What does Alex Borg's answer say about the man who would be PM?

I’m not antisemitic; indeed, many of my friends are Jewish, but there is no place for another synagogue in this country.  Similarly, I’m not anti-Catholic, and many more of my friends are Catholics, but there is clearly no need for another church in Malta. 

Such assertions are clearly tongue-in-cheek (and utterly silly), but if stated in particular contexts they might well evoke negativity.  Not just about the statements themselves, but more about what lies beneath and around them and why they might be stated?

And if I was to add that while yet more of my friends were Muslim, but there is no need or place for another mosque in Malta, would it pose the same response?  Why would someone go to the trouble of uttering such fatuous nonsense? 

But of course, readers of this paper (and many other media across Malta) will immediately know what this is about.  Not only will they be familiar with the specific context of the debate during our recent general election, they will be fully au fait with its broader context and meaning.

They will readily know that it is neither a simple nor straightforward discussion.  They will recognise that the debate is not about the practicalities of faith provision in Malta or about the views of our PM or the leader of the opposition but is about making political use of “trigger” words, signals and audiences.

When asked whether Malta needed an additional mosque, Alex Borg responded in the negative.  This might (or might not) have been a fair or reasonable answer.  However, Borg chose to go much further in his response, insisting that because “we are a Catholic country… there is no place for a mosque.”

Had Malta’s Muslims done something to earn Borg’s ire or opposition?  Had the current mosque in Paola engaged in some nefarious activity?  Had the presence of Muslims in Malta besmirched Malta’s Christian patina? 

I suspect that all fair-minded Maltese would agree that none of this could be true or accurate. 

So, it is legitimate to ask what was Alex Borg’s intent? What threat, challenge or grievance prompted his response?

Was he seeking to present himself and the Nationalist Party as defenders of Malta’s particular Christian identity when faced with the natural (and perfectly normal) increase of Islam as a result of the country’s economic and cultural growth?

While he most likely did not intend to place himself in the current ideological campaign around supposed “civilisational erasure” as asserted by JD Vance and many other conservative and far-right individuals and parties in Europe and elsewhere, he cannot feign ignorance of that context.

In that campaign (and in the bigoted minds of many), the mere presence or practice of Islam is deemed a threat to our fragile Christian faith base.

Borg knew fully what he was doing and he chose to do it, nonetheless.  What does this tell us about the man who would be a future PM, and one deemed to have been a winner in the recent election? 

Did he have no concern about how Malta’s Muslims might hear (and importantly feel) his outburst?

Many might dismiss such concerns as irrelevant, of no consequence. Borg appears to have assumed (correctly?) that his assertion about mosques would have no consequence (except, perhaps in wooing some prejudiced Maltese voters). 

Given the relative lack of broader public debate on his commentary (but see Times of Malta columnist Ranier Fsadni), it appears he need have no regrets about making it. 

Perhaps he felt it would help his trust or leadership credentials among a particular cohort of the Maltese population?  His words are now a matter of public record, and he has not sought to amend or clarify them. 

For me, his comments were abusive of Malta’s Muslims and fed into a broader international agenda.  An agenda that is currently on the rise, fuelled and encouraged as it is by the likes of Trump, Vance, Farage, Modi - Islam as being in some way incompatible with “national” identity. 

An agenda that similarly fuels antisemitism when espoused by elements of the far right. And an agenda that in its worst iteration (as asserted most recently on the Belfast riots by Elon Musk) becomes a call to hatred and violence.

Borg’s commentary needs to be called out if only to remind him that his (badly needed) role is to be inclusive of all of Malta’s population and not simply those represented by himself and his party.

We simply cannot afford to be unthinking fellow travellers in his commentary.