Category: Values

Categories
Mediawatch Values

Ġieħ il-Banana

Għażiża Gaia,

Din il-bloggata ma hix xi forma ta’ stmerrija jew disprezz lejn it-talenti u potenzjal tiegħek. Semgħek tkanta min kellu jisimgħek, u nies li żgur huma tal-widna iktar minni u li jifhmu fil-mużika wisq iktar minni raw fik talent mill-isbaħ li jekk indukrat tajjeb għad iferraħ widnet bosta oħrajn. Din ma hi bl-ebda mod xi attakk faħxi fuq il-persuna tiegħek u fuq kull min għandu għal qalbu “il-kompetizzjoni” tat-talenti li saret tant tħobb il-persuna mondana fis-seklu wieħed u għoxrin.

Kif issa taf sew Gaia, int ingħatajt premju (jew intqal li se tingħata dalwaqt) mingħand wieħed mill-ogħla uffiċjali fir-Repubblika tagħna. Dan l-uffiċċjal rak tirbaħ dik il-kompetizzjoni bejn ilħna żgħar għadhom mank imkissra u tant għereq f’orgażmu (tip ta’ eċċitament li titgħallem dwaru la tikber – jaf ikun eċċitament ikbar milli tirbaħ kwalunkwe premju) ta’ pjaċir u kburija illi donnu iddeċieda ħesrem, mingħajr wisq riflessjoni u ħsieb (kif wara kollox mid-dehra iħobb jagħmel) jikkonferixxi fuqek onorifiċenza ta’ importanza nazzjonali.

999207_621514967909458_179221610_nIva Gaia, se tingħata Ġieħ ir-Repubblika. Mhux int biss. Imma anki “t-tim” tiegħek. Ma setgħax jonqos li fi żmenijiet bħal dawn nippremjaw “tim ta’ suċċess” għax hekk imorru l-affarijiet. Issa ħalli li l-uffiċjal f’intervista li ta’ lill-press lanqas ma kien ċert jekk hux se tkun l-Ordni tal-Mertu jew Ġieħ ir-Repubblika imma dawk dettalji relattivament żgħar – l-aqwa li se nagħtuha xi ħaġa hux.

Issa ħa ngħidlek din Gaia. Din tal-onorifiċenzi ma hix xi ħaġa marbuta biss ma pajjiżna. Kull pajjiż għandu tiegħu tafx – lista ta’ nies li jiġu ippremjati jew b’rikonoxximent għal xi xogħol jew servizz li għamlu lejn il-pajjiż jew (ejja ngħiduha kif inhi) lista ta’ nies li ingħataw xi unur għax għaddew min hawn u ridna skuża biex ikollna riċeviment. Biex niftehmu kienu ilhom li naqqsu l-importanza ta’ dawn l-onorifiċenzi – kull ma għandek tagħmel hu li tqis li qablek kien hemm nies emeriti bħal Gaddafi (revokat) u Kim Il Sung li ingħataw l-istess unur mingħajr ma kantaw l-inqas strofa.

Li jinkwetani hu li minkejja il-merti kollha li jista’ jkollok int bħala kantanta hemm xi ħaġa li ma ddoqlix dwar il-mod kif l-uffiċjal tal-pajjiż ma jidher li għandu l-ebda stima jew rispett lejn is-simbolu tar-Repubblika u kull ma hu rappreżentat minnha. Ma kienx biżżejjed li iffissa prezz tas-suq fuq in-nazzjonalita – fuq il-fatt li wieħed ikun Malti. Ma kienx biżżejjed illi l-għażla ta-qaddejja fidili tar-Repubblika saret farsa sħiħa fejn iktar tistħajjel orġja (iva erġajna) ta’ ħbieb tal-ħbieb jiffangaw.

Ma kienx biżżejjed u issa ser inqassmu ukoll l-onorifiċenzi qishom il-pastizzi proverbjali. Li jinkwetani Gaia mhux li int, bħala Gaia, se tingħata onorifiċenza – ħalli li huwa lampanti li fil-każ tiegħek u dak li għamilt mhux talli ir-Repubblika qed tkun ġeneruża imma qed tniżżel ħafna l-istandard ta’ x’għandu jiġi ippremjat. Jinkwetani appuntu din il-moda li ma tagħrafx il-bżulija, l-għaraq ta’ min jistinka u t-talent imrawwem fuq medda ta’ żmien.

