THE ORIGINAL J'ACCUSE PAGE

SEARCH THE ARCHIVES

lundi, juin 12, 2006

Who wants illegal immigrants anyway?


Sometimes the Malta Times' editorials are a wonderful exercise in schizophrenic writing. Just when you start thinking that the Editor has got his finger right on the issue you find that peculiar twist right at the end that seems to be an appendage written by a Mr. Hyde - a sort of malicious afterthought that undoes all that is constructive in the preceding parts of the editorial. Let's see what today's Editorial entitled "Why the crowd looks elsewhere" had to offer in this regard.

The basic theme running throughout the piece is that of the fundamental right to expression that would theoretically allow loonies to say their thing on whatever subject they like to rant about. The jab at "tolerating ANR" immediately shows from which side of the fence the editor is writing. It gets better. The Times asks the question many people have already been asking - do you really need to protest against something that is illegal? Is protesting really necessary? It's a bit like rallying against theft. Of course everybody is against theft.

The Editorial implies that you cannot be "against" illegal immigration. It suggests that more efforts should be spent in planning how to curb the current tide and to manage what already has come in. True. The next part is a defence of journalists against the headless attacks on the profession by ANR and its members. Again, full marks for being clear on this issue.

Then. Ah! Then the editor criticises ANR for being ever so contradictory in the messages they send out to the people. It almost sounds like a regret that a potential new movement is being so obstinately rightist in its approach. A regret that a possible niche in local politics is not being properly filled.

And here is my grudge. What niche? The niche of the disgruntled? The niche of the easily conned voters who will gladly find a victim for the expiatory role needed to relieve them of all their suffering? Apparently so:

"ANR and its exponents need to take stock of the situation and put their house in order. They must find out why the public, most of whom would be against illegal immigration, stayed away from their manifestation."

Oh no they don't Mr Editor. We do not need a sly, manipulative movement using the ghost of illegal immigration as motive for gaining a base of support. No matter how you paint the picture for this kind of movement it will essentially be based on one message: All your ills are due to the blacks (as their leaders would have it) who are coming to your island. Get rid of them and all will be solved.

I'm sorry but I do not particularly like the phrase "most of whom would be against illegal immigration". You might think I am nit-picking but it is the core element of what must be combatted. A new program must be based on tolerance and understanding. It is only in that way that we can then answer helping hands like that offered by Lithuania to take some of the burden of the immigrants. By ensuring a human manner of tackling the problem - one that is based on respect and tolerance.

Otherwise we can all be against illegal immigration. Or not??

4 commentaires:

Antoine Cassar a dit…

You're not nit-picking, I noticed that too... plus, the tone of the editorial is almost saying something like "we need a hardcore Catholic party which is younger and fresher [aħemm] than the PN, and of course more focused".

The editorials of The Times are much like the sonnets of Luis de Góngora: you start off clearly envisaging how the expounded logic will be developed, but then somewhere you find a subtle ironic twist (not necessarily towards the end) which sheds new and insightful light on the message being conveyed. The Times editorial can be a good read, but at times I fear it is heavily prejudiced.

wwwitchie a dit…

For the sake of transparency and all that, can you explain to me why you don't link to sites you mention in your posts? I get so fucked off having to not be lazy and look things up for myself... dont you know that the one thing which separate blog posts from editorials is links? *sigh*

Jacques René Zammit a dit…

and the one thing which separates the Times links from normal newspapers is that after a month the page is archived and you have to PAY to see the wonderful literature that is produced daily.

On the other hand you might try clicking on the title of the blogpost.

wwwitchie a dit…

what's your point? *grin*

mine, on the other hand is this: link, link, link, man :-)

i didnt realise your headings were hyperlinked... but still.