The burqa prohibition -- Il-projbizzjoni tal-burqa

At the end of March 2017, the European People’s Party (EPP) organised a congress in Malta.  This political grouping includes a number of European parties with centre-right and/or Christian Democrat tendencies, including the Nationalist Party of Malta (PN).

 

This congress approved a resolution entitles ‘For a cohesive society: Countering Islamic extremism’ which contained many points which found me in agreement.  Nevertheless, there was one which proposed the prohibition of face veils (identified as the burqa and the niqab) in public locations, for security reasons as well as the fact (according to the EPP) that viewing of a face was an integral part of human interaction in Europe.1

 

To make sure we’re on the same page, the burqa is veil that covers the entire face, whereas the niqab contains a slit through which the eyes are visible.  Both are common in the culture of countries whose primary religion is Islam.

 

The PN leader, Simon Busuttil, did not fail to express approval for this proposal, although its curious that he was quoted by NET News, issued by the PN’s communication arm, that he agreed with the EPP position on the burqa, but the niqab was not mentioned.2

 

This statement is more strange than curious, when one remembers the efforts of Mr Busuttil two years ago to declare that the PN was not a Christian club but was open to people of other religious persuations (read Muslims primarily).  We will see whether Joseph Muscat, Prime Minister and leader of the Labour Party (PL), is cunning enough to take the moral, if not popular, high ground and distance the PL from such a step, and strategically position the PL as more open to people of other faiths.

 

From my side, it’s only since I’ve been in Australia that I’ve been encountering women wearing the burqa or niqab.  Since in this country they are a tiny minority, they are conspicuous and draw attention, and perhaps this is their main problem, that is the draw attention to a culture and tradition that is relatively new and imported into this country, as well as to European countries that are considering this step.

 

I am not convinced at all by the argument of the burqa and/or the niqab presenting a security threat.  How can clothes be considered a threat?  These clothes in particular immediately associate their wearers with Islam, which for many people is directly associated with terrorism, and this is where all this pressure against the burqa and niqab is coming from.

 

Terrorism does not need these clothes to carry out its disgusting work.  It is true that there have been cases where the burqa was used as a disguise, but there have been many more where this clothing was completely uninvolved.

 

For many people, passing a law against wearing the burqa and the niqab represents a victory, small but symbolic and highly visible, against this religion, misunderstood but despised, even hated.  It’s a win against immigrants, refugees, queue jumpers, those who lord it over our backs, take our work and property, and then to boot have the temerity to pull out a knife to us or attack some poor bugger on the street.  The burqa and niqab represent the terrorists, in the eyes of many.

 

It’s amazing how leaders of these parties in Europe and around the world subscribe to this narrative, formalising this association between an innocuous act (wearing of clothes) with terrorism (labelled a security threat), and become participants in dog whistling of a whole religion with more than a billion adherents around the world.  I expected better from them.

 

It’s no use for these leaders in the same breath saying that Islam is not the enemy, and that Muslims are already an integral part of society.  Why should we interfere with how people dress for them to be accepted in public?

 

If viewing of someone’s face is so important in Western society, why don’t we object to Father Christmas apart from the niqab?  Aren’t the eyes the only part of the face visible while ringing the bell and shouting “ho ho ho”?

 

If these leaders had proposed that it be mandatory for burqa or niqab wearers to be obliged to show their face if deemed necessary by members of law and order, or where it’s necessary to be identified to provide a personalised service, I’d agree with that.

 

If these leaders had proposed it to be against the law for anyone to force a woman to wear any dress  against her will, I would also be in agreement.

 

However, I feel that this attitude is nothing but an attempt to strike a symbolic blow to Islam, to endear themselves to the apparently growing number of people around the world being intolerant to this religion, so that the tendency of votes trickling to extreme right parties is reduced.  What has happened to the principles of tolerance and individual freedom?  Shall we start prescribing wardrobe contents from now on?

 

“Do they tolerate our customs in their countries?”, I have often heard defenders of the Christian faith complain.  “Then we shouldn’t tolerate them either”, their pseudo-logic continues.

 

If we’re better than them, are we going to start acting like them?  And if we act like them, do we remain better?

