Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1509248
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 8 OCTOBER 2023 9 INTERVIEW 'inching towards the Far Right' Above all, we're hoping that the European Parliament will not give in to the pressure of govern- ments; and that it really insists, that at least the fundamentals and basics of human rights will remain in place. Because we're speaking about people fleeing from persecution and war. Those people need to have a proper pro- cess, and they need to be treated fairly… Well: we're also talking about FAILED asylum seekers, here: i.e., people have no legal right to asylum; and who can be legally deported. Yet we all know that countries like Libya and Tunisia have a history of systematic human rights abus- es, especially when it comes to returned migrants. Now: my understanding is that - under the existing rules - deportation to 'unsafe countries' is a crime called 'refoulement', regard- less of the deportee's status. Am I to understand, then, that the EU is changing direction on that front, too? There hasn't been a 'change in direction', as such… but there has certainly been a change in what governments are willing to do, to reach their political aims. If you look at, for example, the recent European 'arrangements' with Tunisia - where the EU is trying to pump billions of euros into that country, to potentially to act as a kind of 'border man- ager', on its own behalf – well, it's failing miserably. Why? One reason is that Tu- nisia has made it clear that that it's not willing to accept this new role. It's not even accepting the funds, in fact. But another is that, if you look at what Tunisia has been doing to refugees on its own territory – including 'dumping people in the desert'; widespread reports of torture, and beatings; and the incredible levels of violence, tar- geting refugees and other minor- ities… it is manifestly clear that these are not governments we can trust, on a human rights level. And the fact that it's now not just one or two European govern- ments, engaging with such coun- tries… but the EU as a whole, on an institutional level… that is ex- tremely worrying, to us. Even because, quite frankly, we're also beginning to see in- dications that this 'movement towards the right' is being felt lo- cally, too. A case in point being – OK, this might this might sound a bit 'off-topic'; but we're also really worried about that recent episode of 'Popolin', on TVM, where a public personality spoke about her perceived relationship between disability and religion... I don't think it's 'off-topic', at all. The Phyllisienne Brincat case is also ultimately about human rights (specifically, Freedom of Expression). And there's also such a thing as the 'Religious Right', apart from the political one. So go ahead… For us, the fact that someone like that was invited by the na- tional broadcaster to speak - knowing full-well what her views are – is a sign that we, too, have lowered our standards, in terms of what's considered 'acceptable', or not. And we consider that to be another slow step towards the right: because it's all about the same thing, ultimately. Anyone who does not conform to the views of the established majority, is somehow going to be 'targeted', 'picked on', 'made illegal', and – in a nutshell – 'not welcome'… At the same time, however, some might argue (I happen to be one of them) that – re- gardless how 'odious' Brincat's views about disability may be – she still has a right to express them, according to at least two fundamental human rights (Freedom of Expression, and Freedom of Religion). Wouldn't you agree? Oh, absolutely. You are entitled to believe whatever you want; you're entitled to think whatever you want, about anyone in the world. Nobody is there to con- trol your thoughts, or what you choose to believe in. And as a hu- man rights NGO, we would stick to that fervently. But to us, the problem is not that this person has those beliefs, or even that she expresses them. The problem is that she was invit- ed to do so, by the Public Broad- caster… … which, ironically, afterwards 'dissociated itself', from the comments it had been the one to invite, in the first place… [Laughing] Exactly! Joking apart, however: to us, it's a serious matter. Because it's not just about 'what people think', or 'what peo- ple say'. It's also about what sort of standards we should be setting, for national discussion… However, Brincat is not the only one who has said 'hurt- ful' things, in the name of re- ligion. Other TV personalities like Gordon John Manche have described homosexuality as an 'aberration' (which can be cured through 'gay-conver- sion therapy', etc.). Do you feel there is a difference in the way we respond to the 'religious' right, versus the 'political' one? That we tend to justify the former, on the grounds that even such extreme beliefs, are ultimately covered by 'Free- dom of Religion'? Well… part of the problem is definitely that religion, in itself, has historically always tended to clash with human rights. Because religion positions itself in such a way, as to use its own 'moral au- thority' to judge people, and cer- tain sectors of society… and, for instance, to describe their way of life as 'inferior', 'immoral', 'inap- propriate', etc. But that is precisely why we also have legislation which protects people from Free Expression, and from religious persecution. That is why we have laws about hate speech, and hate crimes, and oth- er forms of invasion of privacy. So you are free to believe whatever you want, yes… but only as long as you don't harm anyone else, who is living beside you. Because ultimately - and this is the whole idea of having 'human rights', to begin with - we're living together in a community. And human rights try to make that community live together, and function together, harmoniously. So yes, you can believe what you want. Just don't harm others with your views, that's all... Coming back to the migration issue: human rights NGOs such as Aditus, are often criticised for being 'unrealistic' in their demands. For instance: it is all well and good to talk about having 'efficient, expedient' asylum application process- es… but then, you get a situ- ation like Lampedusa's, last month: when literally thou- sands of asylum seekers ar- rive, within days. How do you propose dealing with an emer- gency like that, from a human rights perspective? One thing I think we should keep in mind - and people tend to forget this – is that when the war in Ukraine broke out, two years ago... Europe was also facing a 'human rights emergency'. There were hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians fleeing the country, from one day to the next: which is exactly what you also see when wars break out in other parts of the world… in Somalia, for in- stance; or in Syria… But as we can all see: the ap- proach was entirely different, in the case of Ukraine. Suddenly, we had a very quick and efficient procedures in place, for persons fleeing that war to get protection. They received their documents within days or weeks; and they were encouraged to get a job as soon as possible, to become self-reliant. The EU also eased all of its Vi- sa requirements, so that people could come in freely. More im- portantly, we allow those persons to move around freely within Eu- ropean Union, and for their fami- lies to be united.... So our question to the EU is: if you were capable of showing the political will, to do something like that in one war context - and it worked, too: because I think everyone agrees that Europe's re- sponse to the Ukraine war, while maybe not 'perfect', was certainly 'successful' - why can't we take lessons learned from all of that, and apply them to the other 'war context'? What's going on in Greece, Ita- ly, Malta – and especially Lampe- dusa - is entirely analogous, to the Ukrainian refugee crisis. So why can't we replicate that response, in this area too? But at least, the Ukrainian expe- rience shows us that it IS perfect- ly possible – and therefore, not 'unrealistic' at all - to handle even the largest refugee emergencies, with efficiency and fairness… and without violating anybody's human rights. So why are we not doing that, with refugees crossing the Med- iterranean? That's the question we've been asking the EU, for some time now. And it remains pending, to this day…