Where have the socialists gone?
Touching the human rights convention is dangerous. It can lead to very ugly consequences, which is why we remain shocked as to how nobody in the Labour Party has the temerity to even question the Prime Minister’s statements
People within the Labour Party, who still have a socialist conscience, should voice their concern at Robert Abela’s shocking statements about human rights in parliament on Monday.
The Prime Minister lifted his mask to reveal his true self – a person who believes human rights can be applied selectively. “Malta will continue to fight for the strengthening of human rights but only where it is merited,” the Prime Minister told parliament so brazenly as he doubled-down on his commitment to push for reform of the European Convention of Human Rights when Malta takes over the Council of Europe presidency in May.
This statement is worrying because it implies, within the context of the migration argument he was making, that failed asylum seekers do not have human rights.
Indeed, this is such a dangerous argument that it could be easily stretched to all migrants, prisoners and whichever category seems undeserving of human rights in Abela’s eyes.
It is no wonder that a very pointed Ombudsman report on the atrocities perpetrated inside the Corradino Correctional Facility when it was run by retired army officer Alex Dalli was brushed aside so easily by the Prime Minister. He does not give a damn about the human rights of certain people. Indeed, he only seems concerned about the human rights of those who could potentially be investigated for corruption and uses this as his justification to stifle the citizens’ right to request a magisterial inquiry.
Abela should have been bolder on Monday and clearly told us which people do not merit having their human rights protected. He would have spared us the agony of being accused for the umpteenth time of misinterpreting him.
He should have explained why such a reform was not listed when Ian Borg outlined Malta’s priorities for its presidency of the Council of Europe last month.
But it is concerning that Abela should conflate talk of reforming the human rights convention with the need to find workable solutions to tackle irregular migration.
The lack of effective return of migrants who do not qualify for any protection has nothing to do with the human rights convention. It all boils down to a lack of coordination and dialogue with recipient countries that are required to take back their citizens. The EU as a bloc needs to do much more on this front.
Even organisations like UNHCR understand that failed asylum seekers – those who do not qualify for refugee or protection status – have to be sent back to their countries of origin and no human rights court has ever blocked such returns unless it is proven that the people concerned were denied the opportunity to be heard if they requested protection.
The problem with Italy’s arrangement with Albania is that the two detention centres built there were going to house migrants who had not yet been processed; who would not have had the opportunity of being heard and interviewed. What the European Commission is proposing when allowing countries to seek ‘innovative solutions’ is that rejected asylum seekers could be transferred to third countries under bilateral arrangements until they are repatriated. This strategy has its risks but is quite different from one where people are outright denied the opportunity to ask for asylum.
On the issue of what constitutes a safe country is a matter to be tackled at UN level. This leader agrees that there may be circumstances where it is possible to return migrants to safe regions within countries where there is conflict or turmoil but reforming the human rights convention to settle this issue is like opening a window to let in a breeze only to be swept away by a gust.
Touching the human rights convention is dangerous. It can lead to very ugly consequences, which is why we remain shocked as to how nobody in the Labour Party has the temerity to even question the Prime Minister’s statements.
It is a shame that Labour backbenchers, ministers and party functionaries are sheepishly submitting to a Prime Minister who is more comfortable embracing Europe’s far-right leaders and eulogising the Trump doctrine. They really shouldn’t be bothered when attributed the fascist label.
-
World
Shops looted across Germany as cost-of-living protests turn violent
-
National
PN proposes tourism eco-tax rise to be limited from May to October
-
National
Abela rejects discriminatory claims on foreign workers budget measures and calls for mature debate
More in News-
Business News
APS Bank profit jumps to record €35m in first nine months of 2026
-
Tech & Gaming
How online-game promotions are regulated: What to check before taking part
-
Business News
Bank of Valletta to host second edition of Investor Days
More in Business
More in Sports-
Cultural Diary
My essentials: Joseph Agius’s cultural picks
-
Film
Patrick Stewart dead at 86
-
Books
Everything you need to know about the National Book Festival
More in Arts-
Opinions
Malta Miegħek
-
Editorial
Labour’s indecent proposals
-
Opinions
Courts and regulators: Who decides administrative sanctions?
More in Comment-
Interviews
In conversation with architect David Felice
-
Restaurants
IBER&CO & CASA PEPA: Two ways to love Spain
-
Restaurants
Tapea: Where Spain comes alive in St Julian's
More in Magazines