I must start by acknowledging my indebtedness to the three gentlemen who have written in support of my feature on the Maltese deportati to tropical Africa during World War Two. My thanks go to Mr Mario Tabone-Vassallo, Mr Joe Martinelli – but especially to Prof. J.A. Muscat (TMIS, 11 March). I assure them their solidarity was not unappreciated.

Prof. Muscat in particular drove home with a certain eloquence some of the points I had worked into my first contribution (4 March). One was that the proposal to erect a memorial to the deportati would serve to separate those who believe respect for human rights to be irrelevant in times of war, from those who believe it never to be more relevant than in times of war. Prof. Muscat volunteers to join those who deem human rights to be nothing but finical encumbrances in times of war. His choice. And I suppose one has to make some sort of effort to respect it.

And, to give him his due, he is not at all alone in this. There are certainly others who believe that, as Prof. Muscat understates it “exceptional times create specific problems”. History is generous with examples of those who felt justified to trample on human rights in the pursuit of national security, and to savage those they perceived as threats to public order. The Inquisition did exactly that. Fearing heresy would undermine the survival of the common good, who needed human rights?

Ethnic cleansings and extermination camps are generally justified by resorting to the Muscat mantra – exceptional times justify disregard for human rights, don’t they? So did Hitler and Stalin with their little endearing pleasantries – they both followed blindly the Muscat doctrine – no human rights, please, can’t you see the national danger? Not to mention the witch-hunters – society had to be saved, so burn them all at the stake and maybe ask questions later – but that’s an optional. Abu Ghraib passes the Muscat test with flying colours. And I pray Prof. Muscat will not disenchant me by denying he is a fully paid-up member of the Guantanamo fan club.

I confess I am unable to get rid of this irrational shortcoming I was born with: my need to avoid the company of those who wave high the flag of national security when they trample on human rights. Prof. Muscat has thankfully opted to enrol on the other side, and I cannot but record my gratitude for this. He establishes who is on one bank of the moral divide, and who is on the other, sparing me the discomfort of doing it myself.

In my previous contribution I had also noted the distinction between those who believe in guilt by facts, on the one hand, and, on the other, the devout supporters of guilt by suspicion. The fact is that British security – rightly and invariably – prosecuted all those whose seditious leanings were evidenced by some proof – but failed to prosecute even one of the 43 internati. Of course they did not. They had nothing to prosecute them for, as the British officer who worked in the security branch of counterespionage in Malta frankly testified in his memoirs published in London.

Differently from Prof. Muscat who evidently knows what British security did not, he referred to the deportati as “ornaments of contemporary Malta” not as quislings. And Governor Bonham Carter in his secret diaries could not rein in his frustration at the zilch results his sleuths had uncovered. “How I wish I could find something against Bonello!” (or something to that effect), he minuted in utter defeat.

But to be on a particularly invincible wicket, all you have to do is to subscribe to the guilt-by-suspicion dogma championed by Prof. Muscat. And by Inquisitor Torquemada too. That way, you never lose. Prof. Muscat says, careful not to embarrass himself by one dram of evidence in support, that the deportati had strong Fascist leanings and aided and abetted Fascist Italy. The fact that he is unable to substantiate this seems of no importance at all to him, and goes to prove how indispensable the guilt-by-suspicion theorem is to those who have nothing better to lean on. The state of play is: guilty because Prof. Muscat says so. Oh, I see. So who needs evidence if Prof. Muscat says so?

I am half-tempted to institute an annual award to go to anyone who produces a shred of real evidence of any treason or subversion by the deportati. The second prize would be, say, £m10,000; the first one, three years at my expense in the Soroti Concentration Camp which, only through an unpardonable disregard for detail is not referred to as the ClubMed Soroti Five Star in tourist glossies.

Condemning the deportations, to quote Prof. Muscat, I go “over the top accusing the British authorities of a most grievous crime, a crime against humanity”. Now I find this most flattering, but this is praise I do not deserve. It was not I who proclaimed the deportation of civilians in wartime to be a crime against humanity. No way. It is those international instruments which regulate war crimes and crimes against humanity that do. Prof. Muscat is free, in a liberal democracy, to advertise his alignment with the perpetrators of crimes against humanity. He is not free to attribute to me merits that belong to others.

I confess I find his letter, at best, underwhelming.