entitled, and exposes these people to very serious risk of violent reprisals (possibly including torture and execution) on their reptriation;
3) It is the MHA’s view that government’s approach to this phenomenon should not be piecemeal, and shoud instead concentrate on adopting a national immigration plan that goes beyond dealing with crises as they arise… in other words, the opposite of what it is doing in this case.

Categories
Dalligate Mediawatch

Talking about a revolution

Mohammed Morsi will just not let go that easily. The government installed after Egypt’s turn of the Arab Spring seems to have its days counted and the army has issued an ultimatum for it to step down. As representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood prepare for the last stand, it seems to be inevitable that there will be a new government that moves away from the initial islamist reaction that was originally installed following Mubarak’s removal.

Listening to the BBC radio this morning I heard of the travel advisories issued by the British government and was bemused to notice that while the political centres of Egypt are currently a no-go area for tourists, the Red Sea zones are still open to business as usual. Which goes to show that 21st century revolutions cannot afford any blips in the economy – so do not cancel that holiday in Sharm el Sheik and the next government will be grateful.

We did see something similar happening in Brazil in the pat few weeks with the social divide being clearly highlighted. On the one hand the Confederations Cup went ahead with a festival of sports in a country that is supposed to be football mad while on the other you had millions of people hitting the street reminding the government to get its priorities right. There’s nothing more symbolic of the surreal clash between the panem et circenses and the protesting crowds than the TV commentator wondering out loud whether the smoke that he can see is coming from the supporters or from the police canisters of tear gas being thrown outside.

Elsewhere Mr Snowden is busy concocting his own peaceful revolution. While Evo Morales seems to think that Snowden’s act is definitely in the interests of peace – a revolutionary act of courage, Vladimir Putin described dealing with Snowden as being “like shearing a pig – too much squealing, too little wool”. Maybe the truth is half way there. Snowden has issued his latest declaration from the transit zone in Moscow.

Snowden denounces the United States for having revoked his passport and left him stateless. He reminds the world that “the Obama administration is not afraid of whistleblowers like me, Bradley Manning or Thomas Drake. We are stateless, imprisoned, or powerless. No, the Obama administration is afraid of you. It is afraid of an informed, angry public demanding the constitutional government it was promised – and it should be.” Information and knowledge remain the key terms in this period of revolutionary change that is eating at the traditional dynamics of liberal democracy.

As Snowden remains stuck in no-man’s land in a Moscow Airport waiting for news of the first country that will offer him his much needed asylum, we hear of the Maltese politician who crossed half the world in order to spend four hours in the Bahamas for some philanthropic mission. In this case the press statements and emails sent to clarify his behaviour amount to nothing more than a garbled text of foot shuffling and enigmas. The lack of clarity in the statements should of itself suffice as proof to the inquisitive mind that the smokescreen being created (and accompanying conspiracy theories) is just that.

The truth, most times, is simple. It’s the lies and half truths that turn out to be most complicated.

Categories
Mediawatch

The Others

It’s been a while since J’accuse took a look at the what the world around us has to offer. Facebook killed the blogging star (oh-uh-oh) and the blogosphere is a tad bit less self-referential nowadays. At least less than it was eight years back when linking to other blogs was de rigeur. I was prompted to put up this little post by a newsletter from Patrick updating me with the news on his blog Passejn. Consider this a random reminder that there are others out there doing wonderful things with this tool they call the net.

Passejn

Marisa Attard

markbiwwa

Little World of Macro 

Schlock Magazine

Muzika Mod Iehor

Comino Republic (that ghost written political blog of course)

* The above list is not exclusively a blog list. Marisa illustrates, Schlock is a collaborative project and Toni’s MMI is an institution. Also, I’ve heard rumours that the much loved Bollettino della Sfi*a is about to be revived. Don’t believe the hype, it’s a sequel.

 

Categories
Constitutional Development Mediawatch Politics

Zombie democracy revisited

One of the Economist’s leaders this week is entitled “Zombie democracy” and essentially discusses the concept of majoritarianism. Modern democratic governments are elected by popular suffrage and are formed on the basis of majority rule (cue the discussion on representation, majority government and coalitions). Once an election is over it is assumed that the party obtaining the majority of support will govern. Of course the essence of liberal democracy does not stop there. There are in place numerous institutional and systemic checks and balances to ensure that the government does not get too drunk with power. At least in theory this should work.

In Malta we have recently segued from a government that enjoyed a relative majority to one that enjoys a gulf of majority – at least poll wise. the first hundred days of Muscat’s government have betrayed an arrogant confidence that is cushioned by the implied thought that the massive majority cannot be wrong. Can it?

When last Thursday I voiced my agreement with what Caruana Galizia had to say on Simon Busuttil’s statement that “36,000 people cannot be wrong” I provoked quite a discussion on facebook. For the record here is the clip from Caruana Galizia’s article on the Indy:

Simon Busuttil said a few days ago at a party event that “36,000 people can’t be wrong”. Of course they can. A hundred thousand people can be wrong; a hundred million can be wrong. Rightness and wrongness do not derive from popularity of belief or opinion. To correlate whether people are right or wrong to how many people did or think the same way is a logical fallacy. Some of them already know they were wrong. They are able to see it, some even to admit it.

Do elections really give you an idea of what is wrong or right? Of who is wrong or right? Votes are won (or “bought“) for many different reasons and more often than not being right has little or nothing to do with it. A campaign such as the Taghna Lkoll campaign can act as an opiate for a large number of people and once it is combined with the accumulation of disgruntlement at the incumbent it is a sure formula for success at the polls. Alas it has little to do with that formula being a formula for success at good democratic government.

