Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/451763
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 25 JANUARY 2015 24 Letters Send your letters to: The Editor, MaltaToday, MediaToday Ltd. Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016 | Fax: (356) 21 385075 E-mail: newsroom@mediatoday.com.mt. Letters to the Editor should be concise. No pen names are accepted. Last Thursday's shocking incidents at the Safi detention centre warrant critical analysis and censure. They have cer- tainly placed the illegal immigration issue straight back onto the national agenda. The incidents according to the statement issued by the armed forces seem to have risen when the detainees forced their way out of their closed compound and overwhelmed their guards. A corollary of this is whether the soldiers used disproportionate force against a peaceful protest. This is the cen- tral point at issue. Pictures carried in The Times and film relayed on NET news, both of which gave excellent coverage to the shameful events, show clearly that it was a peaceful protest and not a riot. This chain of events no doubt will be the central focus of the judicial enquiry speedily and correctly an- nounced by the Prime Minister. At stake is not only the reputation of our armed forces but the very caring and hospitable image towards foreigners of whatever race our country has built over the years. While detainees sat on a football pitch, a large number of soldiers were seen to approach them attempting to force them to return to their barracks. It would appear at this stage that the detainees were only objecting to return- ing to their barracks. Their banners were peaceful and their only reason for protesting seemed to be a desire to be sent to mainland Italy where they believe they can find work. They protested about the delays in their application process being finalised and in the lack of progress about their applications for refugee status and in the way they were confined to bar- racks for too long a period, many of whom have no information about their future. There complaints at first glance certainly do appear legitimate. There is many a lesson to be learnt from these incidents. Firstly the situation within the detention camps has reached boiling point. Government had been put on notice by both local and foreign experts that the stifling conditions and the exasperation of the detainees would inevitably lead to incidents taking place. The approvals or rejections of the applications for refugee status are very lengthy and bureaucratic, creating a sense of unease amongst the ap- plicants. Their frustra- tion seems also triggered by their having been brought to Malta rather than to mainland Europe. It would appear that certain members of the armed forces need to be given a refresher course on the rules of engagement and the acceptable propor- tionate use of force. This becomes all the more serious when all these incidents took place under the eyes of the very head of the armed forces himself. Equally disappointing was the reluctance of parliamentary secretary Tony Abela when interviewed on NET television to condemn the violent behaviour. He should have condemned the violent behaviour of the soldiers outright. Amnesty is right to call for an impar- tial inquiry as was the Prime Minister to order one so expeditiously. It is paramount that this inquiry takes place quickly fairly and with full transparency. The human rights watchdog has eye witnesses possibly including members of the media who saw soldiers armed with truncheons and shields charge the peaceful protestors. If this is the case then the soldiers responsible for such human right violations should be brought to justice. Here is a classic example of where justice should not only be done but must be seen to be done. Full accountability is called for and where responsibilities are established, the soldiers involved should be punished and forced to leave the armed forces. The questions arising as a result of these incidents should make the Prime Minister take immediate action and put on forced leave pending the conclusion of the inquiry those members of the armed forces who in full view of the media and television cameras were seen to be using a dispropor- tionate use of force. It is also pertinent to ask whether the position of the head of the armed forces is tenable owing to his hav- ing been personally present while his very subordinates violated the human rights of the illegal immigrants while chanting racial abuse. Let justice be done Editorial • January 16 2005 In the spirit of the Pope's appeal Back to the 1980s Updating the Maltese Constitution seems to be a topic that soon will be gathering more importance and attention. Many would agree that the constitution was written under very different conditions. Though it is not to be tampered with lightly, times change and some articles need to be revisited, updated or modified or altered. One such article, in my opinion, is article 2 in its entirety, and I put forward my reasons. Article 2 (1) 'The religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion'. Malta is not a theocracy and thus should not have an official /State religion. If our forefathers intended to register the religion of the major- ity they did it because of their fear of being overtaken by Protestants. There is no place for such fear now and anyway the constitution is not the place where to register statistical figures. Article 2 (2) 'The authorities of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church have a duty and the right to teach which principles are right and which are wrong.' There seems to be a growing per- ception that this right and this duty are given to the Catholic Church by the constitution. That is why I believe that it is the Church itself that should ask for this article to be removed. The right and duty to teach, according to the Church's own doctrine, form the mandate given to it by its founder, Jesus Christ. Whether this duty is enshrined in the Constitution or not does not make any difference at all. The Church always claims that it has the duty to propose its teachings with- out imposing them on anyone. Thus this