I have often written in the media about being a victim of injustice at the hands of the Education Dept. (to recap: being employed in 1994 as a casual teacher instead of a regular one simply because I was not Maltese = I had no vote).

Let’s skip that for now. But that injustice has been recently deepened because when I presented my case to Micheline Sciberras, the Ed. Dept’s DES, she told me that their legal advisor, a Mr Stephen Zammit, had informed them that it was all was legal. Thus, his feedback jeopardised my chances for any justice. I am a law-abiding citizen and if it’s the law, then I should accept it. So why the heck am I writing? Because on the numerous occasions that I have asked Mr Zammit to substantiate his claims by an actual reference to an existing or then-existing law, he has simply refused. If he cannot provide such a reference, then his feedback is therefore a falsehood. We all make mistakes, but when one is constantly made aware of it and refuses to retract it or apologise, well – then it becomes arrogance.

Getting nowhere with Mr Zammit, I decided to present my case to the Education Minister, who seems to have a vague idea of what discrimination means. In her last email to me, Mrs. Cristina stated that no discrimination had taken place because, being non-Maltese, I simply did not qualify for a regular teaching post, which is why I had been offered a post as casual teacher (less pay, no benefits). But the Hon. Minister seems unaware that being Maltese is also a requisite for the post of casual teacher! So why does the Ministry claim that I do not qualify for a regular teacher’s post (for which I am very well qualified academically) but I am qualified for the other? Is this not the same as employing refugees at less than minimum wages, taking advantage of their beggars-can’t-be-choosers situation? I call this discrimination, Mrs Cristina doesn’t. So what would you call it, Hon. Minister?

To further weaken the department’s argument that I have not been discriminated against, I informed the Minister that I knew of non-Maltese who were employed on a regular teacher’s basis with the understanding that they were to renounce their citizenship within a stipulated time. That is called “setting a precedent”. The Education Department would not apply it to me. Why?

Then there is the contradiction caused by the existence of the dual citizenship law, which clearly states that the children of Maltese that fulfil certain requirements are deemed Maltese from birth, and others since 1964. Either way, I was a Maltese in 1994.

But the worst damaging argument I can give the Ministry is this: WHERE IS THE LAW THAT STATES THAT A NON-MALTESE IS TO BE EMPLOYED AT LOWER SALARY AND CONDITIONS THAN HIS MALTESE COUNTERPARTS WITH SIMILAR QUALIFICATIONS? What I was told was that a Maltese was to be employed whenever possible and if there were no qualified Maltese to fill the gap, then non-Maltese would be used to do so.

Like Mr Zammit and Ms Sciberras, the Hon. Minister refuses to substantiate her arguments and they are all giving me ‘the silent treatment’ because, according to her, we are just running around in circles. The question is, who is leading and who is following?

Joe Falzon

QALA