The new and improved statute of the Labour Party (and I don't say this with any sarcasm) has the following article listed as one of the 7 basic principles of the party (loosely translated into English by myself):
2. The Labour Party has full respect for Fundamental Human Rights as written down on the Constitution of Malta and the European Convention on Fundamental Human Rights and believes that every individual as well as society should have the necessary equal opportunity to succeed in work and in education.
Now I can never understand how one can harbor a respect for fundamental human rights and at the same time support a policy (forced repatriation of asylum seekers at sea or the principle of non-refoulement) which very clearly goes against human rights. If someone can help me understand this reasoning I beg him or her to enlighten me.
The way I see it, even if one, just one, out of a hundred or two hundred asylum seekers, has a genuine case for asylum and that one person is turned away this constitutes clear breach of an international norm. There are no two ways about it. The argument is that Libya is a safe place for migrants. Come again? How can you tell me that Libya is a safe place for migrants when it is not even party to the Geneva Convention (the very same convention from which the principle of non-refoulement arises) and when investigative reports clearly show that there is widespread mistreatment of migrants in this particular nation. Sending migrants back to Libya is a breach of their fundamental human rights. Punto e basta.
What is worse and far more alarming, in a way, is that Muscat believes that such a policy is in the national interest which, in typical national socialist fashion, 'comes first and foremost'. This means that, according to Muscat, the national interest has an overriding precedence over human rights and international law.
But as long as a firm belief in this policy will win Muscat elections then it is OK to negotiate on human rights.
Posts
One Response to Muscat continues to negotiate on human rights
The way the PL uses their media stations is enough to explain what social consciousness they wish to cultivate.
I do not hold faith on institutions and groups which instead of empowering individuals by informing them and integrating minorities for the benefit of all, they stereotype and reject any call for solutions.
The PL as it is right is only behaving as a basin for dissenting voices. Whoever dissents can link his voice with labour. Than is not a party of progressives.
Post a Comment