Editorial: When both leaders agreed to exclude

This week’s university debate between Robert Abela and Alex Borg was not only a rowdy affair but, at one point, it was rather disconcerting – and it came about during a rare moment where the two main political leaders were in agreement.

Asked whether Malta should support the building of a second mosque, both leaders answered with an unequivocal “no”.

“I do not see the need for a new mosque,” Abela said.

Borg was even blunter: “Definitely not, we are a Catholic country… There is no place for a mosque.”

Their comments were met with applause from a good number of those present, a reminder of how deeply normalised anti-Muslim sentiment has become in contemporary politics.

Let’s just forget for a moment that this rare moment of political consensus was made in a country where buildings sprout up illegally, only to get sanctioned later. Let’s forget for a moment that a Labour Party general election candidate faced incredulous backlash for being a practising Muslim. Let’s also forget the fact that the Muslim population in Malta has increased.

The issue is whether constitutional rights and democratic principles still matter when confronted by populist fear.

Malta’s constitution protects freedom of worship and is not conditional on whether the majority approves of a religion’s visibility.

This is precisely why the responses by both Abela and Borg – clearly driven by political appeasement – are so worrying.

A responsible answer would have been that places of worship should be assessed through proper planning procedures and according to the law, not according to prejudice or political convenience.

Equally absurd was the manufactured controversy surrounding the Koran in schools.

No serious proposal exists to permanently place the Koran inside Maltese classrooms, nor is there any visible campaign by Muslims demanding this.

Yet, anyone listening to that misguided question almost gave the impression that it was being imposed. Which takes us to the next point: What exactly is so threatening about students learning about different religions in a structured educational setting?

A confident culture does not panic at knowledge but here we were in Malta’s most important educational institution advocating against!

What made the debate even more revealing was the way Christianity itself was instrumentalised.

Borg justified his opposition by invoking Malta’s Christian identity and the Nationalist Party’s Christian Democratic roots. It’s ironic knowing that Christian Democracy is actually grounded in universal human dignity and solidarity.

Sadly, we’ve been here before.

It was Dom Mintoff’s government that facilitated the construction of the Paola mosque, recognising Malta’s historical links with the Arab world and the growing numbers of Muslims living in Malta.

There were objections then too, however, today’s rhetoric feels harsher and more openly exclusionary, driven especially by the toxic social media world.

And exclusion has consequences.

If Muslims are denied properly regulated places of worship, religious practice will not disappear. Communities will simply gather in improvised prayer rooms, garages and hidden spaces. Do we really want to drive religion – and we mean any religion –  underground?

But perhaps the most uncomfortable truth being exposed through this electoral campaign is the contradiction at the heart of Malta in 2026.

We have built an economic model where migrants (including Muslims) work among us, drive our buses, care for our elderly, clean our hotels, serve our food, build our homes, and so on – but we want them to remain invisible. And that exclusion appears to apply even more to Muslims!

And what Abela and Borg told students in no uncertain terms last Monday is that Malta has conditional tolerance built on exclusion. And those statements will cause damage to our society.