Jinkwetani li l-valur ta’ dak li aħna kburin bih bħala Maltin qiegħed kull ma jmur jitnittef fix-xejn. Tisma għajta ġdida imgeżwra fil-gidba egalitarja u meritokratika tal-Moviment Tagħna Lkoll biex kullħadd ikun jista’ jidħol l-Universita, kullħadd ikun jista’ jingħadd bħala kantant u kullħadd ikun jista’ jsir politiku. Kullħadd, jgħidulek għandu dritt għall-opinjoni u kullħadd għandu dritt għal xogħol bħala uffiċjal mal-gvern avolja ma jkunx jifhem f’kazz (skużani imma kulltant ir-rabja tagħmel bijja). Għax inkella taf int, Gaia, “mhux fjer” jew “ilhom ipappuha u issa imiss lilna lkoll”.

Allura nistaqsi Gaia, din hi il-ħolma Maltija? Dan hu “The Maltese Dream”? X’jibqalek hi u tagħlaq is-sena 2013 li tgħid li inti kburi li tgħix jew tiġi minn din il-gżira?

Għad għandek 11-il sena Gaia. Ma nafx kemm ħaqqek terfa’ responsabilta’ bħal din fuq spallejk imma inħeġġek taħseb ftit dwar pajjiżek u n-nies li jgħixu fih u forsi ġo ħsiebek tinbet idea jew riżoluzzjoni li minbarra li tipprova tgħix ħajja normali, int u l-ġenerazzjoni tiegħek tagħrfu tarmu iċ-ċuċati li bihom iżejnu u jiddandnu l-uffiċjali ta’ llum. Għallinqas hekk l-unur (forsi) ikun sewa’ għal xi ħaġa.

Mill-bqija, setgħet kienet banana.

 

 

Ma rridx

nobżoq

f’wiċċ ir-repubblika.

(Daniel Massa)

Categories
Values

Noti waqt elezzjoni tal-KSJC*

Kull sena meta tasal l-elezzjoni ghall-Ezekuttiv tal-Kunsill Studenti Universitarji nispicca nirraguna ma xi hadd dwar sistemi rapprezentativi u l-“winner takes all” tal-elezzjonijiet. Kull sena ma nikkonkludux wisq filwaqt li xi ghaqda politika minnhom “tkaxkar” is-siggijiet tal-ezekuttiv.

Dalghodu tellajt sentenza fuq facebook wara li rajt li kemm Luciano Busuttil kif ukoll Joseph Cuschieri kienu qed iheggu l-istudenti biex jivvutaw ghall-ghaqda PULSE. Ikkumentali Mark Vella u wegibtu b’serje ta’ kummenti li issa sincerament ghajjejt nirrepetihom. (*U wara li gibidli l-attenzjoni Philip Leone-Ganado indunajt li l-invit ta’ Cuschieri u Busuttil kien ghall-elezzjoni fil-KSJC – dan kollu li nghid hawn xorta japplika ghal KSU, fil-kaz ta’ KSJC hag’ohra, jiena nemmen li l-politika qatt ma ghandha tasal sa’ livelli post-sekondarji).

