The President’s address

The President’s encyclical address on Republic Day was disappointing in the sense that she chose to adulterate an otherwise excellent speech with one of her thrusts on the highly controversial arena of illegal immigration. The moral intent may have been laudable but it was still ill advised, contradictory and generally not in the national interest.

Her Excellency reportedly based her vocal condemnation of populist policies apropos the question of illegal migration on her position as Guardian of the Constitution. As a non-elected Head of State, the President should be very wary of publicly aligning herself with controversial issues. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution to back her claim that it does. Illegal immigration is a political and highly controversial issue and she would be well advised to take a leaf out of the book of other Commonwealth Heads of State and stay right out of it.

If Her Excellency is so keen to exercise her righteous role as Guardian of the Constitution, she had plenty of opportunity during recent years to pass judgement on certain blatant transgressions of Ministerial Accountability which flouted at least one section of the Maltese Constitution. While there is little doubt that the rise of populist politics is increasingly preferred to a sensible and pragmatic type of government, it is very clear that in her address she herself was guilty of populism.

Preaching emotively on Republic Day from the altar of one of the most historic churches in Europe with no formal rebuttal, and endorsing sentiments of love hospitality and Christian values in support of fellow men women and children in distress was clearly a compelling populist picture. In fact, it was worse than that.

A populist is defined as someone seeking to represent the more popular views or interests of ordinary people. Her Excellency was not representing the popular view of the people; on the contrary, she was attempting to mould people’s views with emotional appeals to Maltese Christian values. Populism, while not without concomitant adverse consequences, is unquestionably an integral part of the democratic system of government.

No populism is needed or found in North Korea or China and indeed very little of it in Turkey these days, a Muslim country. Turkey is being courted with promises of EU membership thus giving EU passports to another 75 million, mostly Muslims, most of whom are itching to move away from their megalomaniac leader and help with the intractable issue of illegal migration to Europe. Policies of hospitality and embracing all those who arrive illegally on Maltese shores are over-simplistic answers to the prayers of human traffickers making hundreds of millions of dollars from misguided policies which continue to encourage and foment their business model.

While there is a strong case for compassionate resettling of genuine security cleared refugees fleeing from despotic regimes or war zones, there should be zero tolerance for illegal economic migrants flooding Europe in their millions. Her Excellency argues in favour of allowing generally all types of illegal migrants on the basis these are people seeking a more democratic way of life. Perversely, it is that very democratic process which becomes a Trojan horse and the threat migrant saturation poses to our society. In the fullness of time those who are allowed to settle in Malta will probably settle with local partners and eventually become entitled to vote and indeed become potential lawmakers such as has happened in Britain, and presents no threat at all if refugees endorsed and embraced their host language culture and religion.

However, looking at the medium term effect of refugee saturation on other countries in Europe, that is definitely not the case. Instead of integration, refugees, most particularly radical Muslims, predominantly choose to follow a path of exclusive culturalism by obstinately retaining their own undiluted culture and religion exclusively whilst at the same time pressing hard for change of the status quo in their new homeland. It has been reported that in Britain, 100,000 people, mostly women with new Islamic partners, converted to Islam in 2015 alone (BBC).

Refugees from Africa almost invariably come with well engrained cultural baggage alien to our lifestyle, like for example female genital mutilation, Sharia law, multiple wives, different standards of respect for women’s rights, and so on. According to the Gatestone Institute, Islam is now on track to become the dominant religion in Britain within one generation.

In Western Europe Islam is the fastest growing religion and becoming increasingly concentrated in urban enclaves with high birth rates. In cities like Birmingham, the incidence of Muslim dominated local councils is growing. Education is a major issue with the number of Islamic schools burgeoning at the expense of Christian schools. Between 2001 and 2009, the Muslim population in many parts of Britain increased 10 times faster than the rest of the population. The London Borough of Tower Hamlets is now 37 per cent Muslim, and Newham 25 per cent Muslim. In Birmingham, Bradford and Leicester, a recently published statistic showed more Muslim children than Christian children for the first time. Crucifixes, historically part of the furniture at schools in western countries, are now being banned in the interests of avoiding offence to the sentiments of Muslim attendees. The incidence of Islamic lawmakers in Britain is also increasing rapidly and this will no doubt increase the acceleration of Britain’s Islamisation. That is the extent of the momentous change incubating in Western Europe. The Muslim Council of Britain is now a powerful neo-political institution with over 500 affiliated national and regional organisations.

Half a century ago, Enoch Powell a brilliant scholar, distinguished writer and successful politician in Britain made his “Rivers of Blood” speech, which was condemned and resulted in him being completely ostracised and ejected from his own party. His speech was about uncontrolled immigration from the Commonwealth and its changing effect on Britain. This was a time when huge numbers of Asian refugees were fleeing Idi Amin’s purge in Uganda and seeking resettlement in the UK. There is no question his speech had serious racist connotations but it also dealt with the inconvenient truth of human problems arising from the mass immigration of people with very different values. Fifty years ago, racism in Britain was deplorably alive and well and Powell was clearly wrong in giving lip service to such a social evil, but he was also articulating obvious public trepidations. While Powell was unequivocally and inexcusably racist, there is no doubt about the accuracy with which he forecast some of the political and social changes and issues which may translate to mass unrest and which we are witnessing today. In other words, the passage of time is proving him right for the wrong reasons.

“The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils” Powell noted in his speech, and added, “Those who knowingly shirk it deserve and often receive the curses of those who follow.” Perhaps Angela Merkel should have studied Powell before she unlocked Germany’s front door to what many experienced pundits regard as a strong statistical possibility of ISIS operatives or aspiring operatives biding their time to commit the next outrage. If such a tragedy were to take place in Malta, we can all bid good bye to the current economic miracle Her Excellency referred to in her speech. A. Trevisan