Though full of good intentions, an Equality Bill being proposed by the government goes a step too far as its vague and generic provisions might result in negative repercussions to society, Independent MP Godfrey Farrugia has warned.

“The Bill has an element of presumptuousness as it goes beyond the provisions of EU directives, as it will apply to all spheres of life. Parliament should tread carefully on the matter, and there is room for fine tuning,” he said.

Dr Farrugia made these remarks in Parliament on Tuesday during the second reading of the Equality Bill, which has been in the pipeline since 2015.

The Equality Bill seeks to bring together all anti-discrimination legislation and enshrine equality as a fundamental human right. It also proposes creating an Equality Commission to replace the current National Commission for the Promotion of Equality. 

The right to be treated equally does not equate to a right to be treated identically- Godfrey Farrugia

Farrugia takes issue with definitions

In his analysis, he expressed concern that certain definitions within the Bill were too open-ended.

“The right to be treated equally does not equate to a right to be treated identically,” he said.  

He said the Bill's definition of a “natural person” was rather ambiguous, as it was the same one adopted by the United Nations without including social health aspects.

Independent MP Godfrey Farrugia.

The definition of the term 'victim' was “unfair”, Dr Farrugia said, as certain exceptions recognised by the World Health Organisation - such as martyr complex syndrome - were not being included.

From a purely legal perspective, Dr Farrugia criticised a particular provision which he said would make this law at par if not superior to the Constitution.

“What is the intention behind this move?” he questioned.

Though this Bill had been tabled following a lengthy consultation, it should not be rushed through as it could take the country into “uncharted territory” and ultimately have negative repercussions on society in general, Dr Farrugia warned.

“This Bill is venturing far beyond, into an area that is bound to effect adversely people’s life choices and that of society as a whole. It accounts for all spheres of life which suggests that the principles of equality and non-discrimination are applicable to all legislation regulating all areas of human social activity. In contrast EU anti-discrimination directives are limited to certain specific areas only,” he remarked.

Dr Farrugia warned that failing make certain changes at this stage, could result in the Bill having to be amended after a few months of being enacted, as was the case of the Sexual Orientation Bill.

Bill may give rise to new forms of discrimination

Concerns were also raised by Nationalist MP Edwin Vassallo on the grounds that this Bill would address some forms of discrimination but give rise to new ones.

“Government’s meaning of equality is uniformity. I believe equality should be respect for diversity,” he said.

“I can legally state that stone is the same as marble, but nature is what it is,” he said.

The PN MP also criticised the Bill saying it was narrowing to the limit the distinction between hate speech and the freedom of expression.

“Are we saying that anybody expressing himself against same-sex or heterosexual marriages could be liable to prosecution?” he questioned.

Taking the fight against discrimination to a new level

Labour MP Rosianne Cutajar said this Bill would step up the fight against discrimination to a higher level particularly at the work place and in terms of sexual orientation, political beliefs, ethnic origin, nationality, social background and marital status.

In her address she also referred to controversial remarks made by Fr David Muscat, whom she accused of sowing dangerous seeds on the State broadcaster where he was recently one of the guests on Friday night TV show Xarabank.

“He is a dangerous persons riding on the wave of a xenophobic feelings and fomenting racism,” she said.

“Such comments do not qualify under the right of freedom of expression. Hate speech is a crime,” she added.