In all this talk of race and racism, many people seem to be overlooking one basic fact. Regardless of our individual views of the illegal immigrant phenomenon – whether we want these people here or not, whether they were invited here or otherwise, whether we hate their guts, even whether their presence poses a serious threat to our economy and cultural identity – we are nevertheless obliged by international law to provide them with their basic human rights. All of them, without exception. Yes, even if they entered the country illegally. Yes, even if it costs us an arm and a leg. And yes, even if we would much rather they all drowned in the Mediterranean sea long before reaching our shores.
* * *
This may come as a surprise to many, but the fact is that Malta, like all members of the United Nations, has ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You can read the document for yourselves on http://www.un.org/ Overview/rights.html. However, it is the first two articles and the last one that are of direct concern to us all. These are:
“Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
“Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
“Article 30: Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.” (My emphasis)
* * *
For this reason, there is no call whatsoever to drag religion (or even morality) into the equation. The above law binds us all equally, irrespective of our Christianity or the lack thereof. Actually, it goes further than that. Failure to abide by these conditions is by our own consent a criminal act. No ifs, no buts. Meanwhile, certain recent claims that immigrants have somehow “forfeited” their rights by performing illegal acts (coming into the country without documentation, among other things) are, to put it very simply, wrong. As is the notion that human rights can be automatically “revoked” or “suspended” the moment one’s cultural identity or economic well-being is under threat. These are, at best, misconceptions, at worst, downright distortions of international law. If you don’t believe me, take a look for yourselves. You will find that there is simply no clause to this effect anywhere to be found in the Declaration. And unlike the negotiated terms of our accession to the European Union, there are no “derogations” or “transitional periods”, either.
* * *
As for the suggestion that the so-called “do-gooders” (as opposed to what, I wonder? The “evil-doers”?) should take the immigrants in themselves... well, I’m sorry, but it just doesn’t work that way. You see, it wasn’t the “do-gooders” who singlehandedly ratified the Universal Charter of Human Rights on behalf of the rest of the country. Quite the other way round, in fact. It was the entire country that ratified it on their behalf, and on behalf of everyone else. And granted: the Maltese people were not in any way consulted when it came to taking a decision of such overwhelming magnitude. It seems that, much like the founding fathers of the United States of America in 1776, our political leaders held it to be a “self-evident truth” that “all men were created equal”, and therefore didn’t bother holding a referendum on the subject. And you know what? Much as I disagree with them on other things, on this one I think our political leaders got it 100 per cent right. I would not willingly have that view subject to the indignity of a referendum... as though a single generation of citizens, in any one country, at any one time, could just snap their fingers in the face of the Wisdom of Ages, and overturn what is manifestly right because it simply doesn’t fit in with their own, purely selfish ends.
However, it’s never too late to try. Just out of curiosity: how many of you out there openly disagree with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, anyway? How many of you would like to see Malta formally withdraw its ratification of this declaration, with all the ignominy that this gesture would inevitably entail?
* * *
Actually, don’t bother answering. In the end, it doesn’t make any difference anyway. Personally, I have no idea how many people in this country even subscribe to what are currently being described as “racist” attitudes. For one thing, I have grown too cynical of late to believe any of the surveys currently being bandied about to this effect. Actually, I am beginning to suspect that my own initial perception was from the outset wrong. In recent weeks, for all the outward evidence to the contrary, I have come across indications that in actual fact, the majority of Maltese people is not racist at all... and that it is only a small minority to whom the appellation can realistically be applied.
My reasons for believing this? Oh, nothing special. I was present for a concert by electronica duo Particle Blue at The Alley recently, and heard them introduce one of the tracks as part of their “anti-racism campaign”... to a very warm reception from the crowd. More recently still, in the process of researching an entirely unrelated article about rock music, I discovered to my surprise that a number of local bands in the punk category (which is not, by the way, the most traditionally “politically correct” genre in musical history) are active members of an international organisation called S.H.A.R.P. – Skin Heads Against Racial Prejudice. There were other indications, too, but for the time being these should suffice.
However, even if things were the other way around... even if the worst case scenario was true, and we really were a nation of utter bigots who genuinely believe that the entire Universal Declaration of Human Rights is worth about as much as your average roll of Scottex Casa... even then, I honestly fail to see what difference that could possibly make. After all, there are several laws in Malta’s Criminal Code with which I wholeheartedly disagree. Does this give me, or anyone else, the legal right to break those laws? No, it does not – not by a very long chalk indeed.
* * *
On the subject of breaking laws, I would also like to add that any failure to abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – which, I repeat, Malta has willingly and publicly ratified, without any reservations or conditions whatsoever – can and will be interpreted as a crime against humanity. In fact, that is what the term “crime against humanity” actually means.
* * *
As for whether we can afford to undertake these obligations... I’m afraid this, too, is neither here nor there. Similar arguments are often brought forward to justify crimes committed on purely social grounds. One famous example is that of a parent who kills his or her child because he or she can’t afford to feed it. In this case, the most that might happen is a reduction in the sentence on the grounds of “mitigating circumstances.” However, mitigating circumstances alone will not prevent that parent from being charged with murder in the first degree. OK, the comparison might not work on all levels, but the principle of the matter is inescapable: not even penury of the most unimaginable kind can be used to justify human rights abuses. And ours is very far from that kind of penury.
The same goes for all the usual arguments in favour of “waiving” or “suspending” our international obligations: that we are going through a crisis, that we are overpopulated enough as it is, that our Christian heritage may be jeopardised, etc. etc.
In truth, not a single one of these arguments holds any water. The most they can do is justify a general resentment at the idea that we were all much better off before these people actually came here... I fail to see how anyone can deny that... as well as what is evidently a deep-seated concern that the Malta we once knew is clearly changing at a very fast rate.
However, neither of those concerns can be taken as an excuse to deprive human beings of their rights.
For the record, these rights include:
• The right to life, liberty and security of person.
• No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
• The right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
• The right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
• No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
• The right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.