 

--------------------

 

Fl-aħħar ta' Marzu 2017, sar kungress tal-Partiti Popolari Ewropew (EPP) f'Malta.  Dan il-grupp politiku jiġbor fih diversi partiti Ewropej ta' tendenza ċentru-lemin u/jew nisel Kristjan-Demokratiku, inkluż il-Partit Nazzjonalista (PN) Malti.

 

Dan il-kungress approva riżoluzzjoni msejħa 'Lejn soċjetà ta' koeżjoni: l-opponiment tal-estremiżmu Islamiku' li kien fih diversi ħafna punti li jien naqbel magħhom.  Madankollu, kien hemm waħda li tipproponi projbizzjoni tal-velijiet tal-wiċċ (identifikati bħala l-burqa u n-niqab) f'postijiet pubbliċi, kemm għal raġunijiet ta' sigurtà kif ukoll minħabba li wieħed jara l-wiċċ huwa meqjus (skont l-EPP) parti integrali mill-interazzjoni umana fl-Ewropa.1

 

Biex inkun żgur li qed niftiehmu, il-burqa hija velu li tgħatti l-wiċċ sħiħ filwaqt li n-niqab huwa velu li jkollu fetħa li tħalli 'l-għajnejn jidhru.  It-tnejn huma komuni fil-kultura ta' pajjiżi fejn il-reliġjon ewlenija hija l-Islam.

 

Ma naqasx li jesprimi l-approvazzjoni għal din il-miżura l-kap tal-PN, Simon Busuttil, għalkemm kurjuża li ġie rrappurtat minn NET News, maħruġa mill-fergħa ta' komunikazzjoni tal-PN, li huwa jaqbel mal-pożizzjoni tal-EPP kontra l-burqa, imma ma ssemmiex in-niqab.2  

 

Iktar stramba milli kurjuża din l-istqarrija, meta wieħed jiftakar l-isforz tas-Sur Busuttil sentejn ilu biex jistqarr li l-PN mhux klabb għall-Insara imma miftuħ għal nies ta’ reliġjonijiet oħra (aqra l-Musulmani primarjament).  Issa naraw jekk Joseph Muscat, Prim Ministru u kap tal-Partit Laburista, hux makakk biżżejjed biex jieħu l-pożizzjoni moralment għolja, anke jekk forsi mhux popolari, li jbiegħed lill-PL minn pass bħal dan, u strateġikament ipinġi lill-PL bħala iktar miftuħ għal nies ta’ reliġjonijiet oħra.

 

Jien ngħid għalija huwa biss kemm ilni l-Awstralja li bdejn niltaqa' regolarment ma' nisa lebsin il-burqa jew in-niqab.  Peress li f'dan il-pajjiż huma f'minoranza żgħira, dejjem jispikkaw u jiġbdu l-għajn, u forsi din hija l-problema maġġuri tagħhom, ċioe li jattiraw l-attenzjoni għal kultura u tradizzjoni li hija relattivament ġdida u impurtata għall-dan il-pajjiż, kif ukoll għall-pajjiżi Ewropej li qed jikkunsidraw din il-ħaġa.

 

L-argument li l-burqa u/jew in-niqab jirrappreżentaw theddida għas-sigurtà ma jikkonvinċini xejn.  Kif jistgħu ħwejjeġ ikunu ta' theddida?  Dan il-ħwejjeġ partikulari mallewwel jassoċjaw lill-persuni li qed jilbsuhom mal-Islam, li għal ħafna nies huwa direttament assoċjat mat-terroriżmu, u minn hawn ġejja l-pressjoni kontra l-burqa u n-niqab.

 

It-terroriżmu m'għandux bżonn dan il-ħwejjeġ biex jagħmel ix-xogħol ta' ħniżrija tiegħu.  Veru li kien hemm każijiet fejn il-burqa intużat bħala travestiment, imma kien hemm bil-wisq aktar fejn ma kellha x'taqsam xejn.

