Last week, we heard of an extraordinary allegation by the Indonesian authorities that Australian officials had paid money to people smugglers operating in the waters off the north of Australia. This was allegedly made to convince them to turn the boat, sailing towards the country with tens of asylum seekers, back to where it came from.1
International law experts did not take long to declare that this action by itself could amount to people trafficking.2Personally speaking, I think this action, if true, is just disgusting, also if something similar happened under the previous Labour government, however this is not what I'd like to comment upon today.
Journalists were quick to ask for comments from ministers of the government. There were two that immediately denied this story, but the Liberal Prime Minister Tony Abbott was not so categoric, saying that what they were doing was to stop the boats 'by hook or by crook'.3
This declaration in my view has far more serious and wider implications than the context of refugees. From my viewpoint, this declaration implies that the federal government has no compunction in considering acts that might be against the law, as long as its end is achieved.
I ask, is our government above the law? It should never even contemplate breaking the law! It will not be the first government that sees limits in existing laws, and this is legitimate, but the solution is to change the laws in Parliament (if the numbers are there) and not to ignore them!
Notwithstanding whether the law was actually broken or not in this case, the point is that government should never consider breaking the law as legitimate, even if it does not end up doing so. The idiom 'by hook or by crook' should never be stated, ethically, by government.
The modern state is built on three institutions. The first is parliament, where its members pass laws that the country's citizens are expected to follow. The second is the executive (the government and its departments) part of whose job is to ensure that laws are being followed.
Finally, there is the judiciary, which determines whether someone has broken the law. If so, this act exposes the person to sanctions that may include imprisonment. In NSW today there are just under 12,000 people in state jails and 34,000 in the whole of Australia.
As you can see, the life of the state revolves around the respect for laws. How could you have a government suddenly considering it acceptable to do otherwise?
By coincidence, last week the 800th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta was celebrated. This was a decree by King John of England that saw him promise, amongst others, that his subjects would be treated according to the laws of the country, that when accused of a crime would be judged by their peers and that a group of barons would confirm that the decree was being respected.4
Although the Magna Carta was originally intended just to bring peace between an unloved king and a group of rebel barons, the decree is considered around the world as incorporating the principles of the modern democratic state, starting with respect for legislation, justice and the institution of parliament.
I was following the news on the ABC, and I encountered Bronwyn Bishop, Liberal speaker of the federal House of Representatives, explaining that the Magna Carta was important due to its emphasis on the rule of law. How ironic!
Bis-Sewwa jew bid-Dnewwa
Il-ġimgħa li għaddiet, smajna bl'allegazzjoni straordinarja mill-awtoritajiet Indoneżjani li uffiċjali Awstraljani ħallsu l-flus lit-traffikanti tan-nies li joperaw fil-baħar fit-tramuntana tal-Awstralja. Sar dan, allegatament, biex jikkonvinċuhom idawwru dgħajsa, li kien qed isalpa lejn il-pajjiż b'għexieren ta' nies li jixtiequ jfittxu l-ażil, lura minn fejn ġie.1
Esperti tal-liġi internazzjonali ma damux biex jistqarru li dan l-aġir innifsu jista' jiġi meqjus traffikar tan-nies.2 Ngħid għalija, jien insib dan l-aġir, jekk huwa minnu, bħala diżgustanti, anke jekk sar xi ħaġa simili mill-gvern Laburista ta' qabel, imma mhux fuq hekk nixtieq nikkummenta llum.
Il-ġurnalisti malajr talbu l-kummenti minn ministri tal-gvern. Kien hemm tnejn li ċaħdu din l-aħbar minnufiħ, imma l-Prim Ministru Liberali Tony Abbott ma kienx daqshekk kategoriku, u qal li dak li qed jagħmlu hu li jwaqqfu dawn id-dgħajjes 'bis-sewwa jew bid-dnewwa' (by hook or by crook).3
Din id-dikjarazzjoni fil-fehma tiegħi għandha implikazzjonijiet bil-wisq iktar serji u wiesgħa mill-kuntest tar-rifuġjati. Din id-dikjarazzjoni għalija timplika li l-gvern federali m'għandu skrupli ta' xejn li jikkunsidra li jwettaq atti li jistgħu jkunu anke kontra l-liġi, basta jasal fejn irid jasal.
Jien nistaqsi, mela l-gvern huwa 'l fuq mill-liġi? Lanqas qatt m'għandu jikkunsidra li jikser il-liġi! Ma jkunx l-ewwel gvern li jara limiti fil-liġi, u dan huwa leġittimu, imma s-soluzzjoni hi li l-liġi tinbidel fil-Parlament (jekk għandek numru biżżejjed ta' membri li jaqblu) u mhux li tinjoraha!
