The Malta Independent 15 May 2024, Wednesday
View E-Paper

Against Terrorism

Malta Independent Wednesday, 6 April 2005, 00:00 Last update: about 20 years ago

In reply to Angelo Micallef’s letter (TMID 30 March), Moviment Graffitti would like to point out that the quote used by Mr Micallef from the organisation’s press release regarding terrorist legislation was quoted unaccompanied by the other paragraphs from the whole article, thus giving an opposite interpretation. What is even more condemnable is that Mr Micallef then wrote a letter of lies and half truths.

In the press release, the Moviment made it very clear that it is against terrorism and, in fact, gave suggestions on how terrorism ought to be fought on an international scale. Mr Micallef accused Moviment Graffitti that it does not care about terrorism. Moviment Graffitti condemns terrorist acts and the loss of life it entails is always inexcusable.

Mr Micallef mentioned three infamous terrorist attacks and said that the movement did not care about the victims. One of these attacks was the Madrid railway bombings.

The fact that US President George Bush and the then Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar favoured the war on Iraq and completely disregarded the opinion of many organisations, including that of Moviment Graffitti, led to terrorists attacks in Spain.

Moviment Graffitti is keen on knowing what should Mr Micallef expect when countries are bombed, occupied and their resources looted (in other words imperialism and this is exactly what western countries are doing)?

The answer is unfortunate but true: terrorism. The reasons mentioned are the cause of the terrorist attacks committed in Beslan mentioned by Mr Micallef.

Terrorist legislation will not stop terrorism. Leading terrorists will remain at large even with the harshest penalties in place. Legislation against terrorism will not halt terrorist leaders.

The movement is afraid that there might be misuse of this amendment of the criminal code by law enforcement agencies as has been the case in Britain and the United States. Prosecutors might easily argue that a person’s conduct was to “seriously intimidate a population”, as defined by the proposed amendment, when this would not in fact be the case.

John Axiak

f/Moviment Graffitti

  • don't miss