 

Għal ħafna nies, li tgħaddi liġi bħal din kontra l-ilbies tal-burqa u n-niqab tirrappreżenta rebħa żgħira, imma simbolika u viżibbli ħafna, kontra din ir-reliġjon ġdida, mhux mifhuma, imma mistmerra u anke mibgħuda.  Hija rebħa kontra l-immigranti, ir-rifuġjati, dawk li qed jiġu jaqbżu l-kjuwijiet, ipappuha minn fuq daharna, jeħdulna x-xogħol u l-proprjetà, imbagħad biex tagħqad joħorġu s-sikkina għalina jew jħebbu għal xi povru fit-triq.  Il-burqa u n-niqab jirrappreżentaw lit-terroristi, fl-għajnejn ta' ħafna nies.

 

Ħaġa tal-għaġeb kif mexxejja ta' dawn il-partiti fl-Ewropa u madwar id-dinja jaslu biex jissottoskrivu din in-narrattiva, jifformalizzaw din l-assoċjazzjoni bejn att innokwu (l-ilbies) mat-terroriżmu (msejjaħ theddida għas-sigurtà), u jsiru parteċipi fl-ikkalunjar ta' reliġjon sħiħa ta' iktar minn biljun ruħ madwar id-dinja.  Kont nistenna aħjar minnhom.

 

Jien għalija għalxejn li l-istess mexxejja jippruvaw jgħidu fl-istess nifs kemm l-Islam mhuwiex l-għadu, u li l-Musulmani huma diġà parti integrali mis-soċjetà tagħna.  Għalfejn għandna nindaħlu kif nies għandhom jilbsu biex ikunu aċċettati fil-pubbliku?

 

Jekk li wieħed jara l-wiċċ ta' dak li jkun huwa tant importanti fis-soċjetà tal-Punent, għaliex ma noġġezzjonawx għall-Father Christmas apparti għan-niqab?  Mhux ukoll l-għajnejn biss ikunu jidhru waqt li qiegħed idoqq il-qanpiena u jgħajjat “ħo ħo ħo”?

 

Kieku dawn il-mexxejja pproponew li jkun mandatorju li dik li tilbes il-burqa jew n-niqab tkun obbligata li turu wiċċha jekk jinħass il-bżonn minn membri tal-forzi tal-ordni fil-pajjiż, jew fejn ikun hemm bżonn tidentifika ruħha biex tingħata servizz personali, hemmhekk naqbel magħha.

 

Kieku dawn il-mexxejja pproponew li jkun kontra l-liġi għal min iġiegħel lil xi mara tilbes kwalunkwe lbies kontra r-rieda tagħha, ukoll kont naqbel mal-proposta.

 

Imma fil-fatt, jien wisq nibża li din l-attitudni mhi xejn ħlief daqqa simbolika kontra l-Islam, biex jintgħoġbu man-numru li jidher li qed jikber madwar id-dinja ta' nies b’intolleranza lejn din ir-reliġjon, ħalli t-tendenza tal-voti li jmorru għall-partiti tal-lemin estrem titnaqqas.  Fejn marru l-prinċipji tat-tolleranza u l-libertà tal-individwi?  Se nibdew nippreskrivu l-gwardarobba tan-nies issa?

 

“Huma jittolleraw l-użanzi tagħna f'pajjiżhom?”, ġieli smajthom jgħidu d-difensuri tal-Insara.  “Mela ma nittollerawx lilhom lanqas”, ikomplu bil-psewdo loġika.

 

Jekk aħna aħjar minnhom, se nibdew naġixxu bħalhom?  U jekk naġixxu bħalhom, nibqgħu aħjar minnhom?

 

1http://malta2017.epp.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/1-EPP-Resolution5938.pdf, retrieved 18/4/2017

2http://netnews.com.mt/2017/04/16/il-kap-tal-partit-nazzjonalista-simon-busuttil-favur-il-projbizzjoni-ta-nies-bwicchom-mghotti-fil-pubbliku/, retrieved 18/4/2017

1http://malta2017.epp.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/1-EPP-Resolution5938.pdf, retrieved 18/4/2017

2http://netnews.com.mt/2017/04/16/il-kap-tal-partit-nazzjonalista-simon-busuttil-favur-il-projbizzjoni-ta-nies-bwicchom-mghotti-fil-pubbliku/, retrieved 18/4/2017

Is breaking the law justifiable? -- Il-ksur tal-liġi ġustifikabbli?

