MaltaToday previous editions

maltatoday, WEDNESDAY, 9 OCTOBER 2013 10 Editorial MaltaToday, MediaToday Co. Ltd, Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016 MANAGING DIRECTOR: ROGER DE GIORGIO MANAGING EDITOR: SAVIOUR BALZAN Tel: (356) 21 382741-3, 21 382745-6 • Fax: (356) 21 385075 Website: www.maltatoday.com.mt E-mail: newsroom@mediatoday.com.mt Equality, but not as we know it There is an immediate irony in the fact that it had to be the Labour Party's 'youth and equality officer' to utter incendiary comments which appear to actively discriminate against irregular migrants. Rachel Tua's outburst on Facebook last week, in response to the assault of an AFM officer by 'foreigners' believed to be migrants, reads like a text-book case of how anyone entrusted with public office should not behave. Practically every anti-immigration cliché imaginable somehow found a way into Tua's comment: starting with the hackneyed use of the word 'invasion' to describe the immigration phenomenon, and carrying on with the gross generalisation whereby 'they' (a blanket reference to all migrants) 'do not respect the Maltese'. More worryingly still, Labour's equal opportunities officer reached the ominous conclusion that the Maltese should likewise refuse to respect 'them' on the basis of this one incident alone. The implications of such a shortsighted view are little short of remarkable: apply Tua's reasoning across the board, and one might conclude that any crime committed abroad by any Maltese citizen should result in opprobrium poured on ALL Maltese citizens, without exception. However hard one tries to tone down or somehow render palatable Tua's outburst, it remains by any stretch of the imagination an unacceptable sentiment to express at such a delicate stage – as well as singularly incompatible with the position Rachel Tua occupies within the Labour Party. This latter detail also entails broader implications for the party currently occupying the seat of government. It is not enough for the PL to react to the outrage provoked by Tua's comment by simply claiming that the sentiments expressed are not reflections of the Labour Party policies. Regardless of this claim, the fact remains that Tua does, in fact, represent the PL: and more poignantly still, she specifically represents the PL's views on equality. Nor can one talk here about 'private' opinions, on the basis that these are somehow distinct from views uttered publicly. No such distinction can now be made, as the comment itself has deliberately placed in the public arena, where it has (rightly) been met with shock and consternation. This poses a credibility problem for Labour: if Tua's views on immigration equality are not concomitant with those of the PL, one must seriously question why she is still permitted to occupy a role which is directly linked to the PL's equality policies. Admittedly, the post itself is an internal administrative position within the party structures, and not a government position (in which case there could be no question about her unsuitability for the role). But the Labour Party cannot in one breath distance itself from its own equality officer's publicly stated views, and at the same time still allow the same person to be the public face of Labour's position on equality. But this is only half the story. Leaving aside the evident xenophobia that underpins so much of our national rhetoric on the subject of immigration: the same comment (and above all, reactions to the same from both sides of the political divide) was interesting for another reason also. It illustrates with graphic precision the extraordinary double standards exhibited by political parties when they progress from opposition to government, and vice versa. At a glance, the sheepish reaction of the Labour Party – which condemned the comment but at the same time defended the person who uttered it – was virtually indistinguishable from the way the previous Nationalist administration had defended all its disgraced generals, even while (occasionally) condemning the flaw for which they had been criticised. Perhaps the most memorable example remains that of former Finance Minister Tonio Fenech and the multiple breaches of the code of ethics with which he was associated. Back then, the Labour Opposition had bayed for Fenech's blood, while the PN government resorted to damage limitation mode. The same pattern unfolded each time a government official at any rung on the political hierarchy was perceived to slip up; and perhaps unsurprisingly, the same pattern can be seen in action even now, seven months after the parties occupying the twin roles of government and opposition traded places. Again, there is latest irony in the fact that the person at the heart of this latest controversy, Rachel Tua, has herself bestridden both sides of the political divide: a selfavowed Nationalist who turned to Labour in protest at the previous government's way of doing politics. Interestingly, it would appear that while the players have changed, the game remains the same as it has always been. Political parties are clearly no longer governed by principles built on ideologies – if indeed they ever were – but by political exigencies which change depending on whether one's political goal is to either achieve or maintain power. There is, however, a difference in this particular case: Labour's own ascent to power last March was built on a very clear political promise to ensure meritocracy and full accountability at all levels. If Labour intends to deliver on this promise, it has to start by cleaning out its own stables.

• Cover