It seems that Europe does not endorse Labour's 20-point immigration plan. Of course, I did not expect otherwise. But as you unravel the entire picture you start to note a series of cause and effect but no adequate solutions at all.

Muscat, driven by a popular wave of worry, frustration and anger, had no choice but to present his action plan in parliament. He attempted to come to a solution but it is one I do not agree with. His reasoning is not to be tough with migrants but with politicians. Fair enough, but this political bashing, coupled with an over-zealous defense of national interest might lead to the opposite effect, i.e. that we will end up being very tough with migrants.

However, I do not wish to give false impressions. I fully agree with the principle of equality amongst the community's member states. In principle Malta should be no different than France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Britain. In fact, the men and women in Brussels said they recognise this shortcoming. Verheugen himself said that he was ashamed of the fact that the big states are leaving the smaller ones to fend for themselves. They seem to recognise further that something needs to be done because this lack of solidarity cannot continue. But they stop short of offering concrete solutions and in their silence they ironically strengthen the need for tough action. They are inviting the expansion of racism and xenophobia.

What is to happen if diplomatic solutions are put on the back-burner?

Look at what this particular bloke had to say on timesofmalta.com today:

Nicola pace (40 minutes ago)

We don't need a more democratic and open EU, we've had that long enough and see where it's led us. This Europe which was once the cradle of civilization, the hub of Christianity has degenerated into a semi-muslim state where liberalisim has eroded all our moral values and transformed it into a Godless state in which we glorify homosexuals, lesbians and transexuals and vote to give them more cohabitation rights.

And while this is going on, this mighty Europe is powerless to stand up to North African countries like Libya and impose stiff sanctions until they address their illegal immigration policies and take tougher measures.

We don't need more democratic parties, we need more Nationalistic right wing parties who do not give in to political extortion and can take decisions. We don't need soft politicans who wait for years to pass important bills. We need people with determination, people who are intollerant against a Muslim invasion of Europe through an illegal immigration pattern while soft politicans discuss in Brussles and sign treateies with the UNHCR and repect human rights while we continue to be infested with diseases we have not seen in decades.

WE DO NOT NEED LIBERTAS!!!

His comments are outright shameful and offensive. They justify what I wrote on my blog maltastar.com, i.e. that the left is suffering because of issues regarding terrorism and immigration. It is a huge injustice how in the midst of a global financial crisis, when lives are being shattered because of right-wing neoliberal greed, people like the person above only seem to care about their country and religion (religio et patria).

The left must never give in to such persons! But is it proposing concrete alternatives?

I note also the following anomaly. When divorce was mentioned last summer all hell broke loose and the Church went on a rampage against secularism and human liberty. Why is it so silent on racism and xenophobia?

My last two posts both consisted in harsh criticism leveled against the Labour Party for its position on illegal immigration. I firmly believe that certain declarations were out of line and seriously out of touch with leftist/progressive ideology. My main reservations were two-fold, namely that:

Yet I must concede that I was overly-passionate and let my emotions get the best of me. This may have resulted in over-statements, shoddy writing and unreasoned reflections. The root of my discontent still stands however. In the future I will try to sleep on situations which stir my emotions like there's no tomorrow and come up with something saner...

1. Neglect

In my opinion a major part of the problem finds its roots in a collective feeling of neglect on this issue. Simply put, Maltese society is fed up with having to shoulder such a serious responsibility with negligible aid from our European counterparts. Instead, the general perception is that international bodies and the international press exist only to admonish Malta about the state of detention centers rather than to offer help. To the ordinary, reasonable man and woman this does not go down well. It is this situation which the politicians need to address. However, we must not neglect that racism is a reality and that it plays a major role in the forging of a national sentiment of mass hysteria. It is of fundamental importance that our politicians do not give in to such sentiments.

