Library

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.

The other boat people

The agreement between Australia and Papua New Guinea (PNG) regarding the treatment of Australia’s waves of boat people made the breaking news early this morning. Australia, it was announced, would be forwarding any refugee (asylum) seekers to PNG for processing and should their application become valid these asylum seekers would be resettled in PNG and not Australia. The arrangement is valid for twelve months and is subject to an annual review. In Rudd’s own words:

“Our expectation … is as this regional resettlement arrangement is implemented, and the message is sent loud and clear back up the pipeline, the number of boats will decline over time as asylum seekers then make recourse to other, more normal UNHCR processes to have their claims assessed,” Mr Rudd said.

No sooner had the news made the world wide web that repostings of the BBC report were being made on social networks by Maltese users – with such illuminating comments as “food for thought”. No doubt they believed that this move vindicated Joseph Muscat’s push-back ploy, and a cursory look at the facts behind the deal show that they there is no doubt that this is not a similar scenario. Let’s see why.

1. Human Rights

Yep. You have to begin there. The agreement means that the refugees are shifted to another point to have their asylum request processed. They are not shepherded onto a plane (with the added trauma of separating the healthy from the weak), they are not denied access to a lawyer or HR institutions and above all their entitlement to have their request treated is not prejudiced. Papua New Guinea is a signatory to the UN Refugees Convention – not an unstable country in the process of reconstruction. Here’s Rudd again:

“I understand that this is a very hard line decision,” Mr Rudd said. “But our responsibility as a government is to ensure that we have a robust system of border security and orderly migration, on the one hand, as well as fulfilling our legal and compassionate obligations under the refugees convention on the other,” he added. (9msn)

It’s not exactly a “stamping of feet” or “wake up and smell the coffee”. The Australian PM is aware that no matter how hardline you may get the combined duty of compassion and international obligations must and will be respected. A far cry from bluffing to break the law.

2. Promised Land Delayed.

It’s not all hunky dory. Australia is the land of promise for the people in that region. Not PNG, not Nauru. That however is what Rudd is banking on. His plan is a disincentive to smugglers who thrive on these illicit tours and mortal trips across the seas by sending out a message that the final destination will not be the land of Oz. It plays perfectly into the hands of recent “atavistic fears” aroused among the Australians – angry above all, at the lack of effort by recent arrivals to assimilate to the Ozzie culture. Settlers will instead have to adapt to New Guinean (Papuan?) culture since PNG has accepted for the refugees to be resettled within its borders.

A few notes on PNG will show that this is a growing democracy which is still plagued by a poverty gap with vast swathes of unexplored land. Fair game? So why did PNG accept the deal?

3. Money talks.

Well the PNG deal follows up on an earlier deal with Nauru. In both cases asylum seekers heading for Australia are (will be) rerouted to an asylum processing centre based on PNG or Nauru. The asylum centres are set up and maintained by Australia. That means that the money to pay for, monitor and run the centre comes from Australian coffers. Earlier centres were heavily criticised by the UNHCR for their conditions (a familiar story?) but Australia has pledged to build a new centre in PNG. That’s not just it… PNG needed more than a spanking new asylum centre to sign the dotted line and this is what it got:

In exchange for PNG’s agreement, Australia will fund further aid initiatives. These include redeveloping a major referral hospital in Lae, PNG’s second largest city, and assisting with its long-term management. Australia will also supply half the funding to reform PNG’s university sector and in 2014 implement the recommendations of an Australia-PNG education review. As well, it will support professional management teams in health, education and law and order. “And Australia, prime minister, stands ready to assist PNG further with other development needs in the future,” Mr Rudd said to Mr O’Neil. “That’s what friends are for.” (9msn)

International Cooperation

So Australia’s Rudd does get to shake the waters in the field of immigration policy. He admits that the PNG-Australia agreement might be challenged in the courts but also hopes that this will open the way for new global discussions on the treatment of immigrants and asylum seekers. The agreement exploits what Rudd seems to treat as a loophole in the international convention. The convention prohibits repatriation of asylum seekers but, according to Rudd’s reading does not prohibit resettlement in a different country – such as PNG.

Australia also plans to convene an international conference of transit and destination countries to consider how to improve global arrangements for refugees. The conference would consider the adequacy of processing arrangements and how Australia, the US, Canada and other countries could deal better with the resettlement issues.

So, no real stamping of feet. No threat to break international rules. The Australian PM gave his reassurances of compassionate treatment of the asylum seekers while setting up a framework the compatibility of which remains to be tested under international obligations. Having said that the way Rudd moved is diametrically opposed to what happened in the Maltese scenario.

That essentially is the difference between a statesman and a tantrum thrower fanning the flames of nationalistic fears. So, yes, food for thought indeed.

Murder they wrote

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.