Last March, with the election around the corner, then Equality Minister Owen Bonnici would make his way to Castille; it is not ‘entirely clear’ which of the two Abela prime ministers summoned him.

By the end of that meeting, the Equality Bill was dead in the water. After months of strenuous propaganda and underhanded lobbying from conservative quarters, the proposed law – written by four different Labour ministers (Helena Dalli, Edward Zammit Lewis, Rosianne Cutajar and lastly Bonnici) – would be left to die as parliament dissolved.

What the bill sought to introduce was a series of safeguards against discrimination of any form, ensuring that everyone has equal access to employment, education and services. Besides strong deterrents, it also sought to protect the private lives of individuals who could be discriminated against on a number of grounds.

Not only would it be Labour’s biggest achievement in civil liberties but it would have given some credibility to the ‘progressive’ tag the party boasted of under Joseph Muscat, before the Abelas did away with it completely.

The far-reaching scope of the new law would raise the temperatures under many a white collar. It would rekindle the hatred for workers’ rights, equality and tolerance among the old brethren of the Ancien Régime.

The broad alliance opposing the Equality Bill is truly formidable, bringing together the Nationalist Party, the Curia and Church schools, the mysteriously financed anti-choice lobby, the employers’ cabal, the alpha males of Malta’s right-wing  and even religious sects only occasionally disowned by the archdiocese.

There was rampant misinformation and scaremongering in not-so-scattered column inches, while the Church Schools Association would provide the stiffest opposition. Hardly surprising: many a headmaster would have been prohibited from refusing potential applicants because of personal lifestyles, religious and political views, sexual orientation, consumption habits even.

But shortly after someone at the OPM gave them their silent win, an episode of sheer abuse of power by an employer-in-cloth would burst loudly in their faces.

Mario Mallia, the well-liked headmaster of St Albert the Great College, was unceremoniously shown the door by the Dominican Order for his work on a number of projects aimed at promoting inclusion in his school.

Following the outcry, rector Aaron Zahra resorted to his lawyers with letters to Mallia’s colleagues and to the media.

Then came more sabre-rattling where he even hinted at police intervention to silence dissenters, while select online scribes attacked the headmaster’s integrity, deemed crucifiable because of his opinions.

Zahra may fancy himself as a new-breed old-schooler but even deranged prison directors in Santo Domingo think of themselves as reformers. His histrionics have not only demotivated his staff but also fed on his privilege to disregard the existing equality law, one which does not foresee any sanctions against employers guilty of discrimination and harassment.

Why does Labour give up so quickly on one of its best reforms?- Wayne Flask

The rector’s ball game is a sickening piece of cocksure brinkmanship: he can hold his workers hostage, defy employment laws, stick two very public fingers to the archbishop (who has no control over the order) and exploit the state of play between Church and state, which will not intervene in this matter.

For all the good intentions of the 11th hour, Archbishop Charles Scicluna’s mediation would fail. Having fought against the rights of people like Mallia, provided for by this very bill, the prelate turned up late and short of credibility.

There is nothing too different between the Mallia saga and hundreds of other dubious dismissals in other employment sectors, which inevitably end up under the radar. Which is why the proposed law also met the wrath of the employers, traditionally hostile to Labour even though some of its members can’t complain about the numbers in their books.

The MEA specialises in issuing absurd demands (conditions?) to the government, such as the curtailment of sick leave and the introduction of mandatory urine tests to “snuff out” cannabis users; witch hunters in suits.

The new law – if properly enacted and enforced – would put up a bigger fight to the exploitation of thousands of workers in construction and tourism, the disparity in salaries between workers of different nationalities or between men and women; the law would be stronger in punishing those who discriminate against women seeking work because of the ‘risk’ of pregnancy; it would curb unfair sackings, such as Mallia’s.

In fact, one of the biggest back-room battles on the new bill revolved around the setting up of a new judicial remedy which would speedily compensate the victims of discrimination. Former PN minister Tonio Borg, of ubiquitous Religio et Patria stead, was sent to lead the line.

There’s a sinister irony in the image of Borg still lobbying in the corridors of power, like a high-waisted fiend who’d escaped from the set of Ghostbusters. The man who had no qualms about deporting two planeloads of refugees to Eritrea (they were tortured and some killed) not only pontificates about the value of life, or pens sweeping inanities about the realities faced by others, but gets to decide about civil liberties under PL rule.

Why does Labour give up so quickly on one of its best reforms? What’s the point of winning by a landslide if old foes like Borg, the archbishop and the MEA are the ones taking decisions on our liberties?

Arguments for equality were laughably described as “cultural Marxism”; in one instance, granting equal rights to all was equated to imposing “homogeneity”. This is a paranoid go-to line for those who want to maintain their own status quo: equality is a threat to profits and the powers of so many employers over thousands of workers.

Labour doesn’t need Borg to suppress civil liberties. They fall under Byron Camilleri, the minister responsible for law enforcement, who also stuck by Alex Dalli despite the body count in Corradino.

All this begs the question as to who, in what was once the workers’ party, will stand up for the rights and lives of others, against a fraternity intent on stamping out equality and the liberties everyone enjoys with it.