2. More competence, more responsibility

A possible solution is for Malta to advocate the need to transfer the general competences regarding asylum and immigration on a broad based EU-level. As things stand, matters of asylum and immigration are largely intergovernmental. This means that there is no general competence and common European policy upon which the EU institutions can act. Instead it all boils down to heads of government and ministers for justice bickering amongst themselves. Obviously they would primarily be fighting for the interests of their nation. Therefore, it is highly unlikely for British Prime Minister Gordon Brown to willingly accept the entry of more migrants into the UK, especially since there has been a recent uprising against foreign workers stealing 'British jobs'. On the other hand if such competences were more European and less national, the probability for solidarity would increase.

3. Diplomacy over irresponsibility, humanity over nationality

I am one of those who believe that the suspension of international obligations is irresponsible and unacceptable. I also believe that the rights and dignity of the human person come first to the national interest. To explain myself, consider the following statement: 'I am a human being first and a Maltese citizen second'. Thus, I do not agree with the Labour Party's pt.19 of its plan of action on immigration which considers the suspension of international obligations. Instead I advocate diplomacy over irresponsibility, humanity over nationality. To be fair, Dr. Muscat was firm in his stance that conditions in detention centers need to improve drastically. He also emphasised the need to find a balance between Malta's obligations which respect the dignity of the human person and the national interest. In my opinion however, the suspension of international obligations (pt.19) and the sporadic use of the veto in European fora (pt.14) ammount more to more to radical methods aimed at achieving nationalistic goals. Whilst Malta must remain firm in its position to achieve unqualified and equal responsibility-sharing amongst all 27-member States it must do so in coformity with international norms. We cannot create a situation were international laws such as the 1974 Convention for the for the Saftey of Life at Sea (SOLAS) are discarded merely because they go against the national interest. The ramifications and international humiliation would be too grave to contemplate.

4. Conclusion

As a nation we should seek that middle way between irreponsibly harsh action and a passive attitude of nonchalance. I'm not entirely sure how to arrive at such a position but I feel that it is possible. It is very important for the Maltese nation to understand that a fair percentage of immigrants that land on our shores have a genuine case for international protection. Such persons can never be considered criminals. They cannot be towed back to Libya or wherever they came from. They should neither be considered as persons who have no right to establish a new life on the land in which they have settled. The EU Member States need to understand this too and consequently offer their help. Ultimately not every single refugee will leave Malta to establish a life elsewhere. It is thus much better to integrate such persons into our society instead of creating ghettos and an atmosphere of exclusion.

Just imagine if it was you that had to run away from the unspeakable horrors of your homeland only to be told that you have no right to peace... that you must go back.

Anonymous said...

--------

First of all I do not care who has been running the show and neither about JPO. We know that the former has lost all sense of direction and that the latter is a desperate person pursuing desperate agendas. My concern is with the LP. Secondly there could have been 19 well-reasoned, sane and dignified points. But 1 rotten apple spoils the whole lot. It is that rotten apple which I have identified and which is the sole cause of concern. It is that rotten apple which gives the impression that Labour has gone totally astray from its political purpose. I myself have identified as a dilemma the juggling of two opposing schools of thought: popular concern and international socialism. In my opinion, the latter should have prevailed but it did not.

Robert O. Paxton defines the 'F' word as follows:

a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity

How many times have we heard all that talk about invasion; having the social and moral fabric of the country under threat; that migrants bring nothing but disease and crime; that Maltese citizens are being treated as second class and inferior to migrants; and the growing cause to save Malta from illegal immigrants? I would also throw the Church-sponsored battle against secularism and liberalism in this category.

in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites

Azzjoni Nazzjonali - Mintoffjani - Kampanja ghall- Helsien Nazzjonali: whose agenda has taken Labour by storm. It seems that Muscat had no other choice but to submit to this relentless lobby. It may have solidified his popularity with the traditional elite and the ignorant but it destroyed the Moviment tal-Progressivi in the process. Shame.

abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.

