Egg on your face
Last Sunday opened with a new launch on immigrants’ status in Malta by the Prime Minister when he was addressing the labour party gathering, in what looks very much like a u-turn on the previous position held by him, where we had seen him attempt to push
Rachel Borg is an independent columnist based in the tourism industry ince then, the European Union pushed the subject of immigration up the priority list on the agenda but the situation remains quite uncertain till today. In neighbouring Italy, with the fall of Renzi and the coming of a stricter approach where irregular migration is concerned by the newly-elected major parties, the consequences for our island are high-lighted again, where, during these past years we have seen few landings of boats delivering the migrants on our shores.
In anticipation of what may be a new wave of arrivals, the subject was re-launched by Dr Muscat who told the audience present that we need the “workers”. Now, though this argument may have merit, once again he uses a juxtaposition of issues in order to push forward his new approach. Essentially, the issue of irregular migration has nothing to do with whether or not we need the employment of workers. There status is defined prior to them being given a permit to work. The process takes time and facilities, such as the European Union have set up in Sicily and Italy and other hot spots, to register and assess all applicants as to whether they are valid for asylum or to be considered as economic migrants and what danger or precarity they are fleeing.
Once that process has taken place and they can stay, eventually, they may enjoy the benefit of working in Malta and Gozo.
If they are accepted solely on the basis of whether they can be productive and add to the workforce, then what will be the status of the women and children who cannot work? Or indeed anyone who is basically unskilled and unemployable? What will be their entitlement and protection?
So, once more, the country will be playing with the fate of these persons based on a subjective and commercial need, as defined by the Prime Minister and not as ascribed by international law. If what was said was simply to instruct the local population into accepting to integrate the migrants, then why not simply launch a positive message, based on their rights and our obligations by international and humanitarian law? The Pope has often spoken of the harm in treating human beings as a commodity and we should never hurt the dignity of people.
As it stands, this message will survive only as long as there is full employment in Malta. Should people at some future time begin to feel that their job is being taken by a migrant, then there will be no basis for them to continue in a positive attitude towards them. As always, the PM has taken a reading of the low fear factor and self-interest and re-packaged the issue giving it a commercial value.
Once anything in Malta gains a commercial value, then it falls under Pro-business and gets the green light.
On the case of Maria Efimova and her non-extradition to Malta, due to the intervention by MEP politicians and a serious examination of her position, we see the absurdity of what happens when there is political interference here, that is distorting the law and rules concerning whistle-blowers. It may take time to try to regularise affairs and seek justice, but ultimately, it can be done. Perhaps we can avoid further embarrassment on our government, by not repeating the same injustice with other whistle-blowers, namely Jonathan Ferris.
The deliberate distortion of facts and laws, for political expediency has reached epic levels and has completely ruined the name and fabric of our country and its standing in the international world. We look like amateurs and scoundrels.
What Labour fail to realise, or think they can get away with, is that what is said to the crowds here by their politicians and their media, has a totally different analysis abroad.
The division of opinion that we endure amongst our own public is the same one as that between those persons who believe what they are told to believe and those who reject false ideas and corrupt practice as they do abroad.
Appointing former CHOGM task force head Phyllis Muscat as chairman of the newlyestablished contemporary art museum is another such imposition on the country of political interference and devaluation of our constitution, culture and identity, that raises the same mirth as that of Helena Dalli when describing the hood-winking of the Maltese public in legislating the civil liberties.
We can go on to mention the freezing of embryos and how, once more, the matter was disguised to look like a benefit for the individual, when really it serves another purpose and does not protect the dignity of a life.
The cases are too many, becoming more and more frequent as one institute and organisation after another fails to avoid derogation in doing its job.
The tragedy is that the fate of individuals, innocent persons and the identity and pride of our nation, forged from years of struggle and strong faith, stands like a house on an eroding cliff. How much more force can it endure?