Two lawyers from the International Commission of Jurists, Massimo Frigo and Roisin Pillay, declared that “conditions in detention amount to inhuman or degrading treatment” adding that “it is reasonable to argue…”, thus deciding themselves that their argument is reasonable.
I would like to comment on some of the reasonable arguments of Messrs Frigo and Pillay (Conditions Of Detention May Be “Inhuman Or Degrading” – Jurists, The Times, October 4, 2011 and later) though my comments risk not being reasonable. My mail to the ICJ was ignored. Is it perhaps that what the Maltese think about Malta is not important and reasonable?
The ICJ is an NGO. It has every right to pontificate on anything including human rights. However, Maltese human rights also deserve some attention. Otherwise, one would be unreasonable.
“Most criticism of Malta’s asylum process has centred on the country’s mandatory detention policy...” There is to me only one alternative: the complete freedom of illegal immigrants, arriving in their thousands, to roam all over the island. Would Messrs Frigo and Pillay concretely participate in the solution of problems that would arise?
Ms Pillay concedes patronisingly that “There seems to be considerable goodwill… directed at accommodating migrants but…” But? But Ms Pillay does not suggest solutions. She hollers and stops there. Now is that reasonable?
Mr Frigo agrees: “Of course, Malta is a small country with particular difficulties…” It seems Mr Frigo has to be prodded into considering Malta’s difficulties. Perhaps he could elaborate about our “particular difficulties” as much as he elaborates on the difficulties of others.
Eventually, Ms Pillay pipes up. “I couldn’t make a definite assessment – that would be for a court to decide...” Exactly! Now you are being reasonable! It is up to the courts, the UN and the EC to decide these international issues, not to NGOs.
According to Mr Frigo, there has to be a shift in discourse… I agree totally. Discourse must include some reasonable comments about the rights of the Maltese.
“Mr Frigo was even more matter-of-fact. “It’s been almost 15 years since Europe first started experiencing migration flows from sub-Saharan Africa.” Perhaps, to be reasonable, Mr Frigo could also have made reference to the history of colonialism, admitting that the Maltese never tried to colonise anyone but are expected to solve the problems created by others.
To increase its pressure on Malta, the ICJ renewed its attacks on an innocent nation and ordered us to: “Stop the emergency response to migration” (May 21).
“Malta must rip up its mandatory detention policy” we are told by busybodies who like to order us what to do.
Entitled Not Here To Stay, the ICJ’s report raps the Maltese government for its “emergency response to migration”. If you don’t mind, the Maltese prefer to rap their own government themselves when they feel the need. We hardly need NGOs to teach us effective rapping.
Comparing figures for the past 10 years, the report concludes that it is normal (sic) for Malta to receive about 1,500 migrants each year. Perhaps the ICJ could mention “normal” figures for the countries of its members? These figures were not mentioned by European Commissioner Cecilia Malmström either, even if her role expects her to put figures on serious opinions.
“The ICJ criticised the government for treating migrant arrivals as a temporary ‘emergency’ situation rather than a long-term reality.” Is the ICJ’s reasonable solution to turn Malta into a permanent residence for whoever is unhappy in his country? Even some of us Maltese are not happy living in Malta but we do not weep on ICJ’s shoulders.
“The ICJ report also found that EU member states were not doing enough to help Malta cope with migrant arrivals.” However, the ICJ report does not say that the responsibility for a problem belongs on the doorstep of those who have created it – the colonising countries. By its slamming, huffing and puffing, the ICJ seems to believe that problems must be solved by innocent third parties, calling this “reasonable”.
Basically, Malta has been more than correct in its handling of the illegal immigration problem. The ICJ has been very unfair in its comments about Malta. The least it could do now is to offer Malta and the Maltese an apology.
We are a peace- and family-loving nation with very limited land and resources. We never desired to colonise any nation; nor do we wish, however, to plead with ex-colonisers and NGOs to bring the world’s problems to Malta. If the ICJ and its chairman from India (where ethnic conflict is not unknown) expect miracles, they should apply to heaven rather than to a tiny peace-loving island.
The ICJ’s incredible pushiness for the integration of tens of thousands of victims of colonisation into the fabric of our society looks quite like an invitation for Malta to be a scapegoat and masochistically enjoy it.