L-esperiment tal-istatut tal-KSU ma rnexxiex sa’ l-ahhar. Ma rnexxiex ghaliex l-indhil tal-partiti baqa jizdied u ma rnexxiex ghax l-immagni li tinghata hija wahda annwali ta’ xi glieda PLPN fil-mikrokozmu ta’ tal-Qroqq. Pero irnexxa f’hafna oqsma ohra. Kont fuq il-Kampus xi gimaghtejn ilu u rajt kampus  biezel – hafna hwienet vera – pero wara l-bibien tal-kuriduri t’isfel ta’ Dar l-iStudent smajt lil min qed ihabrek ghall-ghaqda tieghu, rajt noticeboards mifqugha avvizi u rajt hafna u hafna ideat iduru. Wara l-istorbju tal-influenza partitarja hemm hafna qed isir u dan ukoll grazzi ghal strutturi tal-KSU il-gdid (issa ghaddew 17-il sena imma ejja nahsbu li l-esperiment ghadu ghaddej) li bejn kontroversja u ohra hadem u halla lil min jahdem. Wara l-akkuzi u l-ghajjat ta’ partit u oppozizzjoni hemm min jibqa jtektek u ghaddej fil-hajja universitarja tieghu itella eventi u jirrprezenta filwaqt li jista jserrah fuq dak il-monolit li huwa l-eqdem kunsill raprezentattiv fl-ewropa.

Inhallikom bit-test tad-diskursata (vera iktar qisa monologu tieghi imma insomma), u nittama li jekk (bhal kull sena) ikun hemm x’tiddiskuti dan isir b’mod infurmat u minghajr wisq pregudizzji.

stipendjishah1

JRZ FB STATUS : Luciano Busuttil and Joseph Cuschieri would vote PULSE. Just so you know where your vote should be going …
#studentrepresentation #notomanipulation

MV Naħseb aħjar tikkampanja għal KSU aktar rappreżentattiv u mhux monopartitiku totalitarju kif inhu bis-sistema tal-lum

JRZ Perswaz li tahseb hekk. Kif ukoll perswaz li l-KPS hija manifestazzjoni cara ta rapprezentanza wiregha mahsuba ghat-trasparenza fit-tfassil tal-politika studenteska.

MV Ma nafx x’inhi l-KPS. Imma KSU ideali, bħal ma huwa Parlament ideali għalija, huwa korp proporzjonalment rappreżentattiv tal-ilħna kollha fl-Università, u mhux winner takes all li jispiċċa jirriproduċi l-partitokrazija ‘tal-kbar’.

JRZ Iva Mark, u bhalek hafna ohra ma semghux bil-KPS u xorta juzaw termini bhal “sistema monopartitiku totalitarju” u “winner takes all”. Il-verità (u l-ironija) hi li s-sistema mahsuba proprja fuq zewg principji importantissimi li huma ir-rapprezentanza u l-partecipazzjoni. Meta inhasbet is-sistema il-gdida tal-KSU, din kienet hsieb radikali u kienet mfassla proprju bl-idea li kemm jista jkun l-“indhil barrani” partitarju ma jibqax hemm, specjalment fit-tfassil ta’ kull politika li mahsuba li tirraprezenta l-istudenti.

Il-KSU ma hux biss l-ezekuttiv izda (u qed nghid dan minghajr ma nikkonsidra xi tbaghbis li seta sar mill-1996 ‘l hawn) huwa maghmul minn grupp ta’ organi rapprezentattivi – kull wiehed b’rwol car u specifiku.

Il-KPS (Kummissjoni Politika Socjali) thaddan fiha kull ghaqda u organizzazzjoni politika u mhux li hemm fil-kampus u ghandha rwol li tohloq u thejji pozizzjonijiet politici fuq kull qasam extra-kurrikulari. Meta thaddmet sew il-KPS harget b’pozizzjonijiet politici cari u determinanti (speci ta’ set ta’ principji) – ghadni kburi hafna bil-pozizzjoni li hadet il-KSU a bazi ta’ dokument tal-KPS qabel l-elezzjoni tal-1998. Huwa il-KPS li jiggarantixxi l-idea ta’ Parlament u li sahansitra lanqas ma hu proporzjonali fis-sens li kull ghaqda ghandha vot – jekk xejn dan huwa shortcoming illi kellu jiddahhal. Idealment jigi elett proporzjonalment ukoll organu bhal dan.

Il-KE (Kummissjoni Edukazzjoni) hija organu iehor li fiha tigbor awtomatikament ir-rapprezentanti akkademici kollha tal-istudenti (Faculty Reps u Senat u Kunsill). Ghal darb’ohra din tfassal politika li tirraprezenta l-wesgha kollha studenteska.

