It would be fun to watch, were there not people’s lives in the balance. Last week the prime minister decided that it was not a time to be decent to asylum seekers. Right on cue, a ragtag of lackeys and hacks took to Facebook to do the bidding.
Predictable and boring perhaps, but worth a word or two nonetheless. First, because some of the people involved occupy high perches. Second, because the outcome is that public discourse is dragged down to the basest level. It is also thanks to these people that informed and reasoned discussion is so rare, and that serious matters end up a tragic circus. Three clowns in particular were highly unfunny last week.
There isn’t much to say about Alfred Grixti that’s printable in a respectable newspaper. Let’s just say he’s oaf royalty and that he sums up what can happen when political parties kangaroo their stooges into top state posts. For years now, his crass behaviour and unbearable stupidity have plagued a field that employs hard-working and poorly-paid men and women who deserve a far, far better boss.
You couldn’t make it up. The CEO of the Foundation for Social Welfare Services (salary scale 2 in the public service, plus perks) thinks that the best way to approach the migration issue is for the government to fly the Jolly Roger, and to seize and scuttle the ships used by NGOs to rescue migrants in distress at sea.
Within hours, the social workers who work for the foundation (salary scale 10, minus perks) declared Grixti unfit for purpose. His views, they rightly said, were incompatible with the fundamental principles of the foundation. Now social workers are not known for their scathing public views: the wording of their press release shows just how low Grixti had sunk.
It didn’t stop there. In an unprecedented move, the board of the foundation formally distanced itself from the views of its own CEO, and pledged to do its work ‘without favour or discrimination’. In other words, Grixti is now getting taxpayers’ money to run a state agency without the support of its staff and governors.
Alfred Grixti sums up what can happen when political parties kangaroo their stooges into top state posts
Which may not matter one jot, because he does enjoy the support of the party meddlers who put him there in the first place. No wonder he made light of the situation. His response was to ‘specify’ that it was only empty NGO boats that ought to be scuttled – as opposed to NGO boats with migrants aboard. As reported, our tinpot Trump added that “the absolute majority of Maltese and Gozitans do not have trust in the media”.
Grixti is not any private citizen. He is a state functionary of high rank who happens to head a state agency whose remit involves working closely with all manner of NGOs, and which thrives on a respect for media scrutiny. Except the CEO thinks that NGOs are an ass and the media doubly so.
Grixti seems to have gotten away with it yet again. I hope this piece will be out of date by the time it goes to press, but I’m not holding my breath. Such is the power of mediocrity and stupidity when they team up with political patronage.
The other person of note (he’ll relish that description) to take to Facebook to serve his master was that minion and general popinjay Manuel Micallef. He presented us with a sjambok of a hypothetical dilemma in which there was one ventilator available at hospital, and two patients: an ‘immigrant African’, and a member of your family. Which of the two would you choose?
If I were forced to choose between my mother and an immigrant African, or my mother and the Pope, or my mother and Manuel Micallef, I would choose my mother every time. So, I’m sure, would all of us. But that’s exactly why there are such things as states, human rights, and the rule of law. These useful devices prevent a perpetual bloodbath between families over ventilators, among other limited resources.
Not that Micallef would understand or even care, because his whole point was about that lousy, undeserving, unwanted-by-Robert-Abela African immigrant all along. He assured us in a subsequent Facebook post that he hadn’t meant the slightest scintilla of racism (‘xamma ta razziżmu’). He added he would support and pray for the man with the hardest job of all – that is, Abela. Amen.
Which brings me to the third specimen of servitude, Brian Hansford. How convenient for the prime minister to be interviewed by him – rather than by, say, Tim Sebastian. Hansford seems to be a member of his inner circle, too, because he constantly addressed him using the chummy ‘prim’. Perhaps that’s why he enjoys weekly prime time on national television.
Hansford’s task on the night was twofold. First, to downplay what he called the ‘daqsxejn ta’ polemika’ (minor controversy) that followed the prime minister’s decision to effectively declare asylum seekers more unwanted than usual. No controversy at all as far as Hansford is concerned: it’s obvious the prime minister is right. He always is, and how could it possibly be otherwise?
The second was to basically rehearse, no questions asked, the government’s position on everything. With respect again to migration, this included the ongoing hatchet job on NGOs that appear to be the in-season pet hates (probably because they have an annoying habit of getting in the way of cruelty).
I read a couple of weeks ago that domesticated dogs have evolved muscles around their eyes which allow them to make expressions that particularly appeal to humans. So-called ‘puppy eyes’ prompt a nurturing response from humans: “When dogs make the movement, it seems to elicit a strong desire in humans to look after them”.
The news came as no surprise to me, familiar as I was with Hansford. I also know that puppy eyes are just one of an arsenal. To please their masters, dogs have been known to look vicious and menacing. Either way, they’re a fully domesticated species.