Irrispettivament jekk inkisirx il-liġi jew le f'dan il-każ, il-punt hawn hu li l-gvern m'għandu qatt jikkunsidra l-ksur tal-liġi bħala leġittimu, anke jekk ma jagħmilx hekk. L-idjoma 'bis-sewwa jew bid-dnewwa' ma tistax, etikament, tingħad mill-gvern.
L-istat modern huwa mibni fuq tliet istituzzjonijiet. L-ewwel hu l-parlament, fejn l-membri tiegħu jgħaddu l-liġijiet li ċ-ċittadini tal-pajjiż huma mistennija li jsegwu. It-tieni hu l-eżekuttiv (il-gvern bid-dipartimenti tiegħu) li parti minn xogħolu hu li jara li l-liġi tal-pajjiż qed tiġi rrispettata.
Fl-aħħarnett, għandna l-ġudikatura, li tiddetermina jekk xi persuna kisritx il-liġi jew le. Jekk iva, dan l-att jesponi lill-persuna għal sanzjonijiet li jistgħu jinkludu l-priġunerija. F'NSW illum hawn ftit inqas minn 12,000 persuna fil-ħabsijiet tal-istat , u 34,000 fl-Awstralja kollha.
Bħal ma tistgħu taraw, il-ħajja tal-istat iddur fuq il-fus tar-rispettar tal-liġi. Allura dan kif ikollok il-gvern li f'daqqa waħda qisu qed jikkunsidraha aċċettabbli li jagħmel mod ieħor?
B'kumbinazzjoni, il-ġimgħa li għaddiet kellna wkoll iċ-ċelebrazzjoni tat-tmien mitt sena mill-iffirmar tad-dokument imsejjaħ Magna Carta. Dan kien digriet li bih ir-Re Ġwanni tal-Ingilterra wiegħed, fost l-oħrajn, li s-suġġetti tiegħu kellhom jiġu ttrattati skont il-liġi tal-pajjiż, li meta jkunu akkużati ta' xi ħaġa kellhom jiġu ġġudikati minn nies oħra bħalhom, u li grupp ta' barunijiet kellhom jaraw li dan id-digriet ikun irrispettat.4
Għalkemm il-Magna Carta kienet oriġinarjament intenzjonata biss biex iġġib paċi bejn re mhux maħbub u grupp ta' barunijiet ribelli, id-digriet huwa meqjus madwar id-dinja li jiġbor il-prinċipji tal-istat modern demokratiku, ibda bir-rispett tal-liġi, il-ġustizzja u l-istituzzjoni tal-parlament.
Kont qed insegwi l-aħbarijiet fuq l-ABC, u kien hemm Bronwyn Bishop, l-ispiker Liberali tal-kamra federali tar-rappreżentanti, tispjega kemm il-Magna Carta kienet importanti minħabba l-emfasi tagħha fuq it-tmexxija skont il-liġi. X'ironija!
During my time in Australia, I've had the misfortune of losing three uncles here, all due to some variation of the killer disease of cancer. On Saturday I was talking about one of these dear uncles, Nick, with a cousin of mine, and suddenly I remembered something he had told me the same year I had arrived.
We had been discussing the status of immigrants in this country. Then I had a temporary residence visa and I asked him when he had obtained Australian citizenship, which I intended applying for. To my surprise, he told me he wasn't an Australian citizen, but only had permanent residence.
I assumed that there was some impediment to his obtaining citizenship, however he continued that he was eligible, but had no intention of applying for it. Amazed, I asked for the reason why. His answer was that in his life, he had seen, heard and suffered so much discrimination as a wog during his decades in Melbourne, from the local 'Australians', that he did not want to become part of them.
The word 'wog' is used in Australia for a stranger, especially one who is not white-skinned (Anglo Saxon) and so is used for people coming from the Mediterranean (including Malta), the Middle East, Asia and so on. The primary characteristic of this term is its derogatory connotation.
I still remember the sadness with which I heard these words, especially as I am fully qualified to be a wog myself. I continued to remember them further on as I started having some experiences in this vein, although definitely not with the same intensity or frequency as felt by my uncle.
By the grace of God I can add that up to now no one has used that word specifically addressed to me, although I did feel the derogatory context.
For example, at work I found myself in situations where I was discussing some report, and if I noticed some discrepancy and tried to identify whether I had misunderstood or perhaps found some mathematical error, I straight away received the (metaphorical) push-back that I had to simply accept what had been provided, and attitude that i didn't see when someone else, a local Australian, did the same thing.