Ir-ras tas-sistema, kif ukoll il-magna hija l-ezekuttiv. Dan inholoq bit-tir li jhaddem politika maghmula mill-KE u KPS. Ma johloqx politika imma jwettaqa. Il-falliment tas-sistema kien (u ghadu) li l-organi ma jintuzawx kif suppost – b’mod partikolari l-ezekuttiv u l-elezzjoni ghall-membri tieghu. Dan jigri minhabba l-indhil tal-partiti politici li minghalihom qed jaghmlu xi gid meta jibdew idarru liz-zghar bil-metodi meskini taghhom. Ma tlumx l-istudenti f’ghaqdiet bhal SDM u PULSE illum li jaraw din bhala xi fast track ghal kandidatura jew xi post “fil-partit”. It-telliefa hija r-rapprezentanza studenteska iva. Mhux tort tas-sistema tort tal-“indhil”. L-istudenti ftit li xejn qatt irnexxielhom jeghlbu din il-gibda lejn il-partiti (zmienna kien eccezzjoni lampanti nahseb u malajr ghebet).

Illum ghandek lil Luciano u lil Joseph jtellghu fb status li kieku jivvutaw PULSE. Malli tellajt dan l-istatus jien gie retweetjat minn David Agius ghax minghalih li qed niehu sehem f’xi battalja diviziva u nilghab il-loghba tal-PLPN fil-grawnd ta’ tal-Qroqq. Dejjem jghiduli li diska mkissra din tal-PLPN, pero iktar ma jghaddi zmien iktar nahseb li hija realtà u qed ninghata ragun.

J’alla l-istudenti jivvutaw ezekuttiv kompetenti li kapaci johloq sinergija mal-kummissjonijiet u tabilhaqq jirraprezenta l-istudent l-ewwel u qabel kollox. U din ma hix retorika.

 

Categories
Euroland Immigration Politics Values

Follement

The storm in a tea-drinking establishment captured most of the attention on the Sunday papers and media. You would be forgiven therefore (and for reasons I will explain later you would also be fortunate) had you missed the piece penned in the Sunday Times of Malta by Malta’s former ambassador to the Council of Europe Joseph Licari. The title makes no effort to hide Licari’s ultimate aim – “The case for refoulement“. He could have called it “Apologia for Joseph Muscat’s Madcap Idea of Pushing Back Migrants” but I guess it would have been too long and in your face. You would hope that the presence of the word “case” in the title to an article would mean that there would be a build up of cogent logic leading to a strong argument in favour of something: in this case that something being the not too kosher idea of “refoulement“.

Interestingly the actual principle in international law is that of “non-refoulement” – the principle itself being an enshrining of the accepted idea among international actors that refoulement is a no-no. Here’s good old Wikipedia explaining the origins of the idea:

The principle of non-refoulement arises out of an international collective memory of the failure of nations during World War II to provide a safe haven to refugees fleeing certain genocide at the hands of the Nazi regime. Today, the principle of non-refoulement ostensibly protects recognized refugees and asylum seekers from being expelled from countries that are signatories to the 1951 Convention or 1967 Protocol. This has however not prevented certain signatory countries from skirting the international law principle and repatriating or expelling bona fide refugees into the hands of potential persecutors.

In other words: “Non-refoulement is a principle of the international law, i.e. of customary and trucial Law of Nations which forbids the rendering of a true victim of persecution to their persecutor; persecutor generally referring to a state-actor (country/government).” Which is pretty much where Licari starts to deviate from the point in an attempt to find some justification for a form of refoulement that he can only imagine.

In primis, Licari goes to great pains throughout his piece to underline some form of trump-card that he variously defines as national interest or better still the international obligation to share heavy burdens. You see, a country may – according to Licari – allow itself to be bound by international obligations but these may be set aside should the country feel that its national interest be threatened or as he weakly deduces from a preamble of the 1951 Convention: “A country’s obligation to accept refugees is balanced by other countries’ obligation to help it carry an unduly heavy burden.” Sound familiar? Of course it does. Patriotism being the last refuge of …

In secundis, Licari segues off into some kind of justification by analogy about the issue of self-defence. A nation, states the wise former ambassador, is the best placed to assess when the tipping point has been reached and when to resort to declaring “self-defence”.Next step? Here goes:

In other words, a country must abide by the law but it has the right of self-defence. Killing is a crime but not if committed in self-defence, as no one has an obligation to suffer physical harm and everyone has the right to prevent it.