A few weeks ago, the new secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Sally McManus, appeared on the national Australian scene.  She seems to intend breathing new life into the cause of industrial relations in Australia.

 

Nevertheless, it was a declaration made during an interview on a leading journalist protram, 7.30 Report on the ABC, that thrust this personality front and centre of the country's political and social scene.  McManus stated “I believe in the rule of law when the law is fair and the law is right.  But when it's unjust I don't think there is a problem with breaking it.”1

 

The background to this statement are the dozens of carses where the Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union has been taken to court accused of industrial action deemed against the law.

 

This statement brought an immediate and negative reaction from several prominent persons, especially government ministers like Christopher Pyne, minister for defence industry, who described it as “anarcho-Marxist claptrap” and Eric Abetz, senator and ex-Liberal minister, who stated that after democratic parliaments enact laws, these “must be obeyed by all - no ifs, no buts”.2

 

No ifs, no buts?  Just a minute.

 

I have to admit when I heard McManus' statement on the 7.30 Report, I was a bit taken aback, as one of the principles I've tried to follow is to do the right thing, stay in the line like everybody else, obey traffic regulations, act like a good citizen etc.  So, my first reaction for what I heard was also negative.

 

But then I started to think, what would Jesus do?  Or better, what did he do during his own life?

 

We know what he thought of the rule, then the law in the time of the Jews, not to carry out work on the holy day (the Sabbath), a law variations of which have been incorporated in the law of many countries around the world and still in place today.  He didn't admonish his hungry apostles cutting wheat on a Sabbath,3 and did not refrain from healing a crippled woman bent double just because it was a Sabbath.4  This was breaking the Jewish law, which Jesus felt was necessary in the circumstances.

 

In today's eyes, perhaps more important was what he did in the temple, when he felt angry with the commercialisation he saw around him.  We know he made a whip from cords, and used it to chase away the sellers and overturn tables,5 an arguably violent act.  If living today, he would probably be accused of threats and assault, disturbing the public peace, acts aggravated by premeditation.

 

We also shouldn't forget his dry response, full of meaning on the civil obligation of taxes, saying we  need to “render to Caesar the things that are of Caesar, and to God the things that are God's”.6  I see such an exhortation telling Jesus' followers to obey the laws of the land, assuming they are morally acceptable.

 

In times closer to today, it's good to recall social and political progress that were achieved only after  campaigns full of breaches of unjust laws.  One example is allowing women to vote, a step forward that occurred at the start of the twentieth century after a campaign by women called sufragettes, from the word 'suffrage' (which means both the right to vote as well as a form of prayer).  Incidentally, Australia was the first country to legislate to permit this federally in 1902.7

 

The arbitrary injustice of the situation then, where women were denied this right, can be clear from an anecdote from the state of Victoria.  There, an electoral law passed in 1863 had given voting rights to all persons, a reference to those having property.  So in the local elections of 1864, there were some women having property who turned up to vote.  The next year, in 1864, this law was amended to exclude women!

 

In Australia, the campaign for women's right to vote was pacific, and so it also began in Britain, but this didn't take long to change nature after frustration at the lack of change.  In the end, buildings were torched, violence was made, hunger strikes, women ended up in jail etc until voting rights were given in 1918.8  I do acknowledge there is a debate about whether non-pacific methods used in the UK actually helped this right be achieved, however it ensured that this issue had a high profile and was not forgotten.

 

Another well known example of change not occurring without law breaking was the fight led by Gandhi for the independence of India from the UK.  Gandhi decided to start the campaign for independence by breaking a British law prohibiting Indians from making salt, to force them to buy it from the British (today you would hardly believe the existence of ridiculous laws such as these).

 

In 1930, Gandhi was the first person to publicly gather a grain of salt, and therefore breaking the law, and he was emulated by thousands more, so much so that the British arrested some 60,000.9  Although Gandhi's methods, known as civil disobedience, are non-violent, they in fact include the breaking of laws deemed unjust.  As we know, this campaign resulted with independence to India in 1947 and, due to other sectoral, religious and political reasons, for the deaths of countless people, including the assassination of Gandhi himself.

