One of the interesting side affects of contemplating, writing or
commenting on the issue of Europe and her people’s identity is the
general awareness it awakens in one in regard to the wide world around
us. Accepting the reality of race and its impact on actions and events
makes the world smaller in the sense that it becomes more
understandable. But simultaneously it becomes much larger than it
might initially have been thought. And with that realization comes the
need/urge to explore that larger world whose depth and richness so
exceeds by every measure the shallow rubric of “one race, the human
race”. The promoters of that
particular monotony, having locked themselves away in the dark
corridors of their egalitarian universities/dungeons to listen only to
their own echoes, would never accept nor could ever comprehend the true
diversity of the world.
When you walk out into the light of day and embrace the world as it
is, what one begins to grasp, for example, is that to say ‘a tree is a
tree’ is a bit of a misleading and tragic casual, modern, nomenclature.
A pine tree and an oak may both be called trees, yet only the dull of
mind, heart and understanding would not see that they are in may ways
as different as one species is from another. And if you cannot
understand or are not willing to see and accept those differences, then
for you a pine tree does not exist. It does not live and it does not
die. It does not grow needle like leaves instead of the lush leaves of
the oak and it does not bear the cones that adorn many a Christmas
wreath. What a small and pitiful worldview that must be.
Tomorrow evening, “Racism is Murder” will be the call. Moviment Graffitti and eleven other groups, NGOs and parties are taking part in a rally against violence and racism. So far so good. I was urged to take part and I would have, but I won’t, for reasons I detail below.
The trigger for this rally is the death of a man called Suleiman Abubaker, caused, to whatever extent, by a bouncer Duncan Deguara.
My own first reaction to this case, given my own experience is that it is a bouncer-related problem, that this was a case of bouncers who itch to try out their punches, that they are mostly hired thugs who aren’t even licensed as security people, and have less an attitude to keep the peace than an attitude to appear tough and macho and bully people around. This is a general view rather than a judgement about Deguara himself, especially since the Courts are still investigating the case, and from reports and claims, it appears that the case was rather more complex.
Let’s make one thing clear though: tomorrow’s rally is not about violence. There were many opportunities to hold such a rally when other cases occurred in the past few months. The main feature of this case for leftist liberals is that the man who died was black. Why do I say leftist? The twelve groups taking place tomorrow are an indication of who will be taking part: Alternattiva Demokratika, Forum Żagħżagħ Laburisti, Forum for Justice and Cooperation, General Workers’ Union, Jesuit Refugee Service (Malta), Inizjamed, Kopin, Koperattiva Kummerc Gust, Migrants’ Solidarity Movement, Third World Group and Żminijietna. It could have been a national issue and a national rally but tomorrow it will not be. Apart from the fact that these eleven groups are barely fronted by ten individuals as active members, practically all these groups sport leftist ideologies. Even if this weren’t evident from their manifestos, despite the neutral-sounding names, it is evident from the way they toed the line behind Moviment Graffitti’s and the leftist media’s gross assumption that this was a racist attack.
Let’s look at the features of this tragic incident that seem to weigh against it being a racist attack.
1. Suleiman Abubaker had a history of rowdiness and of conflicts with police and bouncers. This is not to justify but to reason. I would argue that someone with a history of conflicts with police and bouncers significantly raises his chances of getting pulped at some point in time. And partially for reasons I mentioned earlier on about bouncers and so forth.
2. Despite the fact that many opinionists on the left opined that Abubaker was refused entry for being black, the claim from the bouncer was that Abubaker was refused entry because he was drunk and rowdy. Deguara further claimed that he escorted Abubaker three times peacefully to the door. This last claim in particular can be verified or discredited when the CCTVs are checked, and by witnesses in the area, and is a crucial claim. If Deguara had premeditated murder because of Abubaker’s race, why would he have escorted the man three times to the exit?
3. The third time is when the incident happened. First story I obtained was that Abubaker was punched in the face and died of the injury. Does this seem like an intended murder to anyone? The bouncer knew that with one punch he was going to kill a man? If this version were true, it would be obvious at face value that the punch had “gone wrong” and that Abubaker’s death were accidental. Deguara however claimed further that it was Suleiman Abubaker who first hit Deguara with a bottle and that Deguara pushed him away and Abubaker fell. He then stood up, fell again and stood again and walked away with the aid of his friends. This is what Deguara claimed.
4. Three other Maltese seem to have contradicted Abubaker’s French companions’ claim that a third person kicked Abubaker while lying on the ground.
Purely at face value, and before the Courts have concluded the case, I would conclude nothing about the case if not that it weighs heavily against the idea that this was a racist attack. If racism contributed at all in this death it seems to be very obscure. For the great majority of journalists, the simple fact that Abubaker was black closed the case. The left, both in its guise as the opinionist media and as NGOs, has simply hijacked a tragic death as a crusade against racism and violence. Every leftist is suddenly certain that this was a racist attack, simply because according to their logic, an attack on a black man must be fueled by racism. And it seems it took the death of a black man to mobilize them against violence. All this from the supposedly colour-blind folk.
When confronted with these facts, most leftists start to generalize that regardless of this specific case, the rally is against violence and racism. Still, it was this case that triggered it, a case that basically has nothing to do with racism and if Deguara’s claims are true, very little with violence. Further I’ll bet my shoelaces that the rally will take a form that supersedes anti-racism. For example, I’ll bet another pair of shoelaces that there will be banners saying “ONE WORLD. NO BORDERS” which is strictly not an anti-racist issue. I was asked to participate in this rally, but both by looking at the list of groups involved and by knowing what they support and will support during this rally, I will be made to say more than condemn violence and racism.
