No to illegal immigrants
There is a wide chasm between public opinion on illegal immigrants and the views projected by newspapers. After monitoring Maltese newspapers between August 20 and September 6, I concluded that the distortion has three sources: 'Christians',...
There is a wide chasm between public opinion on illegal immigrants and the views projected by newspapers. After monitoring Maltese newspapers between August 20 and September 6, I concluded that the distortion has three sources: 'Christians', journalists and NGOs. This article illustrates how they have managed to shout above the murmurs of the silent majority and highjack the public debate on this issue.
'Christians'
The attitude of Christians can be illustrated by five letters. Ms Lucie Mizzi (The Times, August 24) writing about "the daily dose of racist and unChristian letters", objected that they should "be published in a national newspaper". Ms Danielle Vella (The Times, August 27), wrote a letter "Whither Christian values?" wondering whether the Maltese would send back the Holy Family fleeing Herod's persecution. Mr Robert Bonnici (The Times, August 29), scolded the editor: "Shame on you for adding fuel to the very delicate subject of racial prejudice already undermining some of our true Christian beliefs".
Ms Jacqueline Calleja authored two letters. In The Sunday Times (August 28) she wondered "what they will answer Christ on the Day of Judgment when He will ask whether they gave Him food when He was hungry..." In the second letter, "Christian solidarity" (The Times, September 6), she wrote: "St Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians, made it very clear what Christian love is all about... applying this to the present situation one could say that, if Maltese Catholics were to regularly frequent church... but harbour hostile, unChristian attitudes towards people of other cultures and religions arriving in their country, all their efforts are simply vain and utterly futile."
These letters call for some comments. First, some are not far from advocating censorship of opinions opposed to their own. Second, they do not distinguish between what a person, following the dictates of his conscience, ought to do and what the country should do. Those who feel strongly enough about their Christian duties are free to go 70 miles out at sea and rescue illegal immigrants, host a few immigrants in their homes, and even provide illegal immigrants with money for their daily subsistence. However, they do not have the right to impose the dictates of their conscience on us all.
Why should Malta pay the armed forces to rescue immigrants who risk their lives to better their economic situation? Why should taxpayers' money be spent on unwanted and illegal immigrants? If the latter cost Lm4 million a year (and the true figure is much higher), then each Maltese contributes Lm10 a year for their upkeep. For some this may be a Christian duty, but I vehemently object to having such an expense imposed on me by uninvited and unwelcome foreigners and their protectors.
Apart from financial considerations, I have certain convictions. After our towns and villages have been cleared of slums, I object to the appearance of African and Chinese ghettoes in our midst. I strongly believe we should prevent and pre-empt the racial strife common in countries which have thoughtlessly opened the floodgates to uncontrolled immigration. I object to seeing the wage level of Maltese workers depressed by competition from illegal and unskilled foreigners. I fear the introduction of exotic diseases. Not least, I am opposed to the adulteration of Maltese society and the Maltese race.
Journalists
I have handled newspapers for many years and can tell the difference between news and a campaign led by journalists. A reporter becomes a newsmaker by selecting what to report on; but he should not try to become an opinion-maker, much less twist other people's words to serve his campaign. A journalist should not become a would-be policymaker because he lacks the first prerequisite to make policy, that of having been elected. Some examples can illustrate this point.
On August 20, The Times carried a feature with subsections titled: "Are we racists?" and "Are politicians fanning xenophobia?" In a section titled "Gonzi urges MPs to speak responsibly", it targeted Nationalist MPs Tony Abela and Franco Galea for echoing popular discontent on the matter and tried to drive a wedge between them and the Prime Minister. In In-Nazzjon (September 5), Mr Abela sheepishly complained that "it is not right for certain journalists of certain media to try and throw dark shadows on politicians who are doing their best. Who knows if they do not have hidden agendas?"
Replying to the same feature, the Curia's PRO wrote (The Times, August 23) that he had said: "Our already densely populated very small islands simply are unable to cope with all that it means and requires to cater for so many hundreds of immigrants arriving in such a short time". The feature had summarised this as "feelings of uncertainty in a densely populated island".
