The equality bill, currently before parliament. seeks to bring together all anti-discrimination legislation and enshrines equality as a fundamental human right.

However, it has been greeted with objections from church schools and associations of medical professionals, among others.

Under the draft law, anyone who feels discriminated against, on several grounds ranging from age to genetic features or gender identity, may request a court to award them compensation of up to €10,000.

They can also take their case before the Human Rights and Equality Commission and ask for an investigation.

The person or organisation accused will have to prove there was no breach of the principle of equal treatment, or that any differential treatment was justified by law.

So what are the main issues generating controversy?

A law above all others

This is the biggest bone of contention.

The bill states that whenever there is a conflict between it and any other law, the equality law will prevail.

The exceptions are the constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. The new law, however, will trump others like the Criminal Code, regulations on specific professions and the Embryo Protection Act, to name a few.

This has set off alarm bells among medical professionals who fear it could open the back door to practices that are currently illegal.

Here’s one example: If a gay couple want to have their own child, they may conjure up the right of equality and non-discrimination and seek maternal surrogacy, even though this is prohibited by the Embryo Protection Act.

Similarly, a woman seeking to abort a child might argue that she is being discriminated against in Malta (where abortion is illegal) as she does not have the means to get the procedure done abroad.

Acting against my morals

Medical professionals, ranging from doctors and pharmacists to gynaecologists and psychiatrists, are asking for a clause that allows conscientious objection.

The new law will trump others like the Criminal Code and the Embryo Protection Act, to name a few

This already exists in regulations on their professions but would be overridden by the Equality Law.

This clause would protect them from having to do something that goes against their ethical and moral beliefs, such as terminating a pregnancy or ending a life.

Another example is the contraceptive pill. Some pharmacies can opt not to stock this or any other medicine because of their moral beliefs. But under the new law this may be deemed discriminatory. A call is also being made for a clear definition of conscientious objection to ensure it is not abused. So, for example, a waiter refusing to serve a gay couple would not be protected under the clause.

Living up to my faith

According to the proposed law, it is illegal to discriminate against people for “protected characteristics”. These characteristics include belief, religion, ethnic origin, disability, family responsibilities and pregnancy, among others.

So would protecting these people against discrimination wipe out the very freedom to manifest contrary religious beliefs?

A section in the bill deals with exceptions to what constitutes discrimination but critics have argued it is vague and open to interpretation – which could translate into legal battles.

The exception clause states it would not be discriminatory to favour someone on grounds of religion in relation to an institution or community whose ethos is based on that religion “so long as that treatment constitutes a genuine and determining requirement for the purpose of a legitimate aim”.

The bishops of Malta, church schools and parents’ associations are calling for greater clarity. They want a clear statement in the law saying it does not impinge on religious freedom.

Protecting what I stand for

The argument goes that an organisation like a school that observes a particular ethos – be it religious or otherwise – should not have to face discrimination charges.

Schools want assurance that they can appoint heads or senior educators who would protect and promote their ethos and values. On the other hand, it would be alright if the mathematics teacher were an atheist.

Likewise, a sports school should be able to employ teachers who are physically fit and a political party should not have to face a court battle for only employing people who toe the party line.