Blaming the victims

IN EARLIER correspondence I considered Mr Philip Beattie's attempts to draw on Christian teachings to justify the creed of Alleanza Nazzjonali Republikana (ANR) as erroneous and misleading. In his answer (The Sunday Times, December 18) he went one better and insulted something that transcends any creed and allegiance - logic.

Mr Beattie seems to confuse the words "Christian" and "Catholic". The argument I made was based on the teaching heritage common to all Christians. The only quote I used was taken from the Bible and I only used the word "Catholic" once. Though I referred to a Catholic saint and to a Pontiff, I could have brought similar examples from other Christian traditions. Having said this, nothing I wrote contradicts the current social teaching of the Catholic Church.

Mr Beattie quotes the Vatican Pontifical Commission for Justice and Peace: "It is up to the public powers, who are responsible for maintaining the common good, to establish the proportion of refugees or immigrants that the country is in a position to receive, after account for the immigrant's possibility for work and their prospects for development...

"The State must guarantee that situations of grave social disequilibrium are not created, accompanied by sociological phenomena of refusal that could occur when the presence of too large a number of persons of another culture is perceived as a direct threat to the identity and customs of the local community."

There is not a single iota in my letter (The Sunday Times, December 4) that contradicts such a passage. I only claimed that, rather than blaming the victims (the immigrants) themselves, we should focus on the causes that are inducing them to escape from their country of origin, and to treat them kindly and compassionately; considering them primarily as fellow human beings rather than a "cultural threat" or a burden (which does not entail that socio-economic-cultural problems and opportunities should not be considered). Indeed, I wrote: "I am not suggesting that Malta should adopt an open-border policy."

Mr Beattie sheds doubts on this statement and claims that I have "...the impudence to state that (I am) not suggesting that Malta should adopt an open border policy, when... (my) assertions, if taken to their logical conclusion, clearly imply otherwise".

I challenge Mr Beattie to demonstrate why an appeal to understand the causes that induce people to flee their country of origin; to treat them humanely if they happen to land in Malta; and to consider that the problem may only be solved if tackled at source; and to understand why they may raise doubts regarding political boarders (when economic boarders are being eliminated) should logically entail an open-border policy? (In such a case, I stand in good Catholic company. "The Catholic Church, as the Sacrament of unity of the human family, is the place where illegal immigrants ought to feel welcome and be recognised as brothers" - Pope John Paul II.)

To make a rather incomplete analogy, do attempts to understand the causes that induce people in a depressed town to commit theft and murder, and humanitarian initiatives aimed at tackling such causes, imply the abolition of private property and/or of the Fifth Commandment?

Mr Beattie quotes Bishop "... Gemma, ... (who)... stated... that the immigrant population in any country is obliged to respect and observe their obligations towards the host community and the indigenous population, and that all public and private offences towards the local communities should be prohibited under the law when such actions directly offend the local population's religious beliefs, traditions and habits".

I wonder whether he wrote this because of lack of relevant arguments, since nothing in my correspondence contradicts such a statement.

Even if what I wrote contradicts what the Pontifical Commission for Justice and Peace holds (which is definitely not the case), Mr Beattie would still have to demonstrate that my piece cannot be considered truly Catholic. Regarding its fundamental teachings, the Catholic faith is based on the Scriptures and on Tradition, not the said Commission (which is not infallible and does not make irreversible pronouncements).

As to the bedrock of Christian belief, I invite your readers to consider who, in spirit and verse, is more consonant with key passages from the Scriptures: "...if your brother becomes poor, and falls into poverty... then you shall help him, though he be a foreigner or a sojourner; that he may live with you... fear your God, that your brother may live with you" (Leviticus 25: 35-36). "Depart from Me, you cursed, ...for... I was a foreigner and you did not take Me in" (Matthew 25: 41-43).

Mr Beattie fails to answer my contention concerning the inappropriateness of ANR's claim as to: "There (being) no commandment which obliges one to decease in order to help others. Indeed, those who act in such manner would be guilty of suicide."

I acknowledge that it is difficult to practise the radical teachings included in passages like the one I quoted in my article (John 15: 12-13). Yet, to consider any attempt to live up to the radical nature of the Biblical teaching as sin, as ANR seems to do, is utterly dishonest. My question still stands: Would Maximilian Kolbe and Jesus be guilty of suicide?

A good part of my article was devoted to the causes that induce people to abandon their country of origin and escape to Europe, and to ANR's failure to address such issues properly. I referred to "Colonialism and current exploitation by... multinationals are causing such enduring problems that cause these people to flee. Had ANR been truly inspired by Catholic doctrine, it would have reiterated the injunction made by Pope John Paul II last December as to the people of Africa becoming the protagonists of their own destiny." Unfortunately, Mr Beattie failed to tackle this issue.

Mr Beattie says that I fail to distinguish "...between refugees... and economic immigrants, a distinction that is drawn by the 1951 United Nations Geneva Convention on Refugees... The document clearly states that economic immigrants do not enjoy an absolute right to emigrate."

Though I never used the term '"refugee", I did distinguish between immigrants who flee because of economic reasons and others who do so because of political persecutions (the latter would be considered as refugees by the said Convention). I also acknowledged that one may not "...consider (the)... situation of... (economic immigrants) on the same par with that of people who are fleeing because of political persecutions. The situation of the latter may be more urgent", and never claimed that economic immigrants have an absolute right to immigrate.

What I stated and reaffirm is that, despite what the UN Convention states, economic immigrants are not fleeing their countries to "steal our jobs" as ANR claims.

What I reiterate is that "economic migrants are running away from places where poverty is chronic and where the phrase 'developing countries' has been used for over 50 years, without these countries ever attaining to even the most basic level of development... and have a sacrosanct right to ask fundamental questions like: Why is it that the globalisation doctrine which decrees that no country may set limits on the movement of resources or protective barriers which protect local industries (which leads to an unfair competition between unequals) does not apply to humans being as well?

Why cannot African people in politically safe but poor countries stop their plentiful resources from leaving their country of origin, lest they be penalised by the IMF, the World Bank, etc., whereas they come across all sorts of barriers if they attempt to follow their wealth North?"