Talk is cheap

Condemning degrading and racist comments on immigrants is something you would expect from any leader of an EU member (apart from Silvio Berlusconi I guess). God forbid that we ever have a PM who does not even feel the need to distance himself from this national shame.

But does this make Gonzi some sort of hero who does not care about losing votes as long as basic humanitarian principles are respected? Far from it. For by sending back migrants to Libya his government has screwed up big time when it comes to showing respect for human dignity. Libya is pariah state which has not even signed the Geneva convention which has recently expelled the United Nation’s High Commission for Refugees. It is a country known for human rights abuses. No amount of talk will compensate for our complicity in what is increasingly looking like an “axis of evil” between Italy, Malta and Libya.

I am sometimes reminded that on this issue Labour is well to the right of the Nationalist Party. But why should we use Labour’s yardstick to assess Gonzi’s performance? It is true that the Labour opposition has been even more reluctant in condemning xenophobic views (except for Joseph Muscat’s disclaimer that we should not blame migrants but the government and the EU). Disclaimer’s apart, Labour’s policies include a “full up” clause which would see us sending back any migrant if an unspecified number is surpassed. It also ambigiously talks of suspending some of our international obligations. Surely not very comforting stuff for someone who grew up in a different political culture than Labour’s. The PN can rest assured that it will face no flak from Labour on this issue. But that does not change anything for me.

And in a country were talk has become so cheap, the church’s quasi silence on the migration issue speaks volumes. Why is our dear bishop so economic with words on this issue? It is true that there were a few occasions were the Bishops spoke in generic terms on this issue without ever questioning government policies. But compare that to the number of times when they spoke against divorce and a deficit is exposed. If the church through its environmental commission rightly speaks against an unsightly development, why does it not condemn the practice of sending migrants to Libya (a policy already condemned by the Holy See)? Jesuit Refugee Services apart, the church as a whole is largely silent in denouncing a sin which is corrupting the nation’s soul. I wonder whether the Zebbug parish priest will ever get his sponsors to fund a bill board reminding his parishioners that racism and refoulement of migrants offends both Christian and universal humanist values.

Another example of how talk has become so cheap in Maltese politics is Labour’s schizophrenic stand on censorship. The party’s stance against censorship was contradicted by its first chance to prove its credentials. For in their first chance of voting in parliament on this issue, Labour MP’s votes unanimously with the government to allow stricter penalties for pornography under the pretext of protecting children. In a country where talk has become so cheap, consistency and principles are very rare currency in politics and the greens deserve some credit for taking a clear stance on a thorny issues like migration and censorship.