I'm sure that as a nation we would never reach this stage, even if we could. But toying around with the suspension of international obligations is coming close. It is an extremely dangerous game to play. For it gives the impression that international laws such as the SOLAS, SAR and Geneva Conventions are a threat to the State. If you are who I think you are I'm sure you know what the latter conventions are about. You would know that suspending these would contradict all the first 6 proposals which you said called for improvement on the detention centres and the dignity of the migrant and more practical measure for integration. But you may say to me - Muscat never mentioned these obligations. He did not. He merely mentioned 'international obligations' without elaborating. But I cannot see what other obligations he was talking about.

On a strategic level the whole issue is also stifled with obscurity. The impression I am given is that Labour could not come up with anything new and fresh but it had to revert back to the colonial past when l-interess nazzjonali and Malta l-ewwel u qabel kollox were the continuous sunrise and sunset of Labour's ideology. At the time it made sense but today I'm sorry to say - it does not, at least not for me. Where is the progress? Who are those un-named and hidden persons formulating this strategy? Do you think that this will lure the hearts and minds of my generation?

I do not think that I am living in a melodramatic cloud. I am a lefty and a dreamer. I remind you that Muscat once said that 'meta l-partit holom, rebah'. Unfortunately, my dreams are inconsistent with the new-found euphoria of 70's socialism. Those dreams have already been dreamt. It's good to take the rhetoric out of the vacuum, but not like this. I could have packed my bags and left. Instead I chose to voice my concern. Take it as you wish - after all I am only one of the handful of people in the party who believes in international socialism, hardly a worry for Labour's electoral future.

With a heavy but honest heart I must declare that I am bitterly disappointed with the Labour Party's (LP) 20-point action plan on illegal immigration as presented in Parliament by Dr. Joseph Muscat on the 16th of March 2009. It is a plan riddled with contradictions and one which goes against human rights and human dignity. It is a plan which favours division over international diplomacy. Ultimately, it is a plan which goes against all doctrine attributed with democracy, socialism, liberalism, humanism and progressivism.

The LP prides itself with its socialist ideal. There have been numerous occasions in which the LP fought for a better and more social Malta - championing social justice, the workers' cause and equality. For these reasons I found no qualm and neither shame in aligning myself with the LP as I began to mature politically. When the Labour Conference elected Dr. Muscat as its leader in June of 2008 the inclination to seek a more active role within the party was a natural one, for I strongly believed in the qualities of the man, whom I supported openly. As a result I became a delegate in November of that year and thoroughly enjoyed my first experience in the General Conference which at the time was implementing changes to the party statute.

It was during this time that Dr. Muscat called for a change in mentality and started to steer the party towards progressivism. I strongly believed that with my contribution I would be part of this change. There were many issues which truly made me feel proud to form part of the movement that was taking shape. There were others, which I thought were lacking such as open support for gay marriage, which any progressive/socialist party would fight for. However, I had accepted the fact that change does not come about in a matter of days and nothing in life can be exactly the way you wish it to be.

Yet today I cannot see any change in mentality. Rather, I see a reversion. Dr. Muscat stated with much pomp that he and his party are defending the national interest. He declared that he and his party were the pioneers of that great dogma: Malta l-ewwel u qabel kollox! Decades ago, when Malta was still under colonial rule such mentality and spirit was necessary for Malta to obtain unequivocal freedom (which coincidentally we will celebrate its 30th anniversary in the coming days). Times have changed, but it seems that this mentality is being revived for reasons I cannot comprehend. How can Dr. Muscat ask for a change in mentality in the one hand, and sustain the old one with the other?

