“gag /gæg/ n & v. • n, 1. a piece of cloth, etc., thrust into or held over the mouth to prevent speaking or crying out. 2. a joke or comic scene in a play, film, etc. 3. a thing or circumstance restricting free speech. • v, 1 tr. apply a gag to 2 tr. silence; deprive of free speech.”
Admittedly, other dictionaries will give you different definitions. For instance, at least one alternative meaning for the word “gag” may be found in any dictionary of sexual slang (in fact, when I asked our designer to search the web for an appropriate picture, the first 100 to come up on screen were decidedly obscene....)
***
Besides, it is the second transitive verb definition that ought to be attracting people’s attention here. “To silence, deprive of free speech.” That is, to prevent a person from communicating with his fellow man. How can this be achieved? Oh, there are several methods. For instance, you could pick up a knife, or a pair of garden secateurs, and cut out the person’s tongue – which was standard practice in the Middle Ages, and remains standard practice in many countries to this day (including one or two from which asylum seekers, currently in detention in Malta, have fled).
However, that method is noisy and unpleasant, and tends to make a considerable mess to boot. A much simpler and cleaner method is to threaten to kill, maim or torture the person (or the person’s family) if he or she attempts to talk to the press – again, standard practice in many countries, as can be confirmed by a cursory reading any of Amnesty International’s numerous Human Rights reports.
Alternatively, you can lock the person up, and deny him or her any form of access to the outside world... in particular, to the media... until that person either goes mad, commits suicide, is murdered by a fellow inmate, or is repatriated to his country of origin... where (for all we know) he may be tortured and/or killed, until he flees again, comes back, finds himself in detention, and so ad infinitum.
If the last option sounds familiar, you needn’t be too surprised. It is, after all, your own government’s official policy regarding irregular immigrants, currently held in closed detention centres in Hal Safi, Hal Far, Floriana and elsewhere... and consistently denied access to the media for the entire duration of their stay.
***
OK, let’s take the proverbial step and look at the bigger picture. This week I found myself thinking: is it possible that maybe I am exaggerating somewhat? Is it possible that what I consider to be a clear and implicit violation of fundamental human rights, is in actual fact a perfectly normal procedure, followed in all democratic countries everywhere? After all, Malta is hardly the only country to favour detention as a way of dealing with irregular visitors. For this, we have the Prime Minister’s own admission: Malta follows the examples set by Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States, France and elsewhere. Surely, then, if we are in such good company (for they are all honourable countries) there may be something to be said for simply leaving human beings to rot in substandard living conditions, and then denying them any chance to complain?
***
So let’s start with the UK... a logical point of departure, considering that it was the UK which provided us with the original blueprint for our own detention policy (with one, significant difference: detention in the UK is governed by strict laws... in particular, by the Detention Centres Rules bill, passed through parliament in 2001.)
Unlike any Maltese equivalent, DCR stipulates minimum living conditions for detainees, while explicitly allowing for media access to detention centres. The bill also specifies what rights are enjoyed by detained asylum seekers, who would otherwise find themselves in a veritable legal vacuum: unrecognised by law, unable to work, unable to travel (legally, at least); in other words, unable to survive through any means other than crime... which is basically the exact same scenario that applies to all those detainees in the Hal Safi barracks, and elsewhere in Malta, whose application for refugee status is for whatever reason refused.
***
But back to media gagging. In 2001, the case of Gabriel Nwkelle – a 34-year-old African human rights activist detained in the Tinsley House detention centre – made headlines in the UK. Indymedia.com reported the case as follows:
“On Friday 28 December 2001, Gabriel Nkwelle was prevented from talking to the media. BBC Five Live, BBC Wales and BBC London had all prepared to interview Gabriel but staff at Tinsley House detention centre were told not to allow calls through to him by the Home Office press office.
“This attempt to gag Gabriel is in direct contravention of the Detention Centre Rules... protecting ‘the right to individual expression’, and a detained person’s right ‘to establish and maintain, as far as are possible, such relations with persons and agencies outside the detention centre as he may wish, save to the extent that such relations prejudice interests of security or safety’.
