By Hook or by Crook -- Bis-Sewwa jew bid-Dnewwa

By Hook or by Crook

 

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.2  Personally 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!

 

1http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2015/06/12/aust-will-stop-people-smugglers--abbott.html, retrieved 15/6/2015

2http://www.news.com.au/national/politics/demands-for-answers-from-tony-abbott-over-reports-australia-pays-to-stop-the-boats/story-fns0jze1-1227396386705, retrieved 15/6/2015

3http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/tony-abbott-refuses-to-deny-claims-human-traffickers-have-been-paid-to-turn-back/story-fn5tas5k-1227394600838, retrieved 15/6/2015

4http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-15/magna-carta-800-years/6538364, retrieved 15/6/2015