I wish I had a thousand neighbours like Ashish

In less than a week we came face to face with two sad tragedies; both should be eye-openers.

First, the untimely death of Ashish Tekleab Haile, theEritrean immigrant who lost his life to save two colleagues at Paradise Bay. Then, we heard the gruesome details of the attacks by Norwegian extremist Anders Behring Breivik,who massacred 79 people in a far-right attack aimed to attract world attention to his anti-immigrant views. It transpired that the accused established cross-European networks with like-minded groups and individuals. His website endorsed Malta’s own Norman Lowell and his Imperium Europa, among others.

After the stories of Ashish and Anders, those who speak of national security and immigration in the same breath may need to step outside the box to clear their heads. Reducing the concept of national security to the policing and patrolling of state borders to keep out unwelcome ‘others’ is a rather narrow perspective. It has long been argued that security must also be built collectively in our everyday lives.

National security should entail human rights and justice, including the protection of immigrant and refugee r ights. The Norwegian scholar Johann Galtung has long been expounding how security and peace are not merely dependent on the absence of conflict but are founded on human rights. It follows that national security can be threathened from within, by people who incite racial hatred and xenophobia and who are willing to take extreme measures to spread their ideology.

Norway has now shown us the tragic consequences of enemies within. To me, this case is somehow reminiscent of the Oklahoma bombing of 1995. Then, CNN and other networks immediately blamed Muslim fundamentalists, when in fact it was masterminded by homegrown Timothy McVeigh, a radicalized angry young man.  In Norway, the enemy within is Anders and as he faces charges, even Norwegian court considered his ideas to be as dangerous as his actions.

If far-right discourse may fuel the fire of racism and hatred, it is legitimate to ask who constitutes that Maltese far-right? A paper by sociologists Mark Anthony Falzon and Mark Micallef (2008) claimed the Maltese far-right has a “heterogeneous and formless nature” and the number of individuals involved “commute”between the movements that are formed from time to time. Until 2002, the far-right was the domain of a few rather eccentric individuals but by 2004 some of these obtained maximum media exposure because they rode waves of anxiety caused by the immigrant influxes.

One of the most vociferous and controversial figures, Norman Lowell, contested the first European Parliamentary election held in Malta in 2004. Initially he attracted ample media coverage. From time to time his sensationalist statements proved to be too tempting to be resisted by those journalists who sought controversial statements in order to catch bigger audiences. At one point, the Malta Broadcasting Authority proceeded against Smash television, as it broadcast “content which was likely to encourage or incite to crime or to lead to disorder or to be offensive to public feeling”.

However it must be stated that most media organisations in Malta broadly refused to allow the far-right to employ them as instruments for their racist agendas. Lowell’s appeal seems to have waned since 2008. In that year his party merely obtained 0.03% of the votes in the General Elections and he became the first Maltese to receive a two-year suspended jail sentence for incitement to racial hatred. Up to now his appearances tend to be confined to the internet.

When Azzjoni Nazzjonali was set up as a political party in 2007, the media paid more attention to it than it did to Imperium Europa, because its stand against multiculturalism and its anti-immigrant discourse stopped short of blatant racist rhetoric. Azzjoni Nazzjonali obtained 1,461 votes, which was an extremely poor result that spelt the end to the party. Yet given the slim electoral difference between the main parties, one wonder where these ‘commuters’ will choose to go next. A good question to ask is whether it pays any of the mainstream parties to open their doors to take them on board?

One person I would have liked them to take on board was the Eritrean immigrant Ashish Tekleab Haile… but no, silly me, immigrants do not have political rights. In the press, Ashish was described as a hero. In an increasingly cynical and individualistic world, Ashish is an inspirational figure who reminded us that altruism is also an important trait of human nature: he escaped Eritrea to safe his own life; he worked here to feed his distant family; he died so that two workmates can live. Let us all now hope that more of us become as driven and selfless as he was, even when faced by great adversities and huge challenges.

A few years ago sociologist Mario Vassallo (2005) revealed that 90% of Maltese who responded to his survey did not object to a European neighbour but they did not want to live next to an Arab or African neighbour. More than 75% of the individuals nterviewed said they did not wish Malta to shelter refugees after they escape their native land because of political persecution, war or civil war, hunger or mass poverty. The respondents claimed Malta is far too small to receive migrants, no matter what their troubles are.

After this week’s experiences, wouldn’t you rather have a thousand neighbours like Ashish, than a neighbour named Anders? I give my deepest sympathies to Norwegian friends who are still mourning their losses.