I feel that it is this mentality in particular which is destroying all that Labour should stand for and which is ultimately denying Malta a leftist/socialist voice. For the national interest can NEVER take precedence over the rights and dignity of the human person. In his speech, Dr. Muscat made alluring references to 'human dignity' and 'equality' remarking also about the inhumane and degrading conditions of detention centres. He tried to appear diplomatic in what he was saying. But he contradicted all that was said when he came to point 19 of the action plan which considered the suspension of our international obligations. Amongst the latter I assume is the Geneva Convention which gurantees right and humane treatment to persons who have achieved refugee status and international humanitarian protection. If you throw that away, asylum seekers and those eligible for protection are stripped of all their rights.

This behaviour was something I certainly did not expect from what should be a modern socialist and internationalist party but I must admit that I felt that it was coming. I feel that in its ambition to revive the Mintoffian era (an ambition which is becoming manifestly clear as time passes) in today's context and in the conext of immigration, the LP has fallen prey to the far right which is taking hold over Europe (look at Austria's last election results for example). We know what happens when the national interest takes precedence over human rights and international obligations. The events of the recent Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the loss of innocent life speaks for itself. I've been told that this may have just been a bargaining tool - that it is doubtful that Muscat really meant it. I claim that it is grossly irresponsible to negotiate and threaten when it comes to this human tragedy.

I have never doubted the fact that Malta has its physical limits and that it could not possibly welcome thousands upon thousands of immigrants. I also agree with increasing political pressure at a European level and with efforts to bring burden sharing into action. I never stated that Malta should keep its mouth shut on the subject and that we should merely accept whatever comes our way, as some accused me of doing. It was correct for Dr. Muscat and our politicians to discuss this matter openly in Parliament.

My trepidations however arise purely from ideological/political lines which the LP is taking. I reiterate that I did not expect this behaviour from a socialist party which now finds itself pandering to the far right.

I wonder how it is in the national interest to convert Malta into a pariah State.

During the Labour Party AGM (Nemmnu, Nahdmu, Nirnexxu) party leader Joseph Muscat, in his own way, summarized what it means to be progressive. Amongst other things he mentioned that the Labour Party believes:

1. In the right to privacy;
2. That science is there to aid human beings

It was a speech which some termed as boring and others as a return to Mintoff's socialist rhetoric, but which nonetheless hit the right notes for the progressive audience. During this speech Muscat made his stance very clear regarding the censorship and outright ban of the play "Stitching". With him at the helm he promised that such things would not occur. This was certainly a move in the right direction. Adults should not be treated like little children.

Referring to point 2 above Muscat held that:

Koppja li ghandha problema biex ikollha t-tfal ghandha tinghata access ghall-izviluppi tax-xjenza u t-tekonogija, fir-rispett tal-etika u tal-persuna, li ikollha t-tfal.

Rough translation: A couple having problems conceiving should be given access to scientific developments, respecting ethics, so that it would be able to conceive children

This was said before the recent intervention of the Church's morality police on the subject of IVF which holds that IVF is unethical. Today, Muscat had this to say (excerpt quoted from timesofmalta.com):

Dr Muscat noted that although Mater Dei was equipped to carry out IVF, there was no legislation in place. And before such legislation was drafted, he said, there was the need to dialogue and listen to what all, including the Church, had to say. A decision that was good for everyone and guided by ethics and reality had to then be taken

The Church's position on IVF is very clear. They would rather it be banned just like Stitching was banned. Just in case I be branded an idealist or radical again (not that I mind) it must be said I have aboslutely no qualms with giving the Church a voice on the matter. They have every right to do so - in fact they have a Constitutional privilege to do so. However, the Church has already stated that if a cohabiting couple is infertile he or she should not be given access to assisted reproduction facilities. Science was branded as a utilitarian philosophy which was only geared at making a greater deal of people happy. With Rev. Prof. Emmanual Agius spear-heading all this I am not at all surprised with the harsh attacks on science, secularism and the fundamentalist obsession with safeguarding cellular life at whatever cost.

Thus the ethical answer to IVF has already been cast in stone and it follows that basic logical premise: IVF is immoral; immoral things should be banned; therefore IVF should be banned.