Another person (A) I know worked for quite a long time with someone else with an Anglo Saxon background (B) who had influence at the workplace. B used to agitate and invent stories about A behind his back with the boss, and used to do this to each other person that qualifies as a wog. For many months, B made life miserable for A who was under the constant fear of being on the verge of being fired. The situation only changed when a colleague stood up for A and things changed.
Around the same time that I had the discussion with my uncle, the Cronulla riots of 2005 occurred, where tension between small Lebanese and white groups grew dramatically over just a few hours, with messages being sent by mobile phone so people gather with arms. Fights broke out in the streets there and in the surrounding suburbs. Although there were serious incidents provoked by both sides with the corresponding retaliation, the people who gathered were in the main white, waving the Australian flag, denouncing wogs and attacking whoever looked like being of Middle Eastern heritage.
These event, which could even have turned out worse, my conversation with my uncle and my own experiences led me to realise that there is a subtle current of racism in this country, unfortunately. The word 'wog' is similar to the word 'nigger' that is (was) used in the United States, in the same derogatory context based on race, and so is racism.
When still in Malta, I used to feel this racism when Maltese people spoke about refugees in the country, the so-called illegal immigrants, and about people from the Three Cities - Cospicua, Senglea and Vittoriosa. I used to think that Australia, the multi-cultural country that hosts, and was built with the efforts of, so many native (Aboriginal), immigrant and refugee (the rest) people, this problem had been largely overcome. I was mistaken.
My displeasure grows when noticing that many of those that one day were called wogs and lived for decades here (including some Maltese compatriots), eventually became locals, forgot what it felt like to be on the receiving side, and today look at, talk about and treat the new wogs in the same derogatory manner.
In Malta, this attitude may be seen with Libyans and perhaps the Sudanese. Here in Australia, this is valid for the Lebanese (which is a euphemism for anyone who looks like being Middle Eastern) and Asians.
Every ethnic group has a rotten apple, however there are groups that for some reason, a mistake by one of the group is taken to be proof of the entire group's guilt. I believe it is wiser not to jump to conclusions and treat all the group members as guilty. Justice demands that those that make mistakes should have their day of reckoning, but the uninvolved in their ethnic group should not face collective blame. Where is our famed sense of a fair go?
Riflessjonijiet ta' Wog
Kemm ilni l-Awstralja, kelli l-isfortuna li nitlef lil tliet zijiet li joqogħdu hawn, kollha b'varjazzjoni tal-marda qerrieda tal-kanċer. Nhar is-Sibt kont qed nitkellem fuq ziju għażiż minnhom, Nick, ma' kuġina tiegħi, u f'daqqa waħda ftakart f'xi ħaġa li kien qalli l-istess sena li kont wasalt f'dan il-pajjiż.
Konna qed niddiskutu l-istatus tal-immigranti f'dan il-pajjiż. Jien dakinhar kelli viża ta' residenza temporanja u staqsejtu meta kien ġab iċ-ċittadinanza Awstraljana, li kien beħsiebni napplika għaliha. B'sorpriża, qalli li hu ma kienx ċittadin Awstraljan, imma kellu biss residenza permanenti.
Jien assumejt li kien hemm xi impediment biex iġib iċ-ċittadinanza, imma kompla jgħidli li hu kien eliġibbli għaliha, imma ma kellu l-ebda intenzjoni biex japplika għaliha. Mistagħġeb, staqsejtu għaliex. It-tweġiba kienet li f'ħajtu, tant ra, sema' u bata diskriminazzjoni bħala wog tul l-għexieren ta' snin li għamel f'Melbourne, minn-nies 'Awstraljani' tal-post, li ma ried bl-ebda mod jingħaqad magħhom.
Il-kelma wogtintuża fl-Awstralja għal stranġier, speċjalment xi ħadd li mhux ta' karnaġġjon abjad (Anglo-Sassonu) u għalhekk tintuża ma' nies ta' nisel Meditterranju (inkluż il-Maltin), tal-Lvant Nofsani, Ażjatiku u oħrajn. Il-karatteristika primarja ta' din il-kelma hija l-konnotazzjoni derogatorja li fiha tintuża.
Għadni niftakar x'dieqa ħassejt meta smajt dan il-kliem, speċjalment għaliex jien nikkwalifika bħala wog xejn inqas minnu. Bqajt niftakru 'l quddiem meta jien ukoll beda jkolli xi esperjenzi ta' dan it-tip, għalkemm ċertament mhux bl-intensità jew bil-frekwenza li kien ħasshom zijuwi.