part (2) of 2 is at least spurious. As to the right of exercising the activities to fulfill its duty, this will be guaranteed by the constitution which gives this right of religious freedom of expression and worship to all faiths as long as their observ- ances are within the legal param- eters laid down by the legislators. This ties up perfectly with the ap- peal made by the Pope in Sri Lanka when he said that "Religious free- dom is a fundamental human right. Each individual must be free, alone or in association with others, to seek the truth, and to openly express his or her religious convictions, free from intimidation and external compulsion." Article 2 (3) 'Religious teaching of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Faith shall be provided in all State schools as part of compulsory education.' This is not in the same spirit as that adopted by the Church when it says that it proposes but never im- poses its doctrine. Now we can also say that it goes against the appeal made by the Pope which includes freedom "from intimidation and external compulsion. Again the Constitution should only guarantee the freedom to teach particular doctrines in their particular schools but State schools should not offer any particular faith teachings. They should offer either studies in comparative religions or lessons in civil ethics and upright citizenship. I would suggest that the Catholic Church should proactively approach the government to indicate its will- ingness to see that in the current ecumenical spirit, religious freedom is guaranteed in an equal fashion to all religions. This, in my opinion, will enhance the friendly dialogue between the religions in Malta where all citizens are free to adhere or not to any belief and make clearer to all the citizens the separation between State and Church. Richard Curmi Victoria, Australia Last Christmas while watching Love Actually, the classic Christmas movie, I drifted off in an unusual thought. In the press conference the British Prime Minister, Hugh Grant; stood up for Britain against the arrogance of the American President, Billy Bob Thorn- ton, yet his humorous sneer was met by cheers and an assertive audience. Far from the truth and somewhat comical that a western power could stand up to American imperialism on the public stage and be cheered and applauded. In July 1982, a few weeks after the UK won a brief war with Argentina, Margaret Thatcher told the House of Commons, "The question is whether one very powerful nation can prevent existing contracts being fulfilled; I think it is wrong to do that". Whom exactly was Britain's most anti-Soviet Prime Minister talking about? She wasn't talking about Ayatol- lah Khomeini or Leonid Brezhnev, but about her closest ally, Ronald Reagan, with whom she had a 'special relation- ship'. The comment came after President Reagan ordered an embargo of firms using US technologies related to a $10 billion pipeline contract. The 3,700-mile gas pipeline was being built from Siberia to Western Europe, thus bringing closer the Soviet Union and an energy-hungry Western Europe. In fact, in August that year, the British government defied the embargo and ordered British companies to honour their contracts in accordance with international law. France and Italy followed suit. Ironi- cally, a year earlier, Reagan dropped the grain embargo against the Soviet Union placed by President Carter, to honour his pre-election pledge. At the time European leaders weren't going to be pawns in this cat and mouse game between the superpowers. Those were the 80s and now times have changed. As the cold spell engulfs Europe with record temperatures, the cold war seems set also in east-west relations. Yet, it is wrong to use embargoes and sanctions targeting companies and individuals to make up for the diplo- matic stalemates, like the Ukrainian crisis. More should be done by the world community to understand all stake- holders in the conf lict and remember that civilian lives are also at stake here. Currently there are over a million Ukrainian refugees who f led to Russia to avoid army shelling. Politicians should do their job and strive harder if they really want an end to the conf lict, rather than tear down economic bridg- es at the cost of individuals' jobs. 2015 is the year Marty McFly takes his DeLorean into the future, 30 years have passed and it seems erringly strange that we use the same 80's rhetoric on militarism, sanctions and nuclear armaments instead of negotia- tion and dialogue. I would invite you to re-read your history books to find that it was dialogue and goodwill from both sides that ended the cold war, not military confrontation and bullying; the latter was unsuccessfully tried and tested for the previous 40 years. There is a Russian saying, 'voda ca- men tochet', which means water wears away the stone. This is my humble attempt to throw water at the stoned wall of criticism toward Russia omni- present in western media. Gabriel Micallef Liverpool Oil corruption forced energy prices upwards I refer to your excellent and exclusive reports about the scandalous oil corruption at Enemalta, which Simon Busut- til considers as a smokescreen, in spite of its serious implica- tions. No wonder Lawrence Gonzi could not lower the electricity tariffs his government was charging – we were paying for the corruption too, apart from the cost of energy. Reading the story about Godwin Sant, the senior official at the Malta Resources Authority, I was amazed at the treatment he received, he having been suspended immediately from his job because he had accepted tickets from oil trader George Farrugia, to attend a football match in the UK. A senior minister in the Gonzi government, who did worse, got away scot-free. I refer to Tonio Fenech, then Finance Minister, who travelled for free on the private jet of a Maltese businessman, to watch his favourite football team play. Fenech was not only not sanctioned by the Gonzi govern- ment. He had the cheek to present his name as a candidate for the 2013 election, and the Nationalist Party had the cheek to accept him as a candidate. And his purblind electors went on to vote him in office. John Abela Msida