|
‘Serves them right’ is the most popular, and harrowing, remark made in the domain of public opinion in the wake of the brutal beating of asylum seekers at Hal Safi barracks. Karl Schembri asks how the political parties are sleeping comfortably with the electorate
Was this newspaper expecting too much when it sought, in vain, a condemnation from the government of the brutal violence against asylum seekers last week?
Evidently yes, as a disturbing wave of public opinion voices its resolute belief that “the niggers deserved it”.
They (perhaps you’re one of them) are saying: “Who asked them to come here in the first place? How dare they abuse our hospitality? We stand by our soldiers… they should go back where they came from.”
Browsing through internet forums, listening to radio phone-ins and hearing seemingly level-headed people from all sectors of society speaking over the past days has revealed a disturbingly uniform discourse against immigrants and asylum seekers, accompanied by nationalist rhetoric about our beloved homeland.
Even more disturbing is the political parties’ complacency about the whole issue. Faced with the shocking footage of the AFM violence, the Prime Minister and his deputy conveniently cited the ongoing inquiry (started only last Monday) to justify their no-comment on the soldiers’ actions.
Not even the Labour Party, supposedly on the centre-left of the political spectrum where minority and human rights are allegedly dogma, found it appropriate to say a word about the incident.
None of its bright ideologues thought it fitting to spare a word of solidarity with the 26 hospitalised asylum seekers during the general conference last weekend.
Both major parties are in fact conditioned by the growing irrational fears among their grassroots fuelled by ineffective immigration policies in the face of boatloads of migrants reaching our shores.
Only Alternattiva Demokratika was unequivocal in its condemnation of the whole incident, opting for consistency instead of political expediency.
What is appallingly clear is that there is nobody in government who is able to put the public’s minds at rest through persuasive and effective measures on illegal immigration.
Tonio Borg’s detention policy is proving to be unbearably flawed. Listen to the frustrations of the detained migrants, and compare them with the frustrations of the soldiers guarding them. Both of the groups are captives of a veritable human zoo and they are amply showing the symptoms of this experience.
Soldiers rightly complain of a hostile environment, having to guard immigrants denied freedom, some detained for more than a year, awaiting news of their application for refugee status.
The United Nations’ High Commissioner for Refugees also holds that living conditions in Maltese detention centres here are of an extremely poor standard.
“Some of the approximately 450 occupants of Safi are housed in tents that provide little protection from the winter cold and summer heat,” UNHCR said. “Even those accommodated in buildings are for the most part living in very overcrowded and inadequate conditions. In the tented area, women and children have often been mixed in together with men who are not relatives, with inadequate safeguards against sexual abuse. In some parts of Safi and the other detention centres, even the bathrooms are mixed, and there are no doors on toilets or showers.”
The minister should indeed realise that such conditions are not only ineffective in dealing with the immigration problem, but that they are also unfair on AFM soldiers who are untrained to work with asylum seekers coming from diverse cultures.
But what are the Opposition’s alternatives? A tagging policy of every immigrant reaching Maltese shores suggested by the ultra-conservative Socialist (if there ever was one) José Herrera. And a big applause to Borg’s detention policy by Gavin Gulia.
Other than that, the message parties are giving through their apathy is that being racist is not that bad. In the meantime, emotions are running high as popular fears and misconceptions about the immigration problem consolidate racist and xenophobic views of the masses – a phenomenon which seems clearly beyond the politicians’ grasp and which foments further sympathy with the extremist, downright Nazi spokesmen.
It is disturbing to note that the two major parties representing us in Parliament are unable to take a leadership role and let the voice of rationality, instead of unfounded fear, and cynicism, prevail. None of them have managed to put forward the rational arguments to counter the unrealistic wave of fears and public concern.
Censorship of racist remarks – the kind of measures sometimes contemplated against Norman Lowell – is counter-productive, because it will only solidify the fascist ideas of the few and earn them the sympathy of the masses. It is only through rational argument and the free flow of opinions and information that ungrounded fears and bigoted assumptions can be dissected and analysed.
Because while it is true that we’re a small country and that our resources are limited and the influx of immigrants per capita puts us among the top on the list of affected European countries, it is equally true that political and economic imagination from our government’s side has been severely restricted to reactionary measures to this global problem, which is and will always remain far beyond the control of our territorial waters.
What have we joined Europe for? Our MEPs should be stamping their feet at the European Parliament to seek Europe’s attention, and the prime minister should be teaming up with Berlusconi and call on their Christian Democratic colleague Frattini to start rocking the European Commission.
It’s not just about funding, although that is also needed. Here we’re talking about a humanitarian crisis that is turning the Mediterranean into a cemetery for thousands of boatpeople.
Nationally, government and opposition should be engaging themselves in a serious debate and think creatively about progressive policies for the integration and assimilation of immigrants. Instead of shying away from sensitive, and at times controversial, arguments, they should analyse why a good part of Maltese society seems to be clashing with asylum seekers. It is the time for creative solutions, local and global, in line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
And before patting ourselves on our back for the free hospitality we give to the thousand or so asylum seekers, it would be good if politicians had to start trying to convey the bigger picture, where we the generous Maltese happen to form part of the lucky billion humans who are living well above the international poverty line, as opposed to the remaining five billion suffering global inequality and injustice.
If the Asian tsunami made us cringe with more than 250,000 victims, hunger should be mobilising the entire developed world: 30 million people a year die of hunger, according to the United Nations. Almost three billion people – half the world’s population – live on less than two dollars a day.
Coupled with the devastation of civil wars, natural calamities and political persecution, hunger displaces millions of people worldwide, on a planet allegedly governed by a body called the United Nations which on its Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services”. For most of humanity, these rights are increasingly inaccessible.
Yes, this problem is far bigger than our shores, but our immediate experience in this tragedy should make us even more outspoken against global injustices and imaginative in our solutions.
This is one of those moments where unless politicians (and intellectuals and public figures) take the plunge, public opinion will remain dominated by emotional simplifications and unrealistic social anxiety.
karl@newsworksltd.com
|