Drum roll please. Joseph Licari served 14 years as Malta’s ambassador to the Council of Europe. in this day and age when many a nationalist is pooh-poohing certain Taghna Lkoll appointments in the diplomatic corps (rightly so) they deserve to be reminded that this paragon of logical befuddlement was our man in Strasbourg during the nationalist watch. The race to mediocrity anyone?

It gets better. In tertiis, Licari’s article goes somewhat conspiracy theorist. In a mix between Dan Brown and Anders Breivikh he takes on the hidden powers that are supposedly influencing the mad decisions at the UNHCR and ECHR. NGO’s (unelected) get pride of baton followed by those dastardly religious leaders. The cherry on the cake comes towards the end. In an article obviously penned to justify the pushback of boatloads of sub-saharan people to their country the author suddenly turns his guns on the people to the north: you know them, the Nordics.

Together with religious leaders and NGOs, the Nordic countries form a triptych of preachers we have to suffer in today’s Europe.

Suffer eh. I just could not believe what I am reading. What began as a supposed researched case in favour of pushbacks of some form really turned out to be one hell of a joyride. Smoking. The question really is what.

And finally, just in case you were wondering about the existence of any legal import to anything Licari wrote, there is much more to the “exception” that can be found in article 33 of the 1951 Convention. First of all the exception itself requires very strict interpretation and application. Here is Cornelis Wouters in “International Legal Standards for the Protection from Refoulement“:

The danger to the national security or community of the country of refuge must be a present or future danger. Thus, the past conduct of the refugee may be relevant.As with any exception to human rights guarantees,the exceptions contained in Article 33(2) must be interpreted restrictively and applied with great caution. The exceptions apply to refugees, who in principle have a right to be protected from refoulement. The finding of dangerousness does not require strict proof, but must be based on reasonable grounds and therefore supported by credible and reliable evidence and not made arbitrarily. The burden of proof of establishing reasonable grounds is on the State and requires an individual assessment. A State cannot assume that a refugee poses a threat to its national security or community based on the fact that he belongs to a certain group and create a rebuttable presumption of danger.Article 33(2) must be applied in a manner proportionate to its objective.483 This means that (1) there must be a causal link between the refugee and the danger, (2) it must be shown that the danger posed by the refugee is sufficiently serious and likely to be realised, (3) refoulement is a proportionate response to the perceived danger, (4) refoulement alleviates or even eliminates the danger, and (5) refoulement is used as a last possible resort where no other possibilities of alleviating the danger exist.

Even more importantly than these strict conditions (that obviously cannot be applied by rounding up the healthy suspects and putting them on the next plane to Tripoli) is the concurrent application of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. A trifle detail to have missed for an ambassador of 14 years in Strasbourg. You see Article 3 of the ECFHR has been applied in such a way as to constitute an absolute prohibition on any action that could result in torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. More specifically, Article 3 of the Convention has been used to prohibit any possible refoulement: According to the Court Article 3 ECHR leaves no room whatsoever for a balancing act between the national security of a State and the need of the individual for protection. (That’s what ex-ambassador Licari does not seem to like about the Court and its supposed infiltrators).

Still from Wouters :

In all three cases mentioned above the applicant’s conduct in the country of asylum was no reason to allow exceptions under Article 3. The Court explicitly acknowledged in these cases that the protection afforded under Article 3 from refoulement is thus wider than that provided under Article 33 of the Refugee Convention which does allow exceptions.

States do have a right to be legitimately concerned about potential “wolves” – criminals hiding among a flock of refugees seeking asylum. To perform the illogical leap of justifying refoulement generally with this argument though requires not only a leap of faith but also a heavy dose of those taghna lkoll pills that risked transforming Malta into a pariah state last month.

With (ex-)ambassadors like these who needs meritocratic appointments?

