Funny how the petition raised by journalists and other media persons, calling for access to detention centres for irregular immigrants and asylum seekers, has been sucked into a black hole. Or perhaps it isn’t funny at all. We would have expected the Cabinet minister to whom it was addressed to at least make a statement acknowledging its receipt, and informing the waiting public of his intentions, whatever they may be. If nothing else, it would have been simple good manners, which are conspicuously lacking in so many areas of life in Malta, even among those who should be leading by example. You should only ignore people when they are rude and insolent towards you; a petition is not an act of rudeness or insolence, but ignoring it is.

There are some things that do not go away if you ignore them. Malignant tumours and petitions signed by almost all journalists working in Malta are among those things. The only newsroom people who did not sign the petition are those employed by the Nationalist Party media, with the exception of Karl Stagno Navarra, who stuck his neck out and did so. Good for him. The only other time there was similar action by people in the news media was two years ago, when around 80 of us signed a declaration that made clear our disapproval of the Leader of the Opposition’s behaviour towards journalists, in his so-called “press briefings” and ‘press conferences’ prior to the referendum and election. Those who work for the Labour Party-owned media did not sign that declaration, either, even though it was manifestly clear to them that their boss’s behaviour was atrocious: snapping at some journalists, ignoring others, refusing to take questions, and treating everyone except his own poodles with absolute hostility. As the then Prime Minister pointed out during a head-to-head debate with Dr Sant just before we voted, it was the first time journalists from right across the media got together and put their names to something like that. Dr Sant’s response was to become hysterical, shouting over the sound of Dr Fenech Adami’s voice as the credits rolled. It was precisely at that moment that his electoral fate was sealed, and even his aides must have known this.

And now here we are, two years later, with the Minister of Home Affairs ignoring a petition addressed to him and signed by practically everyone in the news media, with the exception of those who work for the Nationalist Party television, radio and newspapers. Yes, it is a difficult situation for him. He has obviously decided that the consequences of letting journalists into the detention camps might not work in his favour. Instead of speaking with hatred and resentment towards the people living in them, Mr and Mrs Average Person might be outraged at what the television cameras show them. Their disgust at the immigrants might turn to disgust at the people who are keeping them in conditions that engender pity and compassion. Pressure on the government to change those conditions will mount. As things stand, Mr and Mrs Average are not sure what those conditions are; they have not seen the suffering of those people and so they are talking about them as if they were subhuman.

The instant the cameras go into the camps and show the rest of the country how those people are living, in the cold and wet, like animals in a pen, then public opinion will shift enormously. Even those who won’t change their hard-hearted, emotionless view will at least think twice before expressing themselves in letters to the newspapers. The rest of us will not be forced to see just how many people have dried up little chickpeas for hearts, or to acknowledge that they are our friends and neighbours.

The power of the camera is enormous. The photographs which showed soldiers taking pleasure in kicking immigrants – for the pleasure is obvious – spoke for themselves. That is why I cannot stomach the protests of the fence-sitters among us, who say we should wait for the outcome of the inquiry before making our views known. Why should we wait for the outcome of the inquiry? What can the inquiring judge tell us that has not been recorded on film and shown to us already? Can he find out, perhaps, that the photographs and the film footage were doctored? No, because they were not. All he can do is find out why the soldiers beat the immigrants, but that won’t change the fact that they did beat them. Incidentally, the inquiry, too, seems to have been sucked into a black hole.

The power of the camera is what the government fears most about allowing journalists into the camps. It cannot tell journalists “come right in, but don’t bring your cameras”. So it bans the journalists – though the ban is in actual fact directed at their cameras, and not at them and what they might write. The power of the written word is strong, yes, but very, very few know how to use that power effectively, to convey the reality, rather than just the dry facts, of what they see. The government has little to fear on that score, and it knows it. Oddly enough, Harry Vassallo was allowed in, as a leader of a political party rather than as a columnist, though he writes far, far more columns than I do. But if I were to ask for access, it would be denied me on the grounds that I am a columnist. There’s logic for you: to get inside those camps I have to think up a political party – Il-Partit ta’ Dafni.