 

I don't see any moral problem with breaking a law deemed unjust, in principle.  The revered Martin Luther King, from jail wrote that one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.10

 

I know that this position is subjective.  Nevertheless, this does not mean one can claim to feel free from any responsibility, due to an objection to a particular law.  If one feels morally justified to break a law, his actions also need to be morally consistent.  He does need to keep in mind that his actions have consequences, not only to himself but to others as well, and while fighting for his rights he does need to minimise damage caused to others and their property.

 

Perhaps a bit surprising has been the completely negative reaction to the McManus' declaration by the Labor Party, led by the ex-union leader Bill Shorten, who said that bad laws need to be changed, not broken.  Ideally that would be the case, but is there no nuance, no qualification?  Did the advances made by workers and minorities in countries around the world come about just by discussion?  Did the people in power and with social privilege, those making laws and regulations primarily to preserve and grow their own wealth and influence, leading today for 1% of the population to accumulate as much wealth as the other 99%,11 watch out for the poor and the downtrodden out of the goodness of their heart, at once after receiving some petition sent through the mail?  Hasn't history taught us anything?

 

------------------------

 

Ftit ġimgħat ilu, tfaċċat fuq ix-xena nazzjonali Awstraljana segretarja ġdida tal-għaqda ta' unjins Australian Council of Trade Unions, Sally McManus, li jidher li beħsiebha tagħti nifs ġdid lill-kawża tar-relazzjonijiet industrijali fl-Awstralja.

 

Madankollu, kienet stqarrija tagħha waqt intervista fuq programm ewlieni ġurnalistiku, 7.30 Report fuq l-ABC, li tefgħet lil dan il-persunaġġ ta' interess fuq quddiem nett fix-xena politika u soċjali tal-pajjiż.  McManus stqarret li temmen li għandna nimxu mal-liġi fejn din hija ekwa u ġusta, imma fejn din hija inġusta ma tara l-ebda problema li l-liġi tinkiser.12

 

L-isfond ta' din l-istqarrija huma l-għexieren ta' każijiet fejn l-unjin CFMEU (Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union) ttella' l-qorti akkużat li ħa azzjoni industrijali meqjusa kontra l-liġi.

 

L-istqarrija ġabet reazzjoni immedjata u negattiva minn diversi persunaġġi prominenti, speċjalment ministri tal-gvern bħal Christopher Pyne, ministru għall-industrija tad-difiża, li ddeskriva din l-istqarrija bħala 'ħmerija anarkista Marxista' u Eric Abetz, senatur u ex-ministru Liberali, li qal li wara li parlament demokratiku jgħaddi l-liġijiet, dawn 'iridu jiġu obduti minn kulħadd - mingħajr kwalifiċi jew eċċezzjonijiet'.13

 

Mingħajr kwalifiċi jew eċċezzjonijiet?  Sekonda waħda.

 

Jien nammetti li meta kont smajt l-istqarrija ta' McManus fuq 7.30 Report, inħsadt ftit, għax wieħed mill-prinċipji f'ħajti li ppruvajt insegwi f'ħajti kien li nagħmel dak li hu suppost li jsir, noqgħod fil-kju bħal ħaddieħor, nobdi r-regolamenti tat-traffiku, naġixxi ta' ċittadin tajjeb eċċ.  Għalhekk, l-ewwel reazzjoni tiegħi għal dak li smajt kienet ukoll negattiva.

 

Imma imbagħad qgħadt naħseb ftit, kieku Ġesù x'kien jagħmel?  Jew aħjar, f'ħajtu x'għamel?

 

Nafu kif ittratta r-regola, jew dakinhar il-liġi fi żmien il-Lhud, li ma jsirx xogħol fil-ġurnata mqaddsa (is-Sibt), liġi li varjazzjonijiet tagħha ġew inkorporati fil-liġijiet ta' ħafna pajjiżi u għadhom fis-seħħ sal-lum.  Ma widdibx lill-appostli li kienu bil-ġuħ u qatgħu l-qamħ meta kienu bil-ġuħ fis-Sibt,14 u ma qagħadx lura milli jfejjaq lil mara mħattba nhar ta' Sibt15.  Dak kien ksur tal-liġi Lhudija, li Ġesù ħass li kellha titwarrab fiċ-ċirkostanzi.

