Interviews
» Cover Stories » MINORITY REPORT – NEIL FALZONMINORITY REPORT – NEIL FALZON
The human rights lawyer and former head of UNHCR Malta on his new NGO aditus, minority group rights – and the real questions we should be asking ourselves. Text by Sandra Aquilina
“Most people working in the field of human rights – we suffer from the delusion that we can save the world.” Neil Falzon flashes a bashful smile – perhaps in reaction to my expression.
“It’s true,” he says. “We think that if we stop, many people will suffer. Of course on the one hand you have to feel that what you do is incredibly important – otherwise how can you bring energy to your work? And in my case,” he smiles again, “how would I shrug off criticism that I am a do-gooder, African-lover, traitor of the Maltese nation?”
As the former head of the Malta branches of the UNHCR and Amnesty International, Neil is used to such accusations. Neither do they seem to dampen his outspokenness. At a recent conference organized by the European Parliament in Rhodes, he was vociferous in his criticism of Frontex, the European Union agency for external border security, and reminded everyone present that asylum, ultimately, is about offering protection.
This, according to Neil, is what most people are in danger of forgetting. The overloaded boats that arrive in Malta are made up of mixed groups, he says. Some are fleeing for economic reasons; others because they might be persecuted in their countries while others still are fleeing a situation of war or civil unrest. Their individual stories need to be listened to.
“Some cases are a matter of life and death,” he says. “Fleeing is the most natural response.” When they arrive in Malta, they file an asylum application with government and relate their stories to the NGOs, who provide legal assistance and refer cases to specialists. “A few have been tortured, beaten, mutilated – and find it difficult to relate their experiences in an asylum interview.”
He relates horrific stories of women who have been serially raped or teenagers who saw family members being tortured. But surely these do not represent the majority of the cases in Malta?
“Admittedly they are not a very large percentage. But government figures show that between 60-70 per cent of the applications filed in Malta are by people who cannot return to their country of origin.”
So heavy are some of the stories that they contributed to Neil’s decision to leave the UNHCR after four years. “Eventually the stories – they take an emotional toll. People come to you with their problems – most of the time your hands are tied.”
In person Neil comes across as likeable, intelligent, articulate. He graduated as a lawyer in 2001 and, through his involvement in the student organisation ELSA, first got involved in human rights.
Eventually he ran for President of Amnesty International in Malta. “There I was exposed to the much bigger picture.” Then he attended a course in Budapest – and came back transformed. Within a few days he had quit his job in corporate law and applied for a Masters degree in human rights and democratization.
A chance delay in his papers for a one-year internship in New Delhi allowed him an opportunity to apply as liaisons officer with the UNHCR. “At the time Malta was already seeing the boats arriving and the general sentiment was negative.” When he was accepted, he unpacked his suitcases and decided to work in Malta, eventually becoming head of the Malta branch, where he was to spend four years until his resignation in 2009.
Despite the touching stories of human suffering, public support for migrants remains low. “I can understand people’s fears. The situation has taken Malta by surprise. And yes, probably the EU can do more.
But these people are here to stay, whether we like it or not. I just don’t think it makes sense to deal with a situation by being angry.”
The question is not so much – whether the EU can do more. “But perhaps what we should be asking ourselves is – what should we be doing?” And, according to Neil, the answer is: much more. “Little things do make a difference.” For instance, employers can choose not to discriminate; landlords can choose not to exclude tenants simply because they are refugees.
And all of us can choose to file a police report whenever we hear or witness cases of abuse of refugees. “You don’t need to be involved full-time with an NGO to make a difference.”
Still, that is not to say that public sentiment has not changed in recent years. When Neil joined UNHCR, the Far Right was beginning to rise and houses of people working in the field of immigration were being burnt. Tensions ran high and officers were on high alert.
Thankfully all this seems to have been consigned to the past – although this might also be due to the lull in arrivals that Malta has experienced in recent months, says Neil a tad cynically. Still, he admits that people generally seem to be more aware of the issues.
Partly this is due to the NGOs, who work hard to bring the stories to people’s attention. Still, a lacuna remains. “There aren’t many strong voices dealing with policy issues at advocacy level,” says Neil.
Government works well with those NGOs which fill in its gaps in service provision – but much less with those which seek to challenge its policies and laws. “For instance, in the case of detention centres, government needs to hear an opposing view, as well as feeding off the expertise of the NGOs.”
That is why he has recently created aditus, an NGO which aims to fill in the void of advocacy. “We try to support NGOs already working in the field by helping them at advocacy level.” The problem, he says, is that in Malta, human rights still depend largely on concessions dictated by goodwill or what Neil terms the “imsieken” mentality. From a human rights perspective, the problem with this approach is that rights tend to be viewed as “concessions”.
Take the fields of disability, LGBT rights or migration, he argues. Accessibility for disabled people is a human right, not a concession. So also is the fundamental right to a civil marriage. And so, too, is the right to be free. Yet society persists in viewing these rights as concessions, if at all. “Popular arguments don’t fall within the human rights discourse.”
The “imsieken” approach is symptomatic of the way the church approaches human rights, says Neil. “This approach is based on a person being in need not the individual as a bearer of rights. In that sense it is disempowering.” The real problem arises when the state endorses and emulates the church’s approach. “This is not the church’s fault. It is the state’s fault for giving it that much power.”
How does he propose to change such deep-rooted prejudices? Neil appears optimistic. “Well, as in the case of immigrants, attitudes have slowly changed.” What is really needed is strong dialogue with policymakers. But are NGOs given access? He shakes his head. “No.”
He reels off the problems. “On refugee issues, for instance, we do not have a forum where we can meet and dialogue with government. We do not have a national human rights institution – national bodies which would look at the human rights situation across the board and whose role it would be to monitor developments in the field.” Such a body would be government set up but independent and would enjoy the same privileged status as the Ombudsman.
In the lack of such structures, NGOs are left trying to set up meetings with the ministers responsible. But these are often just co
smetic, so that government will then claim to have created dialogue with NGOs.
Finally, the means of last resort is court action. Wouldn’t that be limited to specific cases? “Well, case after case, government would be forced to revise the law.” Unfortunately this often relies on the willingness of individuals to fight private battles – as in the case of Joanne Cassar, a transgender who is fighting a battle for the right to marry a man.
Such cases are hardly ever mainstream – but Neil argues that even one or two cases are worth talking about. NGOs need to join forces to do more cross-sectional work, he urges, looking at people who fall under more than one minority group, therefore suffering multiple discrimination. “Who advocates for disabled refugee issues, for instance? Or LGBT children?”
Such groups are invisible, absent from policy. “If the government is not aware of you then you don’t exist for policy.” NGOs have a direct role to bring these people to government’s attention. “And perhaps because we don’t have an eye for them, we tend to miss them.”
Eventually, he says, the original idea and long-term vision of aditus is to create an umbrella organisation that looks at human rights across the board. Isn’t that hugely ambitious? Neil smiles. “Oh yes. It is.” Just a little less than saving the world, I suppose.
Neil Falzon and Sandra Aquilina formed part of a group of MEPs, NGO representatives and journalists who attended the second leg of the 2011 European Parliament Regional Seminar on Migration and Asylum in Rhodes last September. The seminar was organised by the Athens Office of the European Parliament. The first session of the regional seminar was held in Malta at the beginning of July.
Photography by Alan Carville
Related Articles :
Posted by Sandra Aquilina on October 2, 2011. Filed under Cover Stories.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can leave a response or trackback to this entryYOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE?
Bottom Right Banner
