Doctors for Choice attacked the President of Malta for meeting representatives of the group ‘Abortion in Malta? Not in My Name’. They argue that the president ought not to have given an audience to people who allegedly want to roll back civil rights. The Malta Gay Rights Movement (MGRM) echoed these sentiments and complained that they had never been invited to an event organised by the President of Malta.
Article 48(1) of the Constitution of Malta holds that the president shall be appointed through a resolution supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the members of the House of Representatives. This supermajority teaches us that the presidency should transcend partisan politics and be an instrument of unity in the contentious political environment and in society at large.
President George Vella is a medical doctor who was previously intimately involved in Maltese politics. Throughout his life, he espoused pro-life views and courageously continues to proclaim such views. The outrage expressed seems to imply that, upon appointment, a president should set aside his personal convictions when carrying out his official duties.
This is wrong. No leader, whether elected or appointed, should be an empty vessel, devoid of views or opinions. It is the person’s views and convictions which sustain the desire to enter political life. Without such convictions, what reason could there be for one to enter political life?
At this juncture, one may argue that the politician may have personal convictions but must set those aside when acting on behalf of the entire population. However, that is also mistaken. If a leader does not act based on what he is convinced is right and proper, then on what basis should he act? Requiring a leader to leave his convictions behind when acting in an official capacity would result in having empty automatons for leaders, not human beings.
The president meets those who should be met by him due to protocol and those who request an audience with him. Meeting someone does not imply automatic endorsement of that person’s views or aims. Essentially, Doctors for Choice and MGRM argue that those with whom they disagree should be de-platformed. This is the act of denying someone the opportunity to speak.
Institutions in the United Kingdom, in the United States and elsewhere are replete with instances of people who were invited to speak on some occasion but whose invitation was rescinded because their views on certain topics were deemed outdated, hateful or otherwise objectionable by certain pressure groups. Sometimes, the mere fact that the speaker was controversial or had controversial views proved enough for the institution’s leadership to get scared of unrest.
No leader, whether elected or appointed, should be an empty vessel, devoid of views or opinions- Ramon Bonett Sladden
On occasion, mobs masquerading as valiant defenders of human rights chased speakers off university campuses, sometimes with violence or threats of violence. Universities and other institutions should be fora for vigorous debate, not censorship.
Would the same outrage have been expressed by Doctors for Choice had the president been one of them? I think not. Rather, they would have lauded him as open-minded and inclusive. Prior to issuing their statement, they should have remembered that, in the past, their representatives were also received by the president though he vehemently disagrees with their position. Just as the president was right to meet them, he is also right to meet those who hold opposing views.
This is a case of two weights and two measures. It is evident that Doctors for Choice do not seek debate in good faith. They seek to delegitimise and de-platform the pro-life position and those who hold it. This is tantamount to trying to scare the Office of the President into declining to meet pro-life individuals and organisations by labelling those individuals and organisations homophobic or anti-human rights.
Using the same logic, one could argue that the president should not have met Doctors for Choice as, if one were to be strict in interpretation, meeting them could be construed as the president endorsing the carrying out of an act which is presently illegal.
Neither argument holds water. The president was correct to meet Doctors for Choice and was equally correct to meet pro-life people and organisations.
However, I understand the concerns raised by Doctors for Choice and MGRM in the sense that, on social media, there are indeed pro-life individuals who, although well-intentioned, issue vulgar insults and objectionable rhetoric when confronted with some news item detailing how or why some individual resorted to abortion or when some foreign or local politician supports abortion.
This is clearly not the proper way forward. While individuals and groups may disagree in principle, there must always be space for dialogue. Dialogue does not require either side to compromise its position.
It must be understood that, in any group, those within the group who use vulgar insults and ill-advised rhetoric are not representative of the entire group. It is for these reasons that the president acted correctly in meeting representatives of ‘Abortion in Malta? Not in My Name’.
Ramon Bonett Sladden, lawyer