A first step: education, education, education

Racism is not the deviant behaviour of a few unpleasant individuals. It is a pattern of behaviour embedded in the very way our society has developed and for which we should shoulder collective responsibility. I appreciate that this is tantamount to saying we are all racist but, we are. It may be an ugly accusation - after all racism is an ugly issue - but it remains the truth. I can understand the indignation and outrage with which this will be met but resentment would be a waste of energy better spent trying to tackle the challenge of unlearning racial discrimination.

The task ahead are huge and any time, energy and wisdom are better spent on trying to work out solutions, for example an overhaul of the entire education curriculum including the replacement of textbooks which enforce stereotypes and the drafting of anti-racist legislation. Is it not galling that the perpetrators of the recent spate of arson attacks will be prosecuted (if apprehended) for arson and wilful damage and not, additionally, as the architects of hate crime? People are always writing in to The Times about the destruction of the moral fabric of society; I do wish that some of the self-righteousness so characteristic of the moralists was dedicated to eradicating discrimination.

I am constantly tempted to write that racist ideology has nothing to do with religion. But I would be wrong. I dislike the argument that people should not be racist because they are Christian; we should reject racism because we are human and if religion helps some of us attain that goal, then that is just wonderful.

But it is, in fact, likely that religion works towards fostering notions of inclusion and exclusion. For example, a reader of The Times wrote in with a quote by Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, which proves my point more than it does his. The reader wished to prove that if leading religious figures were making the same right-wing arguments, then one could not very well say that right-wing ideology was racist. The attitude - it is not clear whether it is attributable to the cardinal, the Pope or both in conversation - is worth analysing.

"The criteria for admitting immigrants cannot be exclusively based on economic or social assistance considerations (even though they have their own weight). It is a need that we pre-occupy ourselves with saving our proper national identity. Italy is not a desert or semi-inhabited land, without history, without living and vital traditions, and without a discernible spiritual and cultural physiognomy, to populate indiscriminately, as if there wasn't a typical humanistic and civilisational heritage that should not be lost."

The notion that national identity is fixed and thus has to be defended and preserved is central to racist ideology. The other notion is that Maltese people are a homogenous group (this always makes me think of Agent Smith in The Matrix - for those who have not seen the film, the reference is to clones); is it possible that people are so afraid they cannot see the beauty in diversity?

In any case these notions are both based on myth: identity is not fixed, it is constantly changing, and Maltese people are as diverse a bunch as ever was put on 316 square kilometres of land. The cardinal's concern about loss of heritage is honestly very misguided; all the nationalist concerns - heritage, tradition, custom - are formed over time and are shaped by context and history. If we were to look at our heritage, we really cannot deny the very apparent influences of our neighbours and colonisers. Our heritage was formed by coming into contact with others, whether we liked or disliked them. This is what I mean when I say identity is not fixed.

The quote goes on: "... choices are inevitable, we must accept first of all - in view of the social peace of our European societies - the groups that are more integrable, those closer to our culture. If a cultural incompatibility manifests itself, an incomprehension, it is all of society that will fracture itself. This serves nobody, not even Muslim immigrants. Defining the criteria that permit unity in a country and consent to social peace is in the interest of all".

This is just sheer intolerance masquerading as common sense. Common sense racism is some of the more pervasive and has to be unpacked because it is not always immediately obvious. Racism can become invisible all too easily and this invisibility can be interpreted as normative. The arguments at the root of racism go unchallenged and, because they become the standard, strengthen racism.

It may be worth remembering that religious figures are not exempt from being political animals and here in Malta we have had ample experience of this, in our past and also in our present. All this quote proves is that Christianity and racism are not mutually exclusive.

The way forward is an overhaul of the entire Maltese education curriculum and I have read some excellent papers by university lecturers Peter Mayo and Carmel Borg on the subject. This will not solve the problem; it is just a start. Unfortunately, there is no easy solution to tackling the causes and reproduction of racism. The changing nature of racism means it has to be tackled piecemeal as it occurs, but an undertaking to combat racism is what this country desperately needs and would go a long way in ensuring a different future than the troublesome one on the cards at the moment.

(Concluded. The first two parts of this article appeared on April 8 and 15.)

Ms Spiteri is a journalist and a researcher in media and identity based at the University of Sussex. S.Spiteri@sussex.ac.uk