Categories
Values

Hagi’s Brave New World

In 1994 we took to watching some of the World Cup matches at La Grotta nightclub in Xlendi. I don’t remember whether the Romania v. Argentina fixture was late enough to be broadcast direct during clubbing hours or whether it was the repeat of the goals on Eurosport that we watched while dancing to the latest tunes. What I do remember is the magnificent performance of Gheorghe Hagi and Co and how they outshone the Argentinians with some of the best football of the tournament. The second Romanian goal, skillfully envisioned by Hagi and masterfully executed by Dumitrescu remains one of the classics of the tournament – as will the whole Romanian team that would go on to lose its nerve against a cynical Sweden in the quarter-final.

An interview in French sport magazine So Foot with the mastermind behind that team brought these memories of football and clubbing back to my mind. Hagi remains an institution in Romanian football history and nobody since has shone the way he had in the mid-nineties. Not even the meteoric Adrian Mutu. The interview might have struck me for many an insight that Hagi had about football in his heyday, about his moves from Madrid to Brescia to Barcelona, and about how his great Steaua succumbed to a physical Milan in a pre-Champions League final but what really struck me is the sense of saudade that Hagi seems to feel for the communist system that produced his team of greats.

The 1994 national team was a product of Ceausescu’s Romania – a project that had been selected from the villages and towns of the Carpathians and centred around Bucharest’s two dominant teams : Steaua and Dinamo. Plucked away from their regional haunts, different generations of players were disciplined into one system in central Romania and learnt to play together, to live football together and go through an educational system together. From Prunea to Belodedici to Munteanu to Dumitrescu, they all pased through a strict “Eastern” development system that we now only know to relate to the Communist heavy handed “discipline”.

We’ve all heard stories about the pumped East European women for the Olympics. Stories abound about how the successful football teams from behind the Iron Curtain were little more than playthings of the different secret services and police. Descriptions of such systems are normally painted with brushstrokes of oppression, dehumanisation and deprivation of basic rights. Yet here was Hagi expressing a nostalgia for those times and obviously pining for those days when the communist machine made footballing men out of undisciplined boys. There is something about this streak of nostalgia that cannot be ignored. Obviously this is not an appeal for the return of communist regimes and their dark methods of “preparation” but one does have to ask whether the moral fibre of the golden teams such as Hagi’s Romania can ever be replicated again.

This was Hagi who would quit Madrid for Brescia simply to play under the guidance of one of his gurus (Mircea Lucescu) prior to returning to Barcelona (where he played with – hold your breath and kneel down – Stoichkov and Romario). He may have had a fiery character but he did not break down to the vices and greed that seem to be so common with today’s footballers. Did I hear you say Mutu?

In an awkward twist of serendipitous reading I switched to this week’s Economist to find two articles about Raul Castro’s managed shift from Communism to a sort of free trade. The byword in Cuba seems to be to allow small businesses to work but just about that. The government still seems to be intent on ensuring that nobody gets “too rich”. For how long that can be controlled is anybody’s guess. In the meantime I understood why accounts by recent visitors to Cuba jarred so much with my own first-hand witness of Cuba in 2006 (just before Raul came into power). I remember being impressed by the lack of any free-market activity but also by the good-naturedness of the people.

True, there was an in-your-face lack of materialism and absolutely no familiar reference points for anyone coming from a liberal democrat background. But there was also an inexplicable joie de vivre that you could not read about in international reports. It was almost as though the resourcefulness of the people compensated for the limitations imposed by an oppressive regime. It was a contradiction that was hard to swallow. Here was a people who fail on many standards of the liberal democrat scale but then their cultural, health, educational and sporting values shot through the limit. Deprived of the outlets of senseless materialism the Cuban people did what they could do best – improvised and worked on other values.

Is this what Hagi misses? A sense of disciplined approach? Will Cuba produce its Sotomayor’s and little sporting miracles when the barriers to free market and laissez-fairism fall? I don’t have the answer to that one but for a few moments just savour the magic of the other boys in gold who almost conquered the world back in 1994.