On August 30, The Times carried a report over half the back page titled: "Visit of UK immigration minister: Stop complaining and help find a solution, Malta told". It started: "The UK minister for immigration has urged the Maltese to make a concerted effort to find a solution to the problem of illegal immigration instead of just being critical". This information was based on his statement: "those who are good at criticising would do better to come on board and seek a solution".
This report led to two letters (The Times, September 1). The UK minister wrote: "I want to make clear that this comment was not directed at Malta itself". The communications co-ordinator of the Maltese Justice and Home Affairs Ministry, describing the report as misleading, said the UK minister's remarks "were to the effect that it is easy for NGOs and international organisations to criticise governments, but it is much harder to find solutions on immigration matters".
NGOs
Citizens are right to form associations which are independent of the government. They add expertise and enthusiasm to public life and avoid the monopolisation by the government of information and initiatives. However, NGOs should not dictate policy. Sometimes they are a led by one person trying to project his personality or interests. No NGO can pretend to rival in authority a government elected by the whole nation.
Put differently, it is a very weak government that lets its policies be dictated by unrepresentative NGOs. The latter often depend on the number of decibels and gestures they emit. They use the media knowing that newsmakers can turn non-events into news, non-issues into national crises, and ordinary men into national leaders. But when their bluff is called they are quick to climb down.
On August 21, It-Torca carried a detailed report on prostitution by some illegal but enterprising immigrants. It added: "On contacting Mgr Philip Calleja of the Emigrants' Commission about black prostitutes in Hal Far, he replied that he did not know about them and asked us to contact the persons in charge of the centre". So there goes a monsignor, otherwise vocal and eloquent on the subject of immigrants, acting like Pontius Pilate.
It-Torca added that it had contacted "Claude Bajada, the representative of Amnesty International in Malta, who said he could not speak without the authorisation of Amnesty International". There goes the representative of an NGO, known for its courage to defy governments and officialdom, suddenly behaving like the humblest and most tongue-tied civil servant.
And let's not forget the Jesuits. On September 3, The Times carried a report "Illegal immigration - EU proposed standards far higher than Malta's". It quotes the Jesuit Refugee Service as saying that "the EU Commission's proposals confirmed that it was unjustified to deprive illegal immigrants of their liberty arbitrarily or indefinitely..." The report quotes the JRS seven times, to the extent that it sounds like a voice quoting its own echo.
Of course, the Jesuits could help Africans directly by going to the heart of Africa. Instead they vent their missionary zeal trying to impose on us, unwilling Maltese, the presence of unwanted immigrants and the taxes to maintain them.
Is it not time NGO representatives were asked how many people they represent, how they were elected, and on what they base their claims to attention and influence? We know they think they are cleverer and holier than us; but is that enough?
Politicians
A government or an Opposition can suffer or profit from natural disasters. A hurricane or an earthquake can wreck a government's popularity; but in 2002 German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder snatched an election victory from the jaws of defeat by reacting with dynamism to that summer's floods. For us illegal immigrants are a creeping natural disaster. Malta does not lie in the path of hurricanes or the fault line of seismic regions. It lies on the path of millions of destitute Africans wishing to travel to prosperity in the north.
So far the government has reacted with indecision or worse. True, it has been and is being double-crossed by Libya and Italy. It has been harassed by an alliance of Christians, journalists and NGOs. But its reaction has disappointed the vast majority of Maltese. Opposition Leader Alfred Sant has better grasped the public mood by affirming that the national interest should prevail over other considerations. No doubt he is being opportunistic, as he was in 1996 when he focussed on just two issues - VAT and hunting - to swing enough voters and win the election. But at least he is showing he understands the message of opinion surveys.
When Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, a former president of Catholic Action, speaks sanctimoniously about Popes and Christian values, he shows that he has not recently been to the squares of Birzebbuga and Safi, and has not had a down-to-earth discussion with the common folk of those villages. Like others in power, he is protected by isolators and shock absorbers which prevent him from feeling the strength of the groundswell of public opinion against illegal immigrants. More of this attitude will keep thousands of Nationalist voters at home in the elections of 2008, or throw them in the arms of some firebrand, and push thousands of floating voters in the wrong direction. Then we can all pray for a change of government.