Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1234806
10 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 12 APRIL 2020 OPINION EVER get the feeling that – whenever calamity or catastro- phe strikes – some people will always try and use it to justify doing what they all along intend- ed to do anyway? (And which, in most cases, will have very little to do with the catastrophe in question?) One obvious example would be how the tragedy of Septem- ber 11, 2001 – in which over 3,000 people lost their lives in a terrorist attack on New York's World Trade Centre – ended up becoming a pretext for America and Britain to invade Iraq. There were, of course, other arguments used to justify that war at the time: such as the claim (later proven to be un- founded) that Saddam Hussein possessed 'weapons of mass de- struction', etc. But looking back on that epi- sode all these years later – and it's a worthwhile exercise, by the way: for, then as now, there was a similar pervasive feeling that 'the world had changed forever' - it clearly emerges that there was one factor, above all others, that enabled a military interven- tion that would otherwise have been universally condemned as 'illegal'. And that was the widespread sense of fear and disorientation caused by the carnage of 9/11… a fear that was exploited by gov- ernments (not just across the Atlantic, but all over Europe too) for all sorts of other dubious purposes: including ramping up surveillance measures across the board; and generally empower- ing States to intrude upon the privacy of their citizens in ways that – under normal circum- stances – we wouldn't accept without a fight. From that perspective, it should come as no real surprise that the COVID-19 pandemic is having entirely analogous ef- fects today. Call me paranoid, if you will (I'm a Black Sabbath fan anyway, so I'll take it as a compliment)… but I find it dis- concerting that so many people are now openly clamouring for the mandatory imposition of even more intrusive surveillance techniques than the ones associ- ated with 9/11. Like 'location-tracking apps', for instance: which use people's smartphones to pinpoint their exact whereabouts, at all times, and convey the information to the health authorities (for our own benefit, naturally). Don't get me wrong: I can well understand how that sort of thing could indeed be useful when it comes to contact-trac- ing for those who tested positive for the virus… or even to appre- hend those who defy health and safety regulations, thereby en- dangering everyone else. What these arguments over- look, however, is that such measures have a tendency to outlive the immediacy of the cri- sis itself. I have no idea how long this pandemic is going to last – it could be months, but it could also be years – but I do know that, like every other pandemic before it, it will eventually come to an end. Can the same truly be said for any 'emergency measure' we in- troduce today? Once this crisis is over, and the immediate need for surveillance is no longer so urgent… can we safely predict that governments will voluntari- ly relinquish all the extra powers we might unwisely confer upon them now, in our current state of collective fear and anxiety? I don't think so, myself. On the contrary, I rather suspect that – just like we all accepted to be fingerprinted for the pur- pose of 'biometric passports', back in 2006 – we will likewise all come round to accepting a new 'post-COVID-19' reality… i.e, that of governments using 'smart technology' to literally track our every movement and every social interaction… and who knows? One day, perhaps even our every private, inner- most thought (as, after all, was predicted by so many dystopian novels in the past: look under 'Orwell, George' for further de- tails). For the present, however, there are other ways in which the pan- demic is being used to justify vi- olations of basic human rights. And I'll limit myself to just one example for now. You may already be aware that members of the local Serbian community – whose children face possible deportation, de- pending on the outcome of their appeals with the immigration authorities - have received let- ters at home, informing them that: "As a result of the current COVID-19 situation, the pro- ceedings of the [Immigration Appeals Board] have been in- definitely suspended […] you are requested to make arrange- ments in order that you may depart from Malta as soon as possible." You will probably also know that this prompted a public out- cry: following which, the Home Affairs Ministry stepped in to correct what it described as a 'mistake' made by Identity Mal- ta. In the words of Parliamentary secretary Alex Muscat: "Follow- ing the COVID-19 outbreak in Malta, the proceedings of the Immigration Appeals Board have been suspended. In view of this, Identity Malta has decided not to extend the interim per- mit of third-country nationals who are staying in Malta only to await the outcome of their appeal. However, this does not apply to minors whose parents are both authorised to reside in Malta, and hence the letters mentioned in the article should not have been sent." And there you have it: govern- ment has acknowledged that Identity Malta was 'wrong' to send out those letters; there- fore, those Serbian children are no longer in any imminent dan- ger of being forced to leave the country. So the problem's been solved, right? Um… not exactly, no. For there was more than one 'mis- take' involved in this issue: and the most serious one by far has nothing to do with any bureau- cratic slip-up (unintentional or otherwise) by Identity Malta. The real problem lies in the first sentence: both of the orig- inal letter, and the government's response: i..e., that the COV- ID-19 pandemic has been used as an pretext to simply suspend the Immigration Appeals Board altogether… and with it, the right to judicial review of any sentence or decision taken by the immigration authorities. And this is, in a word, illegal: not just because the right to ju- dicial review is a fundamental human right in itself… but also because it is a necessary com- ponent of 'the rule of law' (over which we have already been sub- jected to so much international criticism in recent years). As such, it cannot be so lightly cast aside, for any reason what- soever… still less, on the pretext of a national health emergency that doesn't (or shouldn't) im- pact the functionality of the Im- migration Appeals Board in any meaningful way. To illustrate that last point: the same 'smart technology' that permits our governments to spy on us, also allows for such things as 'tribunal sessions' to be held on any of literally dozens of available digital platforms (eg., Skype, Zoom, etc). Ironically, this is even acknowl- edged by Identity Malta itself: which, in that same letter, also specifies that: "The Board may use electronic means, or other viable means of communication, in order to give opportunity to appellants not present in Malta to testify…" You don't exactly have to be a software engineer to realise that, if the Board is technologically capable of hearing the testimo- ny of people in other countries (through 'electronic means', etc.)… well, it should be just as capable of hearing them testify today, through the same chan- nels, while they are still in Malta. But no: rather than doing what so many other institutions have already been forced to do (e.g., University, and all schools), and adapt to the crisis through the use of digital technology… Identity Malta chose to simply scrap its appeals board altogeth- er: at a time, I might add, when the law-courts are also closed… which leaves the subjects of all that institution's decisions with no right of legal recourse what- soever. Meanwhile, the government's 'correction' doesn't actually rectify that situation at all. For even if the immediate question concerning those particular Serbian families has now been resolved… the underlying prob- lem still persists (and has even been confirmed by the Home Affairs Ministry). It's right there, in Alex Mus- cat's own statement: "Iden- tity Malta has decided not to extend the interim permit of third-country nationals who are staying in Malta only to await the outcome of their appeal". Sorry, but that is simply not a decision Identity Malta is legal- ly entitled to take: pandemic, or no pandemic. Because if one national institution is permitted to violate the fundamental hu- Raphael Vassallo Pandemics are no excuse to just forget about human rights If one national institution is permitted to violate the fundamental human rights of any one minority group… it inevitably follows that all the others will start doing the same thing, too. And in fact, this is already happening