Categories
Immigration Values

Civil and uncivil society

The Muslim Brotherhood will be turning out in large numbers in Cairo on Sunday to protest the abrupt removal of what was after all a democratically elected government. The Maltese hapless clone of the British National Party will also be demonstrating in Valletta – voicing their support for what they interpret as the Prime Minister’s strong stand against Europe and in favour of the ill-fated push-back policy. These too are manifestations of civil society. The right to express one’s opinion is sacrosanct, there’s no two ways about that, and even the most abominable of ideas can be voiced – to a certain extent (let’s not forget it is not legal to incite people to commit violence or to be violent).

The freedom of expression is a victim of gross misinterpretation in Malta though – as has often been documented in this blog. All too often the right to have an opinion is confused with “being right”. Having an opinion, no matter how maladroitly it has been constructed, seems to be the one and only “right” that counts. Critics of opinions are themselves labelled as “intolerant” and it all goes rather awry when the subject is tolerance itself – as in the case of immigration. Muscat’s Labour has built a lot of mileage on the concept of “the right to have an opinion no matter how wrong” and continues to fan this twisted logic while in government.

I am not sure how pleased Muscat can be with the Sunday demonstration in his honour. He must have failed to calculate the long-term effects of his clumsy bluff. Demonstrators will be hitting the streets in Malta on Sunday practically clamouring for the PM to insist on flaunting international rules and fundamental human rights. Our modern progressive Prime Minister must not have seen that coming. Diplomatic and strategic short-sightedness is a clear trait of the Taghna Lkoll arsenal – and many seem to be finding that out now.

Which brings me to the rest of civil society. We have seen in the past few days a sort of sectorial backlash to Muscat’s proposed push-back policy (or bluff). First the lawyers, then the academics and now the authors were reported as taking a unified stand against the whole idea. To begin with there is nothing more reassuring than seeing sectors of civil society putting their money where their mouth is. I do sense though that the obsession with partisan division still sticks like a limpet with the majority of such initiatives.

It’s not a question of being a wet-blanket but if I set aside the authors’ declaration I look at the “academics” and “lawyers” joint positions and all I see is a smokescreen for a party stunt. The most blatant of the two was the 65 lawyer judicial protest.  Aside from the fact that in certain quarters suddenly lawyers became a force to be reckoned with the names on the list were not exactly an across the board petition gathered at one of the drink-holes where lawyers tend to agglomerate. “65 lawyers active directly or indirectly with the nationalist party” would have been a better label.

As for the academics and as Maltatoday put it “labour intellectuals” there was again a selective exercise going on. That common position was not circulated at the University Canteen for anyone who agrees to voluntarily append his signature. It was an exercise in “look our party allows dissidence” – which really rang foul when you put it in the perspective of the “elaborate bluff”. Why? Because if you were Joseph Muscat and you really had hoped that your bluff were called you would also need a way to distance your party and its credentials from what you knew deep down to be a nefarious position. What better way than have your token liberals and academics yell their disapproval?

The strongest messages came from an all too different milieu. Those NGOs who quit the LGBT forum clearly explaining to the hapless government that you cannot pick and mix in the world of fundamental rights. A government that has no qualms to send human beings to their doom (and separating families in the process) cannot be serious about other fundamental rights. Aditus and Drachma did the only possible thing and quit the forum. You cannot engage with a bluffer and with a government that uses rights pragmatically for vote-gathering purposes.

To conclude, the minefield of immigration policy cannot be “un-politicised”. It is as political as it can get. The discerning citizen must be able to distinguish between the genuine movements and the smokescreens set up by the parties to cover what has hitherto been a hopeless record in the field of immigration. In the post 9/11 world we have to come to terms with this realignment of civil society and bear these truths in mind while taking an active role.

Unfortunately, the genuine movements (for or against certain policies) operate in the same field as the political parties who have a strong grasp on the ultimate decision taking seats of power. The end result of such a concoction is as unpredictable as we can allow it to be.

If there is anyone who should stand up and be counted then it is that part of civil society that harbours values for values’ sake and stops thinking in the “us and them” dichotomy. It will be hard. Judging by the history of Maltese politics…. it will be nigh impossible.

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.