 

Forsi fl-għajnejn tal-lum, iktar importanti dak li għamel fit-tempju, meta ħassu rrabjat għall-kummerċjalizzazzjoni li ra quddiemu.  Nafu li għamel frosta minn kordi, u użah biex ikeċċi lill-bejjiegħa u jaqleb l-imwejjed,16 att ta' ċerta vjolenza.  Kieku għex illum kien probabbilment jiġi akkużat b'theddidt u taħbit (assault), li ddisturba l-paċi pubblika u li għamel dan kollu bi premeditazzjoni.

 

Ma rridux ninsew ukoll it-tweġiba xotta imma mimlija sinjifikat fuq l-obbligu ċivili tat-taxxa, fejn qal li għandna “nagħtu lil Ċesri dak li hu ta' Ċesri, u lil Alla dak li hu ta' Alla”.17  Din l-eżortazzjoni naraha li tgħid lis-segwaċi ta' Ġesu biex jobdu l-liġijiet tal-pajjiż, sakemm huwa moralment aċċettabbli.

 

Fi żminijiet eqreb lil tal-lum, tajjeb li niftakru f'avvanzi soċjali u politiċi li nkisbu biss wara kampanji ta' ksur ta' liġijiet li kienu nġusti.  Eżempji huma l-vot għan-nisa, avvanz li seħħ fil-bidu tas-seklu għoxrin wara kampanja min-nisa msejħa sufragettes, mill-kelma suffraġju (li tfisser kemm id-dritt għall-vot kif ukoll it-talb).  Inċidentalment, l-Awstralja kien l-ewwel pajjiż li lleġisla biex jippermetti dan fuq livell federali fl-1902.18  

 

L-inġustizzja arbitrarja tas-sitwazzjoni dakinhar, fejn in-nisa kienu mċaħħda minn dan id-dritt, jista' jidher ċar minn aneddotu mill-istat ta' Victoria.  Hemmhekk, liġi elettorali li għaddiet fl-1863 kienet tagħti d-dritt tal-vot lill-persuni kollha, riferenza għal dawk kollha li kellhom il-proprjeta.  Għalhekk, fl-elezzjoni lokali tal-1864, kien hemm nisa li kellhom il-proprjeta u għalhekk marru biex jivvutaw.  Is-sena ta' wara, fl-1865, din il-liġi ġiet amendata biex teskludi lin-nisa!

 

Fl-Awstralja, l-kampanja għall-vot tan-nisa kienet paċifika, u hekk ukoll bdiet fl-Ingilterra, imma ma damitx biex tinbidel in-natura tagħha wara l-frustrazzjoni ta' nuqqas ta' bidla meħtieġa.  Fil-fatt, inħaraq il-bini, saret vjolenza, strajkijiet tal-ġuħ, nisa spiċċaw il-ħabs eċċ sakemm id-dritt tal-vot ingħata fl-1918.19  Nirrikonoxxi li hemm dibattitu jekk il-metodi mhux paċifiċi li ntużaw fir-Renju Unit għenux biex dan id-dritt ingħata, madankollu kien żgurat li l-kwistjoni kellha profil għoli u ma ntesietx.

 

Eżempju ieħor ċelebri ta' bidla li ma ġietx mingħajr ksur tal-liġi kienet l-ġlieda mmexxija minn Gandhi għall-indipendenza tal-Indja mir-Renju Unit.  Gandhi ddeċieda li jibda l-kampanja tal-indipendenza ta' pajjiżu bi ksur ta' liġi Ingliża li kienet tipprojbixxi lill-Indjani milli jagħmlu l-melħ, biex jisfurzawhom jixtruh mingħand l-Ingliżi (illum lanqas jitwemmnu liġijiet ridikoli bħal dawn).  

 

Fl-1930, Gandhi kien l-ewwel wieħed li pubblikament ġabar melħa, u għalhekk kiser il-liġi, u bħalu għamlu eluf oħra, tant li l-Ingliżi arrestaw xi 60,000 ruħ.20  Għalkemm il-metodi ta' Gandhi, magħrufa bħala diżubbidjenza ċivili, huma mhux vjolenti, fil-fatt kienu jinkludu l-ksur ta' liġijiet meqjusin inġusti.  Bħal ma nafu, din il-kampanja wasslet għall-indipendenza tal-Indja fl-1947 u - minħabba raġunijiet settorali, reliġjużi u politiċi oħra - għall-imwiet ta' ħafna nies, inkluż l-assassinju ta' Gandhi nnifsu.

