The tragedy of the Egyptian man who drowned off Ghar Lapsi as his brother watched only serves to remind us that there are no facile solutions to what is rapidly becoming a ‘boat people’ problem. The term ‘boat people’ was coined in the late 1970s, when Australia found itself coping with a terrific influx of desperate people who had left south-east Asia in boats, claiming that they would rather die than be repatriated. The political climate of the time made it almost certain that they would be killed if sent back, so vast, makeshift camps were hurriedly set up to house them. It was a situation that took over the international news, when usually nothing that happens in Australia ever does. The plight of the boat people caught the world’s imagination.

Now we have our own boat people, but the numbers are comparatively few and it is likely that we will be left to deal with them alone and with no international attention. It is obvious that nothing is going to stop these people, who are in such dire straits that they are ready to gamble with their lives, from trying to make the journey to Italy. It is equally obvious that many of them are going to reach Malta instead, by mistake if they are unguided, deliberately brought here against their will by those who hoodwink them, or as happened a few days ago, forced to do so by inclement weather. The floodgates, once opened, will stay that way for some time.

The solution we seek has to be humane. We cannot call ourselves Christian and civilised if we countenance, even for a moment, the ideas and the suggestions of the harshly right-wing and the fascist elements among us. Though these are epitomised in the crazed creed of Norman Lowell, a watered-down version of his philosophy is espoused by others who readily take their place in society, perhaps even considering themselves to be pillars of that society.

As the numbers of such people who reach our shores continues to increase, there is going to be more and more resentment against them, even among those who would be considered otherwise good, kind and decent. They are perceived as a threat, as a burden on limited resources, and as dangerous to the status quo because they are different. It is how the Jews were seen in Nazi Germany, which allowed Hitler’s propaganda team to strip them of their humanity so that they were no longer perceived as people.

These are, however, people – not dirt or animals. Yet somehow we cannot find it in ourselves to say, there but for the grace of God go I. Instead, we write bitter and angry letters to the newspapers; we call up radio stations to vent our rage and our fear; we ruin dinner party conversation with heated rows about ‘what should be done’. Underneath it all, you can hear what these people really want to say, but cannot bring themselves so to do because they do not wish to be thought Hitlerian: throw them back into the sea; put them on a plane and fly them back to their pain; shoot them on sight as long as we don’t know about it; send out patrol boats to fend them off until they are lost at sea.

It seems impossible for those who are complacent in their comfort to grasp the nature of true despair. For only despair can drive parents into a rickety little overcrowded craft with their children, after paying their life’s savings for the journey, knowing that there is a good chance that they will not make it to the other side. And even if they do make it to Italy, what then? In our smugness, how can we even begin to understand what it means to have nothing left to lose?

On Christmas Day, many of those who spout the ‘turn them away and have done with it’ creed will go to church and hear how Joseph and Mary were turned away at the inn, and how consequently, their child was born in a stable. They will have heard this story so many times before, since their childhood, that it will have ceased to have any significance for them. They will not see it for the parable that it is, and while making the sign of the Cross and receiving Holy Communion, they will continue in their cruel thoughts.

* * * * *

Cruel, heartless people are often also illogical, I find. One such woman wrote a letter to The Sunday Times to suggest that those who call for greater compassion towards the ‘illegal immigrants’ should set an example by taking some of them into their own homes. This is like saying that those who campaign for a solution to the problem of stray dogs on the streets should start by giving a home to 10 of them, or keep their mouths shut. It is like saying that if we are not willing to foster a homeless child, then we should not campaign for greater awareness about the plight of homeless children, or call on the State to ensure that they are decently looked after. That woman exemplified, in her petty-minded selfishness, the small-town bigotry that leaves us unable to open our hearts to others unless there is a full-on assault on our sympathies by graphic images that engender pity, as with certain charity campaigns.

