Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1540142
THIS leader is not about the Nationalist Party's con- stitutional amendment to introduce the right to a healthy and unsustainable environment and the back- lash the proposal received from several unlikely quar- ters. We have already commented about this. Neither is this leader about the type of backlash re- ceived and whether it was justified or exaggerated. This leader is about Prime Minister Robert Abela's reaction on Sunday and his xenophobic remarks to justify his government's opposition to the PN propos- al. The media did not misinterpret or twist Abela's words when reporting what he said about foreigners wanting to stop traditional hobbies. Twice, the prime minister used the word 'foreigners' to underscore his point. The emphasis on the word 'foreigner' was not casual or careless but intentional. Abela could have chosen the more generic term 'people' to refer to those who would want to use the now defeated constitutional amendment to 'stop tra- ditional hobbies'. After all, there are Maltese individuals—pet owners, elderly people, couples with young children, bedrid- den individuals—who also complain about the exces- sive noise caused by festa petards. There are Maltese individuals who dislike hunting and would rather see this hobby end. There are Maltese Birżebbuġa resi- dents who would rather not have a motorsport rac- ing track next door to their homes. There are Maltese people who would want a clamp down on excessive night time music from clubs and open-air venues. But no, Abela used none of these equally valid ex- amples to sustain his claim. Instead, Abela specifically singled out foreigners as those who could potentially pose a threat to traditional hobbies. It was deliberate and no sugar coating by some of Abela's acolytes will change that fact. The prime minister set up foreigners as a direct tar- get for the wrath of hobbyists because it is easier to pit Maltese hobbyists against anonymous foreigners than fellow Maltese. Abela's intention was more than clear to see for those who have eyes. He was shame- lessly xenophobic because it suited his narrow polit- ical agenda. When confronted by MaltaToday about his remarks, Abela later admitted that he could have used other examples to sustain his criticism of the PN proposal. He went on to explain that the PN amendment would have pitted one section of society against another ir- respective of nationality. He then defended his gov- ernment's track record on dealing with foreigners, citing the labour migration policy as a tool to ensure dignified work conditions for foreigners in Malta. Abela's explanation was an attempt to mitigate the backlash on his remarks from none other than former ONE News editor Sandro Mangion, who called for more empathy towards foreigners from a "socialist". Nonetheless, Abela's clarification did not address the core issue of xenophobia. Abela and people in authority like him should be careful of normalising xenophobia because when that happens it only becomes a short road to the tragic consequences witnessed six years ago when Ivorian Lassane Cisse was murdered in a drive-by shooting in Ħal Far. Cisse was killed simply because he was black. It was the first racially-motivated murder that shocked the nation. At the time, Prime Minister Joseph Muscat had warned against the "poison" spread by extremists and what he described as the "more refined narrative of us-versus-them". And yet, on Sunday we witnessed a prime minister who chose to pander to that very same narrative by pitting Maltese and foreigners against each other. It's the last thing we need in a country where the frustra- tion with overpopulation—some justified, some borne out of racist sentiments—risks becoming a flashpoint. The prime minister should have known better than pushing his finger on society's pressure point and us- ing foreigners to symbolise the alleged threat to tradi- tions posed by the botched PN amendment. Foreigners live, work and pay their taxes in Malta. They fulfil jobs that would otherwise remain vacant. They have contributed to this country's prosperity over the past decade. While they are here, they enjoy the same rights and obligations as Maltese nationals. If there are too many of them, it is definitely not their fault. The vast majority of foreigners are in Mal- ta because we invited them here to contribute to our economy. And while we believe the Maltese State must take back control of labour migration management to limit population increase to what is strictly necessary, we also advocate for empathy, respect and dignity to- wards foreigners, something that was missing from Abela's words on Sunday. Dear prime minister, do not normalise xenophobia maltatoday MaltaToday, MediaToday Co. Ltd, Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016 MANAGING EDITOR: SAVIOUR BALZAN EXECUTIVE EDITOR: KURT SANSONE EDITOR: PAUL COCKS Tel: (356) 21 382741-3, 21 382745-6 Website: www.maltatoday.com.mt E-mail: dailynews@mediatoday.com.mt environment 11 maltatoday | WEDNESDAY • 8 OCTOBER 2025 EDITORIAL al legislation. Well, you can count the environmental laws stemming from na- tional initiatives on your finger tips. A case in point is the much-touted noise law, promised by Mario de Marco in 2011, taken up by José Herrera in 2016 and has since done a Godot. Meanwhile, residents all over the Island complain of increase noise. Visit Merchant Street or any restaurant-heavy stree in Valletta and experience listening to all the offi- cial top 100 singles.... contempraneous- ly. While the European Human Rights Charter does not explicitly mention the right to a healthy environment, the ECHR has issued approximately 300 rulings on issues related to environ- mental protection through the links be- tween this and rights such as the right to life, the right to respect for family life and the right to freedom of expression. So, will the government now propose to amend the charter because it too could potentially harm economic activ- ities, traditions or customs? I wouldn't put it past them, given that barely six months ago the prime minister was pandering to some of the right-wing governments in Europe by suggesting amendments to certain human rights conventions. One might say that Article 32(c) of the Constitution of Malta does include the right to family life, and therefore using the argument above, the right to a clean environment would be redun- dant. However, in this case one has to ask the question whether the Maltese justices are willing to be bold enough to interpret this right in the same way as the ECHR does, in all the cases that deal with environmental issues. Enshrining the right to a clean environment in the Constitution should reduce any reti- cence to rule in favour of the environ- ment. This issue should have enjoyed bi- partisan support in parliament. By en- shrining the right to a healthy environ- ment, Malta would not be re-inventing the wheel since a number of countries have already done so, including Spain, Portugal and Greece. By the way, they have still stadia in Spain, Portugal and Greece (MFA and MPL please note!). In July 2022, the United Nations Gen- eral Assembly through resolution A/ RES/76/300 recognised the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environ- ment as a human right. Will the PL now do like that odd ball of Donald J Trump and declare that the UN is ineffective and question its raison d'être. Or is the PL more interested in picking up petty squabbles with the PN? At this point, I can't help but note that denying citizens a right to redress even for environmen- tal issues is becoming too much of a habit.