Moviment Graffitti are doing nothing but building their case, during what they think is an opportune time, from a case that has absolutely nothing, or dubious little, relevant to what they want to build and say. This is naught but more minority hero worship from the radical left, in this case an inverse Mumia Abu-Jamal. Abu-Jamal was made a hero for murdering a cop. Suleiman Abubaker is becoming a hero very possibly for being slain accidentally.
These last few weeks have seen a remarkable turn of events regarding the issue of Ilegal immigration. We first had a standoff between the Maltese and Italian governments regarding who should carry the burden of illegal immigrants who enter Malta's search and rescue area. Next we had the positive step of the Italian government adopting a 'turn them back' policy which Norman Lowell and his movement Imperium Europa have been advocating since the first boats landed.
When asked what it felt like to be proven right in this issue, Norman Lowell responded;
Nothing is more tedious for a writer, or more nauseating for the reader than having to say: “I told you so!” However, I cannot but do otherwise and remind our People that we were the first to ring the tower alarm bells.
We pinpointed the looming problem of Illegal Immigration in 2000. We were denigrated, despised, vilified, arrested, accused of nefarious crimes by a media bent on destroying us. This lynching carries on with unabated malice, but we stood our ground and prevailed. And today the mainstream parties echo our words of years ago, adopt our policies albeit in softer, more nebulous form.
When I first heard the news of Norman Lowell’s guilty verdict, together with a prison term of two years, suspended for four years, I was shocked and totally speechless. How can this be? Malta has freedom of speech guaranteed by its constitution, the accusation is simply a scare tactic. We appear to be living in those times again. We seem to be reliving the 1960’s.
Norman Lowell was charged on several counts of ‘inciting racial hatred’, and also with a charge that wouldn’t be out of place in the Soviet Union ,or any tin pot dictatorship for that matter, of ‘insulting the president’. Norman’s comment that President Fenech Adami was ‘a good gardener' but a lousy president’ seems to have insulted a man who takes it upon himself to insult the people given the opportunity. This is an ‘honourable’ president who has pardoned drug traffickers whilst in office.
Now back to the more serious issue of freedom of expression. This should in all modern societies that don’t stone women to death for blasphemy be sacred. Indeed, Malta’s founding fathers placed a provision in our constitution that guarantees that we be allowed to express our opinions in a free manner. I quote the said article below, in Maltese first, and then in English.
Kapitlu IV - klawsola 40 tal-kostituzzjoni ta' Malta: Protezzjoni ta’ libertà ta’ espressjoni.
"Hlief bil-kunsens tieghu stess jew bhala dixxiplina tal-genituri, hadd ma ghandu jigi mfixkel fit-tgawdija tal-libertà tieghu ta’ espressjoni, maghduda libertà li jkollu fehmiet minghajr indhil, libertà li jircievi idejiet u taghrif minghajr indhil, libertà li jikkomunika idejiet u taghrif minghajr indhil (kemm jekk il-komunikazzjoni tkun lill-pubbliku in generali jew lil xi persuna jew klassi ta’ persuni) u libertà minn indhil dwar il-korrispondenza tieghu."
41. (1) Except with his own consent or by way of parental discipline, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions without interference, freedom to receive ideas and information without interference, freedom to communicate ideas and information without interference (whether the communication be to the public generally or to any person or class of persons) and freedom from interference with his correspondence.
In view of the above, how on earth can Norman Lowell or anyone in Malta for that matter be censored? Sure, there are all those of the opinion that ‘inciting hatred is different’ but what about all those opinion writers in the newspapers? Doesn’t Daphne Caruana Galizia of Independent fame spew hatred in almost every article she writes? Doesn’t Andrew Borg Cardona of the Times do likewise? Do they have the right to express their thoughts as they please? If they say something libelous, then the offended person knows to pursue them through legal channels. What about our MLP and PN politicians? One of the MLP gang said PN voters had faulty DNA. Isn’t that hatred? A chap from the other camp said that Labourites are like animals - you cut off their tails and they remain the same.
With this judgment, if Norman utters a word against the colonisation of Malta by Africans, then he faces 2 years in Prison. He also cannot stand for political office in these coming 4 years, including MEP elections. The people do not have a choice but to accept the looming African threat.
With the precedent that this judgment sets, talking about the bad that immigrants do in Malta could be twisted as ‘inciting racial hatred’. Writing in the following thread could land you in court: http://www.vivamalta.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2283
Can we now longer talk about Nigerians gang raping Maltese girls? Can we no longer talk about them intentionally infecting minors with HIV? Can we no longer talk of Libyan drug dealers? Considering how long these illegal immigrants have been in Malta,the list of crimes perpetrated by these illegal aliens is considerable.
Have we, as a nation, become insane?
Let us cut to the chase. This has been little more than a political trial that Joseph Stalin himself would have been proud of. Malta, along with China, now censors the internet. We now have ‘ thought crimes‘ . We now have ‘ thought police‘. This is a Government run by a nephew of an archbishop who, in the sixties, condemned Maltese to eternal damnation and hellfire for reading a newspaper. His nephew,a fervent Catholic, now throws patriots in prison for thinking, writing, expressing their concern on immigration. This is a return to the inquisition. A return to barbarism, to the Dark Ages.
Freedom of speech is not free, it bears a heavy price for which Maltese have paid many times over. We intend on upholding that tradition.
This is a BBC documentary forming part of its 'White Season'. It portrays an account of British Patriot Enoch Powell and his famous 'Rivers of Blood' speech.
I am sure that any of you who have visited the UK of late will agree that Enoch's words were indeed prophetic. The video also highlights the treachery of mainstream politicians. No referendum on immigration was ever held in Britain.