 

Jien ma nara l-ebda problema morali bi ksur tal-liġi li tiġi meqjusa inġusta, fil-prinċipju.  Il-mibki Martin Luther King, mill-ħabs kiteb li liġijiet morali inġusti għandhom jiġu opponuti attivament u paċifikament.21

 

Naf li pożizzjoni bħal din hija suġġettiva għall-aħħar.  B'danakollu, dan ma jfissirx li wieħed jista' jgħid li jħoss ruħu maħlul minn kull responsabbiltà, minħabba l-oġġezzjoni tiegħu għal xi liġi partikulari.  Jekk wieħed se jikser xi liġi li jħossu moralment ġustifikat li jagħmel, l-azzjonijiet tiegħu jridu jkunu wkoll konsistenti mal-morali.  Irid iżomm quddiem għajnejh li dawn l-azzjonijiet li jieħu dejjem għandhom il-konsegwenzi tagħhom, kemm lejh u lejn ħaddieħor, u filwaqt li jiġġieled għad-drittijiet tiegħu jrid ukoll jimminimizza l-ħsara lill-persuni oħra u l-proprjetà tagħhom.

 

Forsi b'xi ftit sorpriża kienet ir-reazzjoni kompletament negattiva tal-Partit Laburista għall-istqarrija ta' McManus, li biex tagħqad imexxih Bill Shorten, ex-mexxej trejdunjonista, li stqarr li hu jemmen li l-liġijiet ħżiena iridu jiġu mibdula, mhux miksura.  Veru li hu hekk idealment, imma m'hemmx kif u x'fatta?  L-avvanzi li għamlu l-ħaddiema u l-minoranzi fil-pajjiżi ta' madwar id-dinja ġew bil-kliem biss?  Il-forzi tat-tmexxija u tal-privileġġ soċjali, dawk li l-liġijiet u r-regolamenti jsiru primarjament biex isostnu u jkattru l-ġid u l-influenza tagħhom, li wasslu llum biex 1% tal-popolazzjoni tad-dinja akkumulaw ġid daqs id-99% l-oħra,22 ħasbu fl-imgħakkes u fil-fqir mit-tjubija ta' qalbhom, mallewwel wara xi petizzjoni li ntbagħtet bil-posta?  Mela l-istorja m'għallmitna xejn?

1http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-15/actu-boss-happy-for-workers-to-break-unjust-laws/8357698, retrieved 5/5/2017

2http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/industrial-relations/breaking-unjust-laws-ok-says-new-actu-secretary-sally-mcmanus/news-story/2446063f7c3c156172eef0e90cf2fc8e, retrieved 5/5/2017

3Matthew 12:1-8

4Luke 13:10-16

5John 2:12-17

6Matthew 22:21

7http://www.australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/austn-suffragettes, retrieved 5/5/2017

8http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/higher/history/britsuff/suffrage/revision/1/, retrieved 5/5/2017

9http://www.history.com/topics/salt-march, retrieved 5/5/2017

10https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html, retrieved 10/5/2017

11An Economy for the 1%; Oxfam; 18/1/2016

12http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-15/actu-boss-happy-for-workers-to-break-unjust-laws/8357698, retrieved 5/5/2017

13http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/industrial-relations/breaking-unjust-laws-ok-says-new-actu-secretary-sally-mcmanus/news-story/2446063f7c3c156172eef0e90cf2fc8e, retrieved 5/5/2017

14Matthew 12:1-8

15Luke 13:10-16

16John 2:12-17

17Matthew 22:21

18http://www.australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/austn-suffragettes, retrieved 5/5/2017

19http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/higher/history/britsuff/suffrage/revision/1/, retrieved 5/5/2017

20http://www.history.com/topics/salt-march, retrieved 5/5/2017

21https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html, retrieved 10/5/2017

22An Economy for the 1%; Oxfam; 18/1/2016