Dr Vassallo wrote about his visit for The Times, making a mockery of the ban on access by journalists to the camps. So I must ask: pray, why was he given special treatment? It’s true that he leads a political party, but he is also a prolific writer of newspaper articles. If the former qualifies him for entry to the camps, then the latter disqualifies him. It would be interesting to know how the government worked this one out on balance, particularly because Dr Vassallo is one of those very, very few people I mentioned, who knows how to use the power of the written word effectively. And he did so. I read his article and, like him, I was enraged and deeply perturbed. I asked many other people whether they had read it, too, and they said no, that they never read articles by politicians. They assumed that Dr Vassallo’s article was just another thinly disguised puff piece for his political party, like all those other pieces written by Alfred Sant, Lorna Vassallo, Joseph Muscat and various Cabinet ministers, and they turned the page. “You have to read it,” I told them. “It’s important.” But somehow, I doubt that they did. It was an article that should have been written by a real journalist, not by someone trying to drum up interest in his political party, and spread across the page with due importance and the full authority of the newspaper’s editorial backing. Instead its force was dissipated by its presentation as one more ‘look how good we are and how bad the others are’ column by yet another tedious politician out for votes. What a waste – but what a blessed relief for the government.

* * *

What in heaven’s name got into Leo Brincat? We have had an incessant parade of useless ambassadors who are appointed only because of their connections, and certainly not because of their ability, which is largely absent. Everyone who knows them knows to whom I am referring, yet there was never a peep or a squeak from the Labour Party or from any of its individual members. Then what happens? Women are appointed Ambassador to France and Ambassador to Tunisia, and Mr Brincat jumps up and down in Parliament, demanding to know whether they have the required expertise, and whether the one who was appointed ambassador to Tunisia knows how to speak Arabic. Somebody should tell him that everyone in Tunisia speaks fluent French, as does the ambassador he is seeking to criticise, who has lived there for most of her adult life. They speak better French than we do English, and what’s more, they have absolutely no hang-ups about “the language of the coloniser”. Everybody speaks it, even to each other, and they don’t smirk and make accusations of snobbery.

But Mr Brincat’s lack of familiarity with the languages of Tunisia is not the point here. And of course, you have already gathered what that point is: he never sought to cast doubt on the ability of the men who have been, over the years, patently unqualified to represent their country overseas, and who were only appointed to the position because of their personal friendships. If he wishes, he only has to take a quick look and he will see who I mean. They’re still there; he’s still in time to ask whether they speak…well, let’s not go into details, shall we? Yet, he has been quick to raise questions in Parliament about Dr Vicki Ann Cremona and Dr Tanya Vella. I do not know Dr Vella at all well, but I do know that when her former husband was made Ambassador to France, Mr Brincat did not ask in Parliament whether he was able to speak French, as he has now asked whether Dr Vella can speak Arabic (to which, incidentally, the answer is yes). I do know Dr Cremona fairly well, and can claim with confidence that she is one of the most intelligent and able persons of my acquaintance, and that acquaintance includes several ambassadors who fall far short of her suitability. But of course, they are men, and so they are eminently qualified for the post.

At least 15 years ago, I wrote that a Maltese man can go into the public arena with dandruff on his shoulders, an ugly face, a dreadful figure, patchy hair, an IQ that hovers above average, and really bad clothes – and no one will say anything. They accept that he is there, in the public arena, because he is a man. But a Maltese woman must have the figure of Naomi Campbell, the face of Marilyn Monroe, the brain of Albert Einstein and haute couture clothes, and still she will be torn to shreds. Other women will seethe will jealousy and try to undermine her in any way they can, while men will cast aspersions on her character and her ability, and ask her in bitter, belittling tones whether she ‘always wanted to be a career woman’ unlike nice girls, who only wanted ‘the longest veil’. And now Mr Brincat has gone ahead and confirmed me in my view. I recommend that he looks around at the existing list of Malta’s ambassadors and lets us know how many, in his view, can hold a candle to Dr Vella and Dr Cremona. Then he can take it up with me.