Democracy 101

 

Reading an entry by Wild Knight on Gardjola yesterday, I was somewhat surprised to read the statement of the Dutch Minister of Justice, Piet Hein Donner, that the state should not do anything to prohibit the imposition of laws that go against the fundamental principles of freedom and human rights. According to Minister Donner, should two thirds of the Dutch population one day want to impose a system that treats women and non-believers as second class citizens, imposes severe restrictions on freedom of thought and conscience and establishes the most brutal and inhuman punishments then so be it. "It would be a disgrace to say: 'That is not allowed!'."

Fortunately, Donner's rather odd understanding of what democracy is all about is not the mainstream view in Europe, at least at this time. However, his argument is dangerous enough to be worth refuting. Democracy is not about the imposition of the will of the majority on everyone else. Nor is it simply about passing laws by majority vote. The system is worth anything only if it can also guarantee the rights of minorities and of individuals. If it does not do so then it is not 'rule by the people for the people' but merely a dictatorship of the majority. There are clear situations where we must say 'That is not allowed!' and these include any attempt to impose any totalitarian system, whether it is purely political or, as is the case nowadays, politico-religious.

For those who have not yet had the opportunity to read it, I would recommend Karl Popper's The Open Society and its Enemies and his other works on political philosophy. When they finish with it, I would recommend that they lend their copies to their local MPs, just to make sure that they are at least aware of the basic principles of democracy and freedom.

A Difficult Week

 

For most observers of Malta's immigration problem, this must have been a somewhat disheartening week, with nearly a hundred illegal immigrants arriving on our shores these past three days, and with the news that plans for EU sea patrols have had to be put off. Libya's cooperation on this issue is also clearly not forthcoming at the moment, and Minister Tonio Borg seems to have been made a fool of, either by the Libyans or by Frattini, depending on whom you believe.

In this context, the silence of Finland, the EU's current president and the host of its borders agency, has been deafening. MEP David Casa's criticism of the Presidency's behaviour in today's Times is, I think, fully justified and should earn him support from all those who want future generations of Maltese to be able to enjoy the same Western freedoms that we enjoy today, without having to make any painful compromises in their own home with communities that do not share their Western values.

While the Council Presidency has shown no apparent interest in our plight, President Barroso has once again attempted to put the issue near the top of the EU's agenda. I have long admired Barroso's policies, both in the economic arena (with the Lisbon Strategy, which he originated as Portuguese Prime Minister and strongly promoted as EU Commission President) and in foreign relations (he is a committed Atlanticist as well as a believer in a new Europe). May the European project have many more such far-sighted politicians and may their efforts meet with success.

On the same day, Ranier Fsadni (whose articles are generally of high quality, and many of whose views I share) attempted his own analysis of the problem on the Times. According to him, opposition to immigration comes from the following groups:

- racists

- old-style nationalists

- those who belong to the indigenous population but are underprivileged

To be fair to him, he does not explicitly exlude the existence of other groups. However, it might have occurred to him that the vast majority of the cabinet and the shadow cabinet, all of whom view illegal immigration as a serious problem, do not fit very well into any of these categories. Nor, I would contend, does the President of the EU Commission. It would probably have been more useful for Mr. Fsadni to debate the issue rather than to limit himself to a pscychological and sociological analysis of those whom he believes hold a view different from his own. However, having decided to take that path, he would have been far more convincing had he attempted a proper analysis, as opposed to a caricature.

Where do they manage to find all that hate?

 

An entry posted this evening by Deepdiver in Gardjola led me to this story on Haaretz. After reading the article I had a look at the talkbalk and was struck by the hatred (or, more accurately, what we Maltese would call 'ħdura') evident in most of the posts, apparently written by Europeans, and a few Americans.

I tend to view the far-left and the far-right as idiots more than anything else. Those talkbacks are a reminder that idiots with hate coming out of their ears are still a sickening sight.

More from the land of dreams

 

While reading the Times today, I was intrigued by the latest letter from Alternattiva's Jurgen Balzan which, I think, offers another fine example of the left's muddled world view. According to Balzan, the fact that there are Muslim-majority states that do not fully apply Sha'riah is proof that Muslims do not have any intention of spreading Sha'riah to countries which do not currently have it as their legal system. A non sequitur if there ever was one.

Worse than Balzan's poor information and his shoddy logic, in my opinion, is his insistence on romanticising the 'other'. According to him, Hezbollah and Hamas are heroic 'freedom fighters'. He is not particularly interested in the facts of the case or in the effects that their actions and those of their state sponsors have had on prospects for peace in the region. Who cares about peace and prosperity when we can have a nice romantic story instead?

Incidentally, and on a different note, Alternattiva seem to have concluded that their best chances for the next elections lie in Gozo. I would imagine that they are basing this on Gozo's history as a relatively volatile district and on its tradition of supporting third parties. The problem is that Alternattiva is simply alien to Gozitan society. The small parties that were successful in Gozo in the past were mostly conservative, Catholic and Gozo-oriented. And the last time Gozo elected an MP from outside the two major parties was in 1962. In order for Alternattiva to stand a chance there it would probably have to transform itself into a very different party. It has done this before, of course. During the first ten years of its existence, it was primarily an 'alternative' to the two major parties plus an environmentalist and socially liberal movement. With the change of leadership in 1998, the party moved sharply to the left. The 'libertarian' agenda and the issue of hunting were put on the back-burner. In their place came a group of former Graffitti activists with all their baggage of anti-americanism and extreme-left ideology. I don't think that Alternattiva will ever get a quota in any district in Malta or Gozo with that package, even if they have the cuddliest and most harmless Arnold Cassolas in the world to present it. And if Alternattiva does change again, I'm not sure that the most natural option would be for it to become a new Gozo Party.