Playing Judge, Jury, Executioner – and God

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.