Unpublished Letter

This was sent to the editor three weeks ago. I think I'm correct in assuming that he won't be publishing it...

Inconsistancies Galore!

The Independent reported that in a press conference, dealing with irregular immigration, an ANR spokesperson said that “Some of these people are truly persecuted but others are simply victims of circumstance”. If, as this statement implies, the ANR views circumstances as totally irrelevant, then why does this organisation embrace a whole ideology whose main principle is founded in accidental circumstance? Has anybody, anywhere ever had any sort of say in deciding their own place of birth? Is it to the ANR’s merit that their members were presumably born on Maltese soil to Maltese parents rather than somewhere else? No it is not. But of course, like any extreme rightist organisation - irrespective of what pompous euphemism they use to project themselves in an acceptable light - the ANR would probably dish out some cheap ‘forefathers rhetoric’ to justify maltreatment of others and assert their privilege. This, however, does not solve their contradictions and inconsistencies.

Not only does the ANR hold inconsistent views as to when circumstances are or are not important, they are also highly selective in their acceptance of Catholic dogma. For example, this organisation is attempting to mobilize the local population against the foreign babaw. How this is reconciled with their supposedly catholic values is truly mind boggling. Maybe their version of the Bible has some sort of secret footnote that specifies that ‘loving your neighbour’ only applies if they are of the same nationality, skin colour or culture as yourself.

Furthermore, in a cheap attempt at selling shameless xenophobia the ANR point at countries like the UK, Germany and Holland. Their vision suddenly shifts from the national to the international. What the ANR fail to address is how their fear of foreigners, rooted in their twisted ideology, can ever help avoid racial hatred and create harmony and integration between cultures. How is extreme nationalism helping to avoid clashes between different nationalities and cultures? These self-declared bearers of ‘common sense’ seem to conveniently ignore what history repeatedly teaches us. Hate keeps generating more hate and justice is a necessary precondition for peace. There is no justice where human rights are not respected. The concepts of dignity, solidarity and justice transcend man-made national borders and so do human rights. Hysterical patriotism, paranoid politics and talk of a bogus ‘national interest’ are threats to the afore-mentioned concepts. After all, as George Bernard Shaw aptly put it ‘Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it’.

Rage against those who criticise me...

Every time somebody dares criticise the defenders of all things democratic (the ANR) they can expect that in a matter of days their names will appear on their website with bitter attacks and pseudo-humor whose sole purpose is but a cheap attempt to ridicule.

Quite amateurish, for a group that pathetically begs to be taken seriously. It's quite obvious to me that anybody who makes the conscious decision of going in the public spotlight will be criticised. And rightly so. It's a damn shame that these right-wingers can't take any form of criticism. They get hot-under the collar every time somebody dares disagree with them. They don't counter arguments with arguments but with ridicule and grand statements that are doing nothing but exposing their true colours. 'My way or the highway' seems to be the message. Oh how democratic of them...

Democracy and Human Rights

The biggest test that our democratic principles face is in practice. It lies in how we would want to treat those that do not agree with us. More specifically, it lies in how we would want to treat those people we hate. This is surely no original idea. But I think it is a question worth asking, especially considering the climate in Malta at the moment. Would we find excuses to justify harming our opponents or would we defend their human rights? Personally I am somewhat worried about the type of talk we've been hearing lately. Suspension of human rights? For whom? How can I ever be sure that my human rights won't be suspended next? Few people seem to realise how dangerous talk of suspending human rights to accommodate some bogus national interest is.

What is this national interest really? We've heard it tons of times. We never heard a detailed description of what it is. Is the nation any better off now that the self-declared defenders of this so-called national interest have taken to the streets? Is the nation more serene? Less racist? Or more united?

Judging by the right-wings ideology and their tonality I find it impossible to believe that my human rights would ever be respected should they have anything to do with it. How about your human rights?

Listen to the Fascist sing...

"Take hope here
War is elsewhere
You were chosen
This is Gods land
Soon we'll be free
Of blot and mixture
Seeds planted by our Forefathers hand"

-Zack de la Rocha


Rings a bell doesn't it?

ANR deception?

The ANR is spreading the allegation that the anti-fascist protestors at the ANR demonstration were breaking the law because they assembled without the necessary permit.

The Public Meetings Ordinance states that:

"meeting" or "public meeting" means any gathering of more than
twenty persons assembled for the public discussion of any matter,
in any public street, square or open space and includes a
demonstration;

Thus, in my amateur interpretation it means that Graffitti and Fr. Mark did not necessitate a permit for their demonstration because as even the ANR acknowledges they were less then 20. Why is ANR mentioning the figure of 10 persons? Whence did they get the number from?

They probably got it from Article 68 of the Criminal Code, which states:

Whosoever shall take an active part in an assembly of ten or
more persons for the purpose of committing an offence, although
the said assembly may not have been incited by any one in
particular, shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term
from three days to three months or to a fine (multa).

The problem lies here. Are the ANR saying that Graffitti and Fr. Mark were committing an offence by being expressing their disapproval? Or are they implying that it should be?

Thanks goes to a good friend of mine for help with this entry. Thanks mate.

Worrying

Philip Beattie can make grandiose declarations about the ANR not being racist for the rest of his life. I don't believe it and never have. But let's give him and his buddies the benefit of the doubt. Can he ever deny that they're appealing to the most shallow of human emotions? Can he deny that the majority of the crowd present for the demonstration were there out of racial hate? Can he deny that his 'toilet of the Mediterranean' comment is racist in tonality? Can he deny that the ANRs demonstrations, statements and press conferences are not helping to defeat racism but are fueling it?

The ANR, in a demonstration of political opportunism, are milking the current situation in Malta to promote their twisted ideology which is shockingly reminiscent of fascism.

Of course, the ANR will deny everything. The facts, however, are far more credible than anything the ANR says. Click here.