* * * * *

Sometimes we find ourselves shamed into thinking differently. Baxter International, whose Malta operation is headed by a Maltese, Sergio Vella, has just donated over $50,000 to the Jesuit Refugee Service, to help them care for those who have been washed up on our shores. It is a hugely commendable move, and one that leads by example. Meanwhile, there is a lone nun who is struggling to look after several families of refugees at the Good Shepherd Home in Balzan. She leads by example, too. She didn’t slam the door in their faces and say: “Go back where you came from. We don’t need you here.” She also raises the money to feed and clothe them. How small of spirit the ‘send them back where they belong or shoot them at sea’ brigade seems in comparison.

* * * * *

And now a little something to cheer up the liberals among you. It’s the eve of the Battle of Trafalgar (look it up) and:

“Order the signal, Hardy.”

“Aye-aye, sir.”

“Hold on. That’s not what I dictated to the signal officer. What’s the meaning of this?”

“Sorry sir?”

“ ‘England expects every person to do his duty, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious persuasion or disability!’ What sort of gobbledegook is this?”

“Admiralty policy, I’m afraid, sir. We’re an equal opportunities employer now. We had the devil’s own job getting ‘England’ past the censors. It might be considered racist.”

“Gadzooks, Hardy. Hand me my pipe and tobacco.”

“Sorry, sir. All naval vessels have been designated smoke-free working environments.”

“In that case, break open the rum ration. Let us splice the mainbrace to steel the men before battle.”

“The rum ration has been abolished, sir. It’s part of the government’s policy on binge drinking.”

“Good heavens, Hardy. I suppose we’d better get on with it. Full speed ahead.”

“I think you’ll find that there’s a four-knot speed limit in this stretch of water.”

“Dammit, man! We are on the eve of the greatest sea battle in history. We must advance with all dispatch. Report from the crow’s nest, please.”

“That won’t be possible, sir.”

“What!”

“Health and safety have closed the crow’s nest, sir – no harness. And they said that the rope ladder doesn’t meet regulations. They won’t let anyone up there until proper scaffolding is erected.”

“Then get me the ship’s carpenter without delay, Hardy.”

“He’s busy knocking up wheelchair access to the foc’sle, sir.”

“Wheelchair access? I’ve never heard anything so absurd.”

“Health and safety again, sir. We have to provide a barrier-free environment for the differently-abled.”

“Differently-abled? I have only one arm and one eye and I refuse even to hear mention of the phrase. I didn’t rise to the rank of admiral by playing the disability card.”

“Actually, sir, you did. The Royal Navy is under-represented in the areas of visual impairment and limb deficiency.”

“Whatever next! Give me full sail. The salt spray beckons.”

“A couple of problems there, too, sir. Health and safety won’t let the crew put up the rigging without helmets on. And they don’t want anyone breathing in too much salt. Haven’t you seen the adverts?”

“I’ve never heard such infamy. Break out the cannon and tell the men to stand by to engage the enemy.”

“The men are a bit worried about shooting at anyone, sir.”

“This is mutiny!”

“No, sir. They’re just afraid of being charged with murder if they actually kill anyone. There are a couple of legal aid lawyers on board, watching everyone like hawks.”

“Then how are we to sink the Frenchies and the Spanish?”

“Actually, sir – we’re not going to sink them. They’re our European partners now. According to the Common Fisheries policy, we shouldn’t even be in this stretch of water. We could get hit with a suit and a claim for compensation.”

“But you must hate a Frenchman as you hate the devil.”

“I wouldn’t let the ship’s diversity coordinator hear you saying that, sir. You’ll be up on disciplinary.”

“You must consider every man an enemy who speaks ill of your king.”

“Not any more, sir. We must be inclusive in this multicultural age. Now put on your Kevlar vest. It’s the rules.”

“Don’t tell me – health and safety? Whatever happened to rum, sodomy and the lash?”

“Rum’s off the menu, sir. And there’s a ban on corporal punishment.”

“What about sodomy?”

“I believe it’s to be encouraged, sir.”

“In that case, kiss me, Hardy.”