Għall-grazzja t'Alla rrid inżid li ħadd s'issa għadu ma uża dik il-kelma fil-konfront tiegħi, imma nista' ngħid li l-kuntest derogatorju ħassejtu.
Per eżempju, fuq ix-xogħol ġejt f'sitwazzjonijiet fejn qed niddiskuti xi rapport, u jekk ninnota xi diskrepanza u nipprova nara jekk hux qed nifhem ħażin jew forsi hemm xi żball fil-matematika, mallewwel kien ikolli daqqa fil-wiċċ (metaforika), li għandi sempliċement naċċetta dak li ngħatajt, attitudni li ma kontx nara meta xi ħadd ieħor, Awstraljan tal-post, kien jagħmel l-istess ħaġa.
Naf ukoll xi ħadd li għal żmien pjuttost twil kien jaħdem f'ambjent fejn persuna oħra, Anglo Sassona, li kellha influenza fuq ix-xogħol kienet isseksek u tivvinta stejjer fuquminn wara daru ma' min kien qed imexxi, u kienet tagħmel dan fuq kull min jikkwalifika bħala wog, għalkemm qatt ma użat din il-kelma. Nista' ngħid li għal ħafna xhur, din il-persuna għamlitlu ħajtu infern u kkawżatlu biża kontinwa li qiegħed fuq l-għatba li jitkeċċa. Is-sitwazzjoni inbidlet biss meta kollega qabeż għalih u l-affarijiet inbidlu.
Madwar l-istess żmien li kelli dik it-taħdita ma' zijuwi, kien hemm l-irvellijiet ta' Cronulla fl-2005, fejn tensjoni bejn gruppi żgħar ta' Lebaniżi u oħrajn bojod kiber drammatikament fi żmien ta' ftit sigħat, messaġġi ntbagħtu bil-mobajl biex nies jinġabru armati u ġlied sar fit-toroq hemmhekk u l-madwar. Għalkemm kien hemm inċidenti serji pprovokati miż-żewġ naħat u bir-ritaljazzjoni għalihom, in-nies li nġabru kienu predominantement bojod, ixejru l-bandiera Awstraljana, joffendu lill-wogs u jattakkaw lil kull min kien jidher li hu mill-Lvant Nofsani.
Dan l-avveniment, li seta' spiċċa anke agħar, id-diskursata ma' zijuwi u l-esperjenza tiegħi wassluni biex nintebaħ li hemm kurrent fin ta' razziżmu li jeżisti f'dan il-pajjiż, diżgrazzjatament. Il-kelma wog hija simili għall-kelma nigger li (kienet) tintuża fl-Istati Uniti, fl-istess kuntest derogatorju abbażi ta' razza, u għalhekk huwa razziżmu.
Meta kont Malta, dan ir-razziżmu kont inħossu meta l-Maltin kienu jitkellmu fuq ir-rifuġjati fil-pajjiż, l-hekk imsejħa immigranti illegali, u fuq in-nies li joqogħdu fit-tliet ibliet - Bormla, l-Isla u l-Birgu. Jien kont naħseb li fl-Awstralja, il-pajjiż multi-kulturali li jilqa' fih, u nbena bis-saħħa ta', tant nies tal-post (aboriġeni), immigranti u rifuġjati (il-bqija), din il-problema kienet ġeneralment megħluba. Kont sejjer żball.
Id-dispjaċir tiegħi hu ikbar meta ninnota li ħafna minn dawk li xi darba kienu jissejħu wogs u għexu għal għexieren ta' snin hawnhekk (inkluż xi kompatrijotti Maltin), spiċċaw biex saru tal-post, insew kif kienu jħossuhom meta kienu minn taħt, u illumiħarsu lejn, jitkellmu fuq, u jittrattaw lill-wogs il-ġodda bl-istess mod derogatorju.
F'Malta, hemm din l-attitudni fuq il-Libjani, u forsi s-Sudaniżi. Hawn fl-Awstralja, illum dan jgħodd għall-Lebaniżi (li jintuża bħala ewfemiżmu għal kull min jidher li hu mill-Lvant Nofsani) u l-Ażjatiċi.
Kull grupp etniku jkollu xi tuffieħa mħassra, imma hemm xi gruppi li għal xi raġuni, l-iżball ta' wieħed mill-grupp huwa prova tal-ħtija tal-grupp kollu. Naħseb li ta' min ma ngħaġġlux u nitfgħu lil kulħadd f'keffa waħda. Is-sens ta' ġustizzja titlob li min jagħmel żball iħallas tiegħu, imma min m'għamilx m'għandux ikun ikkundannat miegħu. Fejn mar il-fair go li niftaħru bih?
