A campaign is being conducted by the liberal lobby ensconced in Edward Zammit Lewis’s ministry to depict all those who criticise the equality bills as bigots, religious zealots and callous crusaders against equality.
Those of us – and there are many – who are against certain provisions of the equality bills are in favour of equality. Christian teaching affirms the dignity of every human being created in the image of God; discrimination runs counter to such belief.
However, the bills go much further than that; they expose religious symbols to action on the part of those who consider them offensive but, above all, as the Catholic Church in Malta stated in its position paper, the bills pose a serious danger to the freedom of Church schools to teach all subjects from a Catholic perspective, which is, after all, their raison d’être.
Equality is one thing. Legislating so that we all think in a regimented way is another. By the way, the Church’s position paper was endorsed by such eminent jurists as the prime human rights expert in Malta, Giovanni Bonello, and the former dean of the Faculty of Laws, Kevin Aquilina, presumably religious bigots and zealots, according to the state-financed ‘liberal’ lobby!
Myths are also flying around. One of them was floated in a state TV programme by one of the lawyers at the justice ministry.
She stated that the conscientious objection clause in the Embryo Protection Act had “expired”. Nothing is further from the truth. The clause is still there and applies even to employees engaged in the health sector after the coming into force of that act in 2012.
If these are the arguments to bring forward against the adoption of a conscientious objection clause in the equality bills, then one begins to understand why such clause is being vehemently and strongly objected to by the government and its pundits.
Voltaire once said: “I may not agree with what you have to say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” This is being completely ignored in public debate in Malta.
A conscientious objection clause needs to be inserted in the bills- Tonio Borg
When a contributor to this paper expressed the view that gay relationships are in breach of natural law, a view with which one may agree or differ, he was pilloried to the point of having a legal counsel to government stating that there was no need for the equality bills to cover such infamy, the current laws on ‘hate crime’ are sufficient.
This thought-provoking comment opens our eyes to the possibilities of persons and institutions being dragged, in Robespierre style, before tribunals composed of government minions to be fined for alleged breaches of the equality bills on the basis of vague definitions of equal treatment.
As the bills stand today, the supremacy clause which was hotly contested in the last parliamentary committee sitting, by practically every NGO, will usher in practices and measures which, though unlawful today, will be made regular by the supremacy clause.
Will the supremacy clause, for instance, prevail over the conscientious objection clause found in the Embryo Protection Act, which allows medical practitioners to object to participating in any medical measure that runs counter to their genuine beliefs?
The supremacy clause has to go. It is there only to stealthily allow the introduction of practices today considered illegal. The power of lay tribunals to impose hefty administrative penalties should similarly be removed.
Church schools should not be interfered with in the teaching of all subjects – not just religion – from a Catholic perspective. And a conscientious objection clause needs to be inserted in the bills.
Tonio Borg is a former European Commissioner.