“Such an instruction also breaches article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights which protects the ‘right to freedom of expression... without interference from public authority’.”
Naturally, the aggrieved media sued for the right to interview Gabriel, and (perhaps unsurprisingly, considering that, unlike Malta, the UK hasn’t yet completely abandoned the basic concept of human rights) won the case.
***
So much for the UK. Now let us turn to Dr Gonzi’s other country of inspiration, Australia. It seems that, up until recently, Mr John Howard (that’s the Ozzie Prime Minister, folks) shared Dr Tonio Borg’s view that media access to detention centres is a rather superfluous luxury. Again, however, there is one notable difference. For the Australian government was clearly conscious that its behaviour was, at best questionable, at worst downright anti-democratic. In fact, it issued an “explanation” of its policy (something our own Home Affairs Ministry has never, ever done) claiming that it was “protecting the right to privacy of the asylum seekers themselves”... a claim which, needless to add, met with an ocean of media scorn.
***
Besides, while the government defended its total media ban, the media totally refused to play ball. This is how the Australian Press Council, in February 2002, reacted to the government’s flat refusal to grant journalists access to detention centres such as Port Hedland, Woomera, Villawood and Maribyrnong:
“As (Mr Howard) has often said, a free press is crucial to the proper functioning of democracy. It is of grave concern, therefore, that his government is severely restricting the ability of the news media to report freely on a question that has become central to political debate in Australia.”
Elsewhere, the council’s chairman Prof. Ken McKinnon said: “In the Council’s view, the real issue is the right of the Australian people to know what their government is doing in their name. This right to know is effectively denied by the interview ban and other restrictions, because reporters have no means of verifying the information the government provides to them.”
Professor McKinnon concluded: “While the government refuses to allow journalists to speak to asylum seekers, accusations of media manipulation will continue to be made.”
Hear, hear, Prof. McKinnon. Good on you mate...
***
Right, that’s enough from overseas. Coming back to our own human rights violations, and I think most people in their right minds will immediately spot a few differences between the country we live in, and the country we try and pretend to be.
For the Maltese government, too, has actively pursued a blanket media ban for a number of years now. Most, if not all, of the Australian Press Council’s objections would be perfectly valid in our context... but for one snag. Malta doesn’t actually have a Press Council. The closest thing we do have is the Institute of Maltese Journalists...which has to date failed utterly to issue any form of condemnation of what can be only described as blatant disregard for press freedom in this country... leaving many of us to wonder what sort of issue the Institute would consider worthy of its comment.
As things stand, it was left to individual journalists (including myself) to organise a petition requesting the Honourable Minister to change his government’s somewhat dishonourable attitude towards the media. Here are a few excerpts from the actual letter, which in some respects echoes much the same concerns as those of our colleagues in Australia, UK and elsewhere:
***
“...Our concern is that these impediments constitute a direct violation of basic fundamental human rights as enshrined by both the International Charter of Human Rights, as well as the EU Charter of Human Rights... to both of which Malta is a signatory State.
“In particular we would like to draw your attention to Article 11 of the EU charter of Human Rights, entitled ‘Freedom of Expression and Information.’ The article is reproduced here in its entirety, with our emphasis in bold:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. “
“ Under the present circumstances, the local media’s coverage of this issue is limited only to the publication of official statements and press releases, without any first-hand information against which the veracity or otherwise of these statements can be ascertained.”
“We would like to remind you that the role of the Free Press is instrumental in any functioning democracy, and that these constraints can and will be construed as directly undermining the principles of democracy and human rights, despite the fact that these principles are guaranteed by Malta’s Constitution.”
***
The petition was signed by a total of 100 journalists – a coincidental figure, I hasten to add – and delivered to the Ministry last Wednesday. At the time of writing this, there has been no formal acknowledgement of receipt, still less any reply.
But of course, we will be sending him a reminder soon...