An unedifying editorial

The editorial entitled Why The Crowd Looks Elsewhere (June 12) was both unedifying and factually tendentious. The ANR certainly does not believe that its political adversaries should be denied their rights as was erroneously implied. Indeed the ANR is totally committed to the democratic process unlike those whom the editor termed "the others", the latter appearing more interested in making spiteful personal attacks and hurling invective against this conservative movement rather than debating the real issues related to illegal immigration. If any entity has been subjected to an orchestrated campaign of media vilification and denigration it has been the ANR and its exponents, and certainly not "the others".

The attempt to feign ignorance over the reasons why the ANR protested against illegal immigration also does The Times no credit. Any sane observer would know that the ANR were protesting against a situation of complacent tolerance being shown by the government, our political class and a number of so-called non-governmental organisations towards a disordered influx of persons into a small country that is unable to cope with such an influx. Yes, the Maltese people have a right and a duty to protest publicly over a situation where, rather than attempting to put a stop to this silent invasion by legitimate and humane methods, we are constrained to practise a distorted notion of solidarity, one which is neither just nor prudent. Dom Mintoff called a public protest against an illegal situation whereby Malta was forced by Libyan gunboats to stop drilling for oil; the PN called a public protest against the illegal expulsion of the Blue Sisters. It is a pity that the leader appears to use two weights and two measures according to the political entity under scrutiny.

The editorial also conveniently overlooked the fact that ANR is opposed to all types of illegal immigration, that coming from Eastern Europe, the Middle East and China, and several studies exist, amply demonstrating the dire economic, social, political and ultimately, moral consequences of unfettered and uncontrolled immigration. Furthermore, the assertion that the presence of Imperium Europa-Viva Malta exponents should have led to a public denunciation by the ANR of these exponents also shows that the editor's concern for law and order at a public political manifestation is considerably at variance with the ANR's notions on this matter.

The editor apparently forgot that the ANR has publicly categorically disassociated themselves from these elements on a number of occasions and even The Times reported ANR's chief spokesman's scathing attack on Norman Lowell and his ideology which was only published days before the demonstration. I wonder what the editor's reaction would have been had a public denunciation of persons attending the demonstration led to a scuffle or possibly a riot. He seems to forget the Roman adage that abuse does not abolish use. While he is correct in asserting that emotional outbursts against less-than-objective media journalists and columnists were not warranted, I'm sure the ANR will pull their socks up on that score. Yet by directing the ANR as to whom it should publicly denounce - and not denounce - The Times has fallen into a contradiction of monumental absurdity.

One final observation. The editor should discern the real reasons why several ANR sympathisers stayed away from the demonstration instead of burying his head in the sand. The recent spate of arson and criminal attacks which was unjustly linked to law abiding anti-immigration campaigners was one reason, and the ongoing campaign by the PN-MLP tandem to maintain their stranglehold over people's hearts and minds was the other.