Last Sunday in St Julian’s the Prime Minister spoke, among other things, about xenophobia and abortion. He said that he is against both. Bully for him. It is good to read that he is no longer in favour of pushbacks of migrants. Positive developments are always welcome.
Muscat was speaking in the wake of another anti-foreigner wave on the social media. (Up till now the feeling is mainly manifested on Facebook as strong, popular support in the ballot box or during public manifestations has, so far, eluded far right politicians.) The mainstream media unfortunately spread the untrue story that a Maltese young man was killed by a Bulgarian man. The police later said the man had not died as a result of the blow. The media failed in their duty to double check the story.
Muscat gave quite a good rendering of the anti-foreigner feeling that many Maltese share. The fact that in the Paceville case a Bulgarian was involved shows that some Maltese react negatively to the presence of foreigners and not just coloured foreigners. This shows the complexity of the problem.
There is no doubt that there are many racists among us. But most Maltese are not racists. Their negative attitude is fuelled by fear. One can understand the anger of those forced to live in a garage because they could not afford to pay the exorbitant rent that the landlord insisted on because foreigners were ready to pay that amount.
It is true that our economy needs foreigners to keep expanding. But it is also true that the influx of foreign workers has not been well managed or studied. Besides, there is no comprehensive policy outlining the management of the influx in the future. The president of the Malta Employers Association said during an interview on RTK that according to their studies in three years’ time there will be 600,000 people living in Malta one third of them will be foreigners.
Speeches criticising xenophobia are important. But only sensible policies based on research are worth their weight in gold. Government has so far failed to produce the policies that MEA, among many others, have asked for.
How can one be at the same time in favour of saving or helping migrants while being in favour of killing unborn babies?
Muscat is also right to point out that it is hypocritical to be against abortion but in favour of xenophobia. It is, in my opinion, equally hypocritical to be for abortion but against xenophobia.
How can one be against the killing of unborn babies but cares not, for example, for migrants drowning in the Mediterranean? I hasten to add that only some of those sceptical or afraid of the large number of foreigners in Malta fit in this example.
On the other hand how can one be at the same time in favour of saving or helping migrants while being in favour of killing unborn babies? A morality based on the respect of human dignity (not to mention Christian morality) is not a buffet type of morality. It respects and strives to enhance all aspects of human living.
How can one be against the killing of unborn babies but then favour policies which mutilate the environment in which these babies would have been born? I do not refer only to the physical environment but also to the socio-moral one. Babies have a right to be born in a society which is not mired in corruption, nor drowning in cynicism not dominated by the egoistic mentality of making hay while the sun shines and doing this at the expense of the common good.
Last Sunday the Prime Minister stated once more that he is against abortion and that it will not be legalised under his watch. Once more: bully for him and good news for us. The Prime Minister should then prove his staunch attitude against abortion by heeding the advice of George Vella, former deputy prime minister and deputy leader of the Partit Laburista.
Vella – and similarly the Opposition – is appealing to the Prime Minister to include the unborn child in the definition of the family in the Domestic Violence Bill. Doing so would not be introducing a new concept in our legislation. The unborn child is already considered to be part of the family in the present Domestic Violence Act. All lawyers I spoke to agree with the Opposition and with Dr Vella that the use of the term “ascendant or descendant” in the proposed Bill does not protect the unborn child.
It is true that the law prohibiting abortion is a different law and that it will not be changed. But people are legitimately asking: why does a government which says that it is against abortion want to remove from this particular law the inclusion of the unborn child as part of the family?
It the government insists on sending conflicting messages, the Prime Minister should not blame people if they draw their own conclusions.
joseph.borg@um.edu.mt