The success at the polls projected TaghnaLkoll to the dizzy heights of power and within the first hundred days we have a clear picture that the hopes of the voters were not to be matched. The latest dismal move is the dismantlement of a diplomatic set-up in order to make way for lackeys, travel consultants and comperes to be the face of Malta abroad. Also the earliest cabinet reshuffle in history was the result of Labour not having stuck to its original position (separate ministries for justice and home affairs). The musical chairs in cabinet is all about keeping friends close and enemies closer. It’s obvious. Power broking for the sake of power broking is what is going on with no place left for the national interest. Add to that the not too transparent dealings with the Chinese government and what you get is a Joseph Muscat government bulldozering over any semblance of liberal democrat checks and balances.

Here’s the Economist on how this happens:

“BUT I’ve won three elections!” Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s embattled prime minister, growls at his critics. On the face of it, his case is compelling: surely, many people in Turkey and beyond would agree, popularly elected leaders can govern as they please? That’s what democracy means. Well, no. Majoritarianism—the credo of an expanding group of elected but autocratic rulers around the world, which holds that electoral might always makes you right—is not true democracy, even if, on the face of it, the two things look alike. It is worth explaining why.

The solution is in the mind of the politicians themselves. Gonzi’s government did cause much damage to the already flawed concept of democracy that existed in the popular mindset. The clinging to the seat of power was not an educational step forward and sowed the seeds for the abuse of democracy by Muscat and the TaghnaLkoll crowd. As his government became weaker and weaker Gonzi clung to the relative majority in parliament and played the actors sufficiently to last the whole legislature. At times it takes a conscious step in the mind of leaders themselves to recognise the limits that are accorded to majoritarian power – again the Economist:

Beyond documents and institutions, the difference between crass majoritarianism and democracy resides in the heads of the mighty. Democrats have a bedrock understanding that the minority (or often majority) who did not vote for them are as much citizens of their country as those who did, and are entitled to a respectful hearing; and that a leader’s job is to deliberate and act in the national interests, not just those of his supporters.

This leader could have been written for Muscat. Instead the Economist is probably still not alerted to the goings on in the European Union’s smallest member so it uses Erdogan, Lukashenko and Hungary’s Orban as examples. The adaptation of these leaders to democracy has been simply to ensure that come election time they get that crucial bulk of votes that puts them into the driving seat for the next legislature. Practices to obtain such votes may be illegal (vote-buying, vote-rigging) or borderline legal (jobs, amnesties promised). In time we have seen how even parties in the more classical of democracies have morphed into election winning machines that have no clue how to make use of power democratically once elected. They groom the zombies to vote them into power… then stick to it with no regard for the wider community. The Economist concludes:

The basic idea of a democracy is that the voters should pick a government, which rules as it chooses until they see fit to chuck it out. But although voting is an important democratic right, it is not the only one. And winning an election does not entitle a leader to disregard all checks on his power. The majoritarian world view espoused by Mr Erdogan and leaders of his ilk is a kind of zombie democracy. It has the outward shape of the real thing, but it lacks the heart.

 

Categories
Mediawatch Values

The politics behind Snowden

Edward Snowden is on the run. The US government is attempting to get the former CIA employee and contractor for the NSA  extradited after he shared classified material with the international press – namely with the UK’s Guardian. Snowden’s first leak activity took place in Hong Kong, safely wrapped in a series of laws and rules that govern the former UK colony. Even had the Hong Kong courts reached a decision to extradite Snowden (which they did not), the final say would still have lain with the Chinese authorities who have the prerogative of a veto on such decisions.

Snowden has apparently “left the building” this morning and has been tracked on an Aeroflot flight – direction Moscow. The Russian authorities claim to be unaware of the hot potato that is passing through their space but it is rumoured that Snowden has another final destination in mind. In fact Snowden has already mentioned Iceland as the best place to end up given the high level of personal protection that is afforded to individuals in Icelandic law.

Iceland is an interesting choice and model  not just within the context of this case but in a wider political and economic context. The island nation has just come out of its own financial crisis. Although it suffered a severe blow between 2008 and 2012 it seems to have weathered the worst part of the storm and steadied its ship back on a better course. The crisis forced a blanket institutional reform and resulted ironically in a final rebuff of the EU membership that had previously been top of the agenda. In fact elected on the wind of debt disputes with the UK and the Netherlands as well as continuing tension on environmental matters (particularly fishing policy), the newl conservative government of 2013 has opted to freeze the EU membership application.

Why would Snowden go to Iceland then? This Guardian article provides much of the answers to that question. The country’s efforts for protecting freedom of expression and whistleblowers are not token gestures to appease the population in bandwagon riding politics. The Icelandic Pirate Party has lobbied for strengthening of the rights including the protection of asylum seekers. Birgitta Jónsdóttir is chairman of the Icelandic Modern Media Institute and an Icelandic MP for the Pirate Party. The Institute is currently examining the options for Edward Snowden while actively working on multiple fronts to strengthen his right to diplomatic protection.

The politics behind Snowden are the politics of individual freedom and liberty. They are the politics of direct representation and accountability and transparency. They are the politics of the 21st century that may seem to originate in the unfamiliar world of global communication and knowledge management but are just as crucial to social development and constitutional integrity as the period of revolutionary idealism that brought about the birth of consitutional liberal democracies. Parties such as the international phenomenon that is the Pirate Party are a new tool in modern democracies that operates with clear values, clear direction and that do not compromise their values for the sake of power itself.

Think about that.