Just like Muscat was concrete with his stance on Stitching I expected him to be so with IVF. Unfortunately he tried to take a most cautious approach. On the one hand he claimed that IVF legislation should adopt a realistic approach - something that can be accessed really and truly and not simply some words written on a document (kudos to that!) - but which needs to be ethically moderated. The point I am trying to make however is that there exists a complete lack of harmonization between what is perceived to be ethical regarding IVF and its actual realization. Ethics and reality are at polar ends - warring with each other.

IVF should not be the subject of ethical consenus. It should be a universal human right.

According to science man is an animal forming part of the class of mammals. Like all other mammals, human beings have sexual intercourse in order to produce offspring. Charles Darwin explained that those fit enough to produce offspring will multiply and those who are weak will wither and die out. In an animal's world it is only the fittest which survive. But man is a peculiar animal for he was capable of creating fire, mastering agriculture, erecting buildings, forging weapons, establishing laws and developing the unthinkable. Amongst such things, man was capable of developing in vitro fertilization (IVF), a scientific process by which egg cells are fertilized by sperm outside of the womb. In this way man can still produce through the non-natural method of sexual intercourse. The "weak" can still multiply and enjoy sons and daughters.

According to the Church man is created in God's image and is above animals. The Church does not disagree with the multiplication of offspring through sexual intercourse but it must be done in wedlock between man and woman for otherwise it would constitute a sin of the flesh. Charles Darwin was a blasphemer because he argued that the human species evolved from apes and not directly from God. Man is not an animal for he possesses a soul which can be cleansed from sin unlike the body. Man is unique for he is above animals. Human life is sacred even at at a uni-cellular level. It is for such reasons that the use of condoms and the abortion of an embryo are sinful. Similarly, the storage of frozen embryos is sinful and thus IVF is immoral and unethical.

Man is above animals yet he must act like an animal. If man cannot procreate like an animal then he must suffer childlessness. In the same way that the killing of the embryo is sinful so is its creation. This is the twisted logic of the Church which it believes should be made into law.

Ironically it is science which truly professes man's greatness and not religion.

I get the idea, misguided though it may be, that a growing number of Maltese citizens feel dejected by the European Union (EU). In fact, according to a recent Eurobarometer survey, less then half of the respondents queried agreed that the EU does not take into account Malta's view. On the same survey it was revealed that illegal immigration is the number one concern of Maltese citizens at this moment in time. Putting two and two together it becomes seemingly obvious that the two issues above-mentioned are closely interrelated.

I have seen many comments, ranging from the extreme ("EU dictators") to the more moderate ("we are being neglected"), expressing the current sentiment of the Maltese citizen and his/her relation with the EU. The growing populist appeal of ultra-nationalist and far-right organizations are also a case in point. We are witnessing a scenario in which grossly irresponsible statements advocating the suspension of international obligations are also gaining popular appeal. It is worrisome that such sentiments are exploited for purely political convenience.

Clearly something needs to be done. I personally support greater enhancement of the supranational structure of the EU. The elitist, secretive inter-governmental decision-making and political back-scratching will only contribute to more and more people looking down on the EU project. A number of people have expressed the belief that 'we need more of Europe, and not less' and I am inclined to agree. If the competences over matters of asylum and immigration were wholly incorporated on a European level we would probably not be in this mess today. As things stand, representatives of individual Member States have an ultimate and final say on whether to aid our country or not. Therefore, a foreign minister representing a right-wing nationalist government would probably be far less inclined to accept immigrants detained in Malta. He or she would probably reject any plea for assistance.

Much of this could (admittedly, not necessarily) be avoided if full co-operation on immigration and asylum affairs was wholly adopted at a supranational level and bringing the Union closer to the people. We are either a members of one team or individual players fending for themselves. It is somewhat ironic that committed nationalists (not to be confused with PN) who advocate with such conviction 'less of Europe' as a solution the problem are actually inviting the problem to be compounded.