The object of entrenchment

Paul Vincenti's reply (September 5) to my earlier article contains two flagrant distortions of my argument.

"Based on personal understanding of what is morally right and wrong, Kenneth Wain (Good Science, Bad Moral And Entrenchment - August 18) has called the protection of the unborn child by our Constitution an anti-democratic move." Nowhere did I pronounce any "personal understanding" of any sort. To the contrary I insisted that the issue of entrenchment is not about one's morality, mine or anyone else's, but about democratic practices.

Secondly, I am not a social Darwinist as he represented me to be, to the contrary. I simply mentioned social Darwinism to support my argument against the view that good morals are based on good science (whatever that may be).

Distorting another's point of view may be convenient but it is also dishonest and unacceptable in public debate.

Entrenchment, he says, is not about discussing "the choice to grow potatoes in one's front garden" but about defending the life of the defenceless. No it isn't. The "life of the defenceless" is already defended by our anti-abortion laws, and more, though that will come later.

The object of the entrenchment is political and its political purpose has been flagrantly expressed by its defenders, including the Deputy Prime Minister. The object they say is to block future changes to the abortion laws as they now stand by a "mere" democratic majority. This is as political as a motive can get and as anti-democratic.

When Mr Vincenti says that democracy is not "the ultimate law" merely the best system that we have, I am with him. But he doesn't really believe it is the best system we have, for it is only a "man-made god". Beyond it lies the "ultimate law is love", in the interest of which, by implication, democracy can be suspended or put aside.

We are here already swimming in dangerous political waters. So, what is this "law of love" he refers to? It is an "impossible concept to grasp," he says, "without a formed and informed conscience". His kind of conscience, I assume - not mine, for instance, which he has decided, solely on the grounds that I disagree with him, is only personal.

So here we have it, in Mr Vincenti's view, it seems, democracy must be overseen by moral policemen like himself, who allocate to themselves a privileged access to the moral truth based on a correctly "formed and informed" conscience. I'm puzzled why he takes offence at comparison with the Taliban and to the charge of fundamentalism. If his view is as widely shared as he says then our society is in deep trouble.

He continues to make two astonishing statements. "Future generations," he says, "may still overturn the entrenchment if they so wish; naturally this would take a majority to do and this would be democracy at its best." To be honest this statement is more than astonishing, it is flabbergasting and raises serious doubts whether he really knows what he is talking about.

This is because an entrenched provision (he must know this!) requires a two thirds majority for any change to be made to it and that is certainly not "democracy at its best" or in any form. Democratic majorities are not two third but simple majorities.

Entrenchment is intended precisely to prevent democracy from working "at its best", as he puts it, which must be according to its fundamental principles.

For democracy to work at its best, at least as we understand it in the Western world, the majority will must prevail over the minority and certain basic freedoms guaranteed for everyone (those of speech and conscience, assembly and personal life style) precisely to prevent the will of the majority from becoming the dictatorship of the majority.

His other astonishing statement: "Prof. Wain may rest assured," he says, "that the matter of euthanasia comes well within our sphere of interest and that contrary to his understanding and very much unlike the protection of the unborn child, the protection of human life is already written into the Maltese Constitution in article 23 and so the matter of euthanasia is a non-issue."

To begin with I am not in the least assured by his statement. But more to the point I doubt that he seriously considered this statement before he made it. For its implication is obvious - going by his argument the unborn child is not a human being, for if the unborn child is human, then its protection is already written into the Constitution, and is, like euthanasia, "a non-issue". So what are he and his movement and those who support it campaigning for?