Mamadou
Kamara’s tragic death has understandably shocked us to the core. Everybody
seems to be clamouring for justice – a natural enough reaction – but public
opinion seems to have polarised around two very different notions of exactly what
would constitute justice in this case.
If
justice is truly to be done we should, first of all, establish the facts. However, most of us appear to know exactly
what happened according to our own positions on the thorny question of illegal
immigration. Illegal immigration is a very emotionally-laden issue and
positions emanating from our feelings on the subject are hardly likely to be
paragons of the sort of enlightened detachment necessary for the objective appraisal
of situations of the sort.
Those
who are “against” illegal immigration have apparently decided that what
happened was nothing more than legitimate self-defence on the part of the
accused soldiers whose very life was being threatened by a raving maniac of an
immigrant. Some particularly bright exponents of this position have gone on
record as demanding that the case against the three soldiers be dropped
forthwith. If you don’t believe me have a look at that endless reservoir of
insightful, intelligent and objective contributions aka The Times online comments board or else the various FB groups which
have sprouted up over the past week in defence of the accused soldiers.
The
opposite position is in a sense even more worrying because it is held by
individuals who, generally speaking, are better-educated, and thus in a
position to influence official attitudes more effectively than those manning
the opposite barricade. The minute the news of Mr. Kamara’s terrible demise
started spreading, it became apparent to those who, for want of a better phrase,
can be called pro-immigrant, that this horrible accident was in fact yet
another confirmation of how the monster of racism had seized hold of our
collective soul and was now directing our behavior and attitudes towards those
immigrants unfortunate enough to land on our shores. The possibility that any
such accident can have had its own dynamics quite independently of the racist
attitudes which are undoubtedly polluting public discourse on immigration seems
not to have even been allowed to cross the frontiers of their minds.
In
this context, it was heartening to read Maltatoday’s interview with Dr. Katrine
Camilleri from the Jesuit Refugee Services http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/en/newsdetails/news/interview/Human-rights-vs-populism-Katrine-Camilleri-20120707 . One would have thought that with her background, Dr Camilleri
might have given in to the temptation of singing the “pro-immigration’’ tune
and blaming the accident fairly and squarely on the racism many believe
permeates the Army ranks. Instead she gave a very sober appraisal of the
situation in detention and showed that she is fully empathetic not only with
the plight of the migrants held in forced detention, but also with the grave
difficulties the soldiers assigned on guard duties are facing. Many of those on
the same side of the lines have not been equally fair and just.
It
is almost banal to point out that pre-conceived notions of the significance and
dynamics of the accident militate strongly against the later perception of
justice in the judicial process. The persons who allegedly committed the
offence must be judged on the actual merits of their actions irrespective of
the political or ideological meanings we attach to immigration, and must be
presumed innocent until proven guilty – if they are proven guilty, that is.
The
point is that unless we descend from the lofty thrones of ideology and
prejudice, and allow the Courts to concentrate first and foremost on the mechanics
of the human situation as it unfolded, we would not be even in an intellectual
and emotional position to appreciate what justice should be meted out. It is a
question of strong and dearly-held emotions pitted against trust in our
institutions: a situation where the virtue of humility should be exercised. Let
the Courts exercise the function of appraising and judging – which is what our
society agrees they are there for. To think we are above the Courts, and that
our pre-fabricated judgments are superior to their workings, is dangerously
suggestive of the sort of pride which can undermine that respect for our
institutions that lies at the core of social cohesion.