Sale of citizenship: the view of human rights organisation, the Aditus Foundation
This afternoon, Neil Falzon, director of the Aditus Foundation, a human rights organisation working with asylum seekers and refugees in Malta, sent the following email to journalists.
Dear colleagues,
We have intentionally refrained from issuing a public statement on the recently adopted amendments to Malta’s citizenship laws, primarily in view of the highly politicised tone of the relevant discussions.
Yet following several requests from international media agencies to provide a human rights perspective on these amendments, and because of the very serious nature and implications of specific statements made by the Government and the Opposition we feel that a human rights angle needs to be injected into the broader discussion.
As a human rights NG), Aditus Foundation will not assess the desirability or otherwise of the citizenship scheme, as this is not our remit. However, we are concerned that the amendments reinforce the negative message Malta has insisted on sending to migrant and refugee communities living in Malta.
The new scheme further emphasizes the ‘unworthiness’ of migrants and refugees who, for years, have been contributing to Maltese society in several ways by paying taxes and social security contributions, being employed in Maltese companies, establishing their own business ventures, engaging in social activities with Maltese people and generally doing their utmost to integrate into what is, ultimately, an extremely challenging environment for them to integrate in.
By exclusively emphasising financial contributions of migrants, the Government directly informs all these migrants and refugees that Malta is not and will probably never be a place they can call home.
We are also concerned at the lack of procedural transparency in the application and review process, and it consequential potential lack of procedural guarantees. Malta’s citizenship legislation is already based on blatant arbitrariness, with full discretion in the hands of the Minister for Home Affairs and National Security and no effective remedies available to migrants whose citizenship applications are rejected. We feel that placing this new procedure in the hands of a private company merely further emphasizes this absence of transparency and accountability.
Furthermore, in view of the fact that Malta has consistently refused to sign and ratify the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, we are concerned at statements relating to the withdrawal of legitimately granted citizenship as such actions, especially where politically-motivated and outside any objective legal regime, could lead to individuals and families being stateless, lacking the protection of any state.
Best regards,
Neil
8 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
The IIP Act was passed into law by the Muscat government without a mandate from the electorate and against overwhelming public opinion. The PN in Opposition has made it amply clear that it will withdraw the IIP Act when it is returned to government.
As promoters of the sale IIP Henley & Partners are obliged to communicate a full and true picture to potential ‘investors’ in IIP including the level of risk attached to that investment, namely, that their investment in the purchase of Maltese citizenship stands to expire once the Muscat and the Partit Laburista are voted
Individuals investing in IIP by buying up a Maltese passport thus will be doing so at their own risk and it is incumbent upon them to hedge against the eventual loss of Maltese citizenship.
“We have intentionally refrained from issuing a public statement on the recently adopted amendments to Malta’s citizenship laws, primarily in view of the highly politicised tone of the relevant discussions.”
Oh, the double standards. So Aditus think it’s perfectly fine to have a big press event with labour in the run-up to the election wearing their LGBT hat, but won’t comment about a human rights issue because of politicisation wearing their refugee rights hat. What a joke.
On a related note, Dr Falzon drafted the civil unions bill, which is another example of labour putting image before substance. The law is ridiculously drafted. Clearly, Dr Falzon is not a family lawyer, did not bother to read the UK Civil Partnerships Act, is unaware of the real issues, and is acting like an utter charlatan. (And I thought that Aditus had said they wouldn’t participate in the LGBT forum or whatever it’s called after the pushback flight fiasco).
So excuse me if I don’t take this lot seriously.
Oh, and that final paragraph about the withdrawal of citizenship and statelessness – are you having a laugh?
So Aditus are concerned about the fundamental rights of people who pay 650k for EU citizenship now. Or do they just want to dig the knife in on the PN?
Ridiculous.
Maybe you’re confused about the role of NGOs in society. They are not there to fly any political flag – therefore if both PLPN are bandying about idiotic rhetoric, then maybe it’s a good thing to view things from the outside and say things as they are.
As the term implies ‘fundamental rights’ are for everyone and not just for the people you like.
@ MJ
Read Aditus’s statement carefully. The only place where they make a judgement about motivation is in the final paragraph. The PN is ‘politically motivated’ in its suggestion that citizenship should be withdrawn.
Elsewhere Aditus state that they would have stayed out of the issue because of political overtones. Some human rights NGO!
Have we seen a statement from Aditus about CHOGM? No, there was none. Tamil fundamental rights are less important than posturing about gay rights. Confused?
The question about statelessness is a red herring. Aditus could equally have said that they are concerned that any withdrawal of citizenship should not render persons stateless. Otherwise, withdrawal of citizenship from the super-rich (and probably corrupt, possibly murderous, etc) is not an issue that should concern Aditus.
But they just wanted to attack the PN for not signing relevant conventions. Regardless, those conventions are part of the general principles of EU law insodar as EU citizenship is concerned, and Malta cannot withdraw citizenship and make people stateless.
MJ I am not confused at all and no amount of confusing the issues is about to confuse me.
Running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. The last paragraph seems to say it all.
http://www.chogm2013.lk/files/2613/8452/5871/The_Commonwealth_Heads_of_Government_Meeting_CHOGM_2013_Opening_Ceremony_slider02.jpg
Sale of Maltese citizenship – how the world sees it
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Sale-of-Maltese-citizenship-how-the-world-sees-it/176956612500193?ref=ts&fref=ts