Appeasing Islamophobes and ignoring human rights

The response Robert Abela and Alex Borg gave when asked during the university debate whether they agreed with the construction of another mosque is of serious concern. They both replied with an unequivocal ‘no’.

There was no nuance in their replies; no explanation as to how they arrived at that conclusion. They simply ignored the fact that they aspire to be leading a democratic country that has etched in its Constitution the protection of fundamental human rights.

Borg partially tried to justify his stand by calling on his party’s Christian-democrat roots and Malta’s Christian identity—an irrelevance, really and truly, because neither Christian democracy nor Christianity imply shutting out other religions.

Indeed, even the head of the Maltese Catholic church, Archbishop Charles Scicluna, had in 2018 argued in favour of “a level playing field for all religions”.

An alien following the university debate and hearing the leaders’ replies could have easily concluded that Malta is a fundamentalist Christian theocracy where other religions are not welcome.

Fortunately, we do not live in a fundamentalist theocracy.

The Constitution does state that “the religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion” and the church authorities are imbued with the “duty and the right to teach which principles are right and which are wrong”. But this is balanced with the protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of all individuals irrespective of “race, place of origin, political opinions, colour, creed, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity”.

Specifically, Article 40 of the Constitution states that “all persons in Malta shall have full freedom of conscience and enjoy the free exercise of their respective mode of religious worship”.

This also includes the right to have places of worship where religious communities, irrespective of whether they are Catholic, Christian, Jewish, Muslim or any other religious denomination, can congregate in prayer.

Within this context, Abela’s and Borg’s plain ‘no’ for an answer when asked whether they agreed with another mosque in Malta is not only baffling but also very worrying.

It is baffling because it is not up to the leaders of Malta’s mainstream political parties to determine whether a mosque can or should be built. It is worrying because their reply suggested they are willing to breach human rights rather than show leadership in the face of islamophobia.

This leader holds no brief for any religion. We have consistently championed a secular outlook. A secular country that upholds fundamental human rights is the surest guarantee for people to be able to hold religious beliefs and practice their faith freely; or to not embrace religion, for all it matters.

This leader is about the respect of fundamental human rights that are a crucial pillar of democracy.

Politicians have no business deciding whether a mosque should be erected or not. If a religious community wants to build a place of worship it must undergo due process in front of the Planning Authority like any other institution. It should be planning policies that determine whether the proposal should go through. If there are objections on other grounds, these must be clearly defined so that they can be challenged, if need be.

An a priori generalised negative reply like Abela and Borg gave during the university debate is anything but due process. On the contrary, it is a blatant infringement of human rights.

It is evident that Abela and Borg did not want to irk the xenophobes within their fold, especially during an election campaign. It is a real pity that neither Abela nor Borg had the gravitas to explain that this country’s Constitution protects freedom of worship and any decision as to where and whether a mosque should be built is not up to them. Indeed, if a political leader gets to single-handedly decide such a matter it would be an affront to freedom of worship, a key value etched in the Constitution.

We expected much better from the two aspirants for prime minister. We expected to see leadership. What we got instead was a populist reply that tried to appease the Islamophobes, while undermining the very rights that are intended to protect everyone.