Public consultation about trees - timesofmalta.com

Public consultation about trees - timesofmalta.com

Read More

Does pro-life depend on whose life?

Oh dear, he’s back with his bid for the limelight; I refer to the Bishop of Gozo Mario Grech. It has been a while since he regaled us with his wisdom. When Malta was preparing for the referendum on divorce in February 2010, he had linked divorce with abortion, telling a pro-life event that research showed that there was a link between unstable families and abortion.

He of course used “unstable” for his own agenda. There are all kinds of unstable families, so why choose divorce as the culprit. If that were the case, we would not have had any unstable families at all before divorce was introduced and we all know that’s not right. Gambling, drink, drugs and lack of respect are all contributors to unstable families.

“Where the family is united, pregnancy is likely to be accepted and celebrated, but where the family is broken, such as in the case of divorced parents, there is a higher probability that life is refused and threatened,” the Bishop had stated then. Had he thought this through at all? Or was he convinced that his followers are that dense not to realise the discrepancy in that statement?

The truth is that pregnancy is most likely to be accepted and celebrated where there is love, respect and financial and emotional stability, in or out of marriage. I had commented in my column “Fundamentalists using babaw tactics” in February 2010. The bishop knows which issues are bound to attract the most attention. He is now at it again.

In a homily dedicated to women, he spoke of “women’s pseudo rights”, particularly with regard to abortion. Labelling some women’s rights as pseudo is hardly going to endear him to the thinking female population. He was reacting to observations made by the International Court of justice (ICJ). Out of the 13 judges, who the bishop is claiming are promoting women’s pseudo rights, only three are women.

In its submission to the United Nations’ (UN) periodic review on the human rights record of all member states, the ICJ claimed that the prohibition of abortion without medical exceptions meant, “Malta was failing to ensure women’s right to life and the highest attainable standard of health were met.” This proposal repeated the concerns expressed in 2010 by the UN Committee, on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, when Malta was urged to remove the provisions criminalizing women who undergo abortion and to enact exceptions allowing abortion for medical purposes and in cases of rape or incest.

Malta’s abortion ban undermined its compliance with numerous UN conventions and covenants, said the ICJ and it is the only EU country that bans the termination of pregnancies in all circumstances, even when the woman’s life is in danger. I could understand the bishop’s reaction if abortion, or women’s rights, were being promoted willy-nilly. Please note that it is “the prohibition of abortion without medical exceptions and in cases of rape and incest” (i.e. it is the blanket ban) that is being challenged”.

Maltese politicians will not touch this subject with a barge pole and the main political parties have consistently supported the ban. The bishop actually thanked the Labour and Nationalist parties for consistently opposing abortion and for being pro-life. The word pro-life also intrigued me here, because there must be a dilemma if we are talking about whether to save a mother’s life or the baby’s life she is carrying.

Is it OK in the pro-life argument to let a mother die but not a baby? Not surprisingly, the Malta Confederation of Women’s Organisations responded, “We believe that the life of the mother is at the very least as valuable as the life of the unborn child,” said its spokesperson Kate Bonello Sullivan. Why are the women in the political parties silent on such a crucial issue concerning their own gender? At the very least they should be pointing out that pro-life should also include the life of a woman.

No one in his or her right mind would promote irresponsible abortion. So is it really necessary to use such emotive words as “Abortion is murder” and “direct killing of children in order to save the mother is never acceptable”. Even here the Bishop gives out confusing messages. He also claimed, “A seriously ill pregnant woman is ethically justified to take pills that ‘indirectly’ puts her baby’s life at risk” and “Human beings, whether aged or still a foetus, have a right to live”.

Now what on earth does he mean by indirectly putting the baby’s life at risk? And, “Any such decision was ‘ethically permitted’ if every effort was made to try and save the life of mother and child and as long as all options to protect the mother and the child are explored.” How does that tie in with, “Abortion to save a mother’s life is never acceptable” and how does that tally with “Human beings, whether aged or still a foetus, have a right to live”?

Abortion is an extremely serious issue and one of the most traumatic life decisions a woman, or a couple, can make; they do not deserve to be termed murderers at worst and criminals at best. Sometimes, it is a husband who has to take the decision, since the mother will not be in a fit state, for example on an operating table. It was refreshing to see so many men disagreeing with the bishop online, at least it proved that we can discuss the subject and it is no longer taboo, except with our politicians!

Published in the Malta Independent on Sunday 19/05/2013

Read More

Abortion linked to divorce

Mario Grech has been vying for our attention since he first took over the news pages, on his elevation as Bishop of Gozo, with a public relations exercise, never seen before, by any member of the clergy of the Catholic Church in Malta.

We had large photos of him splashed in the daily papers, particularly The Times, and one would have thought, at the time, that he had become Pope rather than Bishop of Gozo.

His statements tend to shock progressive thinkers, but are made to ensure he does not lose the limelight. However, his latest incredible statement looks like he has lost it, as happens to all those who rely too heavily on the outrageous element.

Mgr Mario Grech’s latest astounding outpouring has linked abortion to divorce. "Where the family is united, pregnancy is likely to be accepted and celebrated, but where the family is broken, such as in the case of divorced parents, there is a higher probability that life is refused and threatened," Mgr Mario Grech was reported as saying on Monday (Feb 2010).

What utter nonsense, I mean the latter part of the statement because of course pregnancy is likely to be accepted and celebrated where there is love, respect and financial and emotional stability, in or out of marriage. But why on earth would a divorced couple or those in a “broken” relationship be getting involved in sexual relations, which might lead to pregnancy?

Had the Bishop thought this through at all? Was he misquoted? Or is he convinced that his followers are that dense not to realise the discrepancy in that statement?

Besides, we do not have divorce in this country. So was this statement delivered as a ‘warning’ to politicians and the faithful in favour of divorce? Another Babaw tactic?

Hopefully, our politicians are a bit more sophisticated and will ignore the baseless statement.

Although reading the Deputy Prime minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Tonio Borg’s quote “Malta needs to fight the ‘culture of death’ prevalent in today's society” makes one wonder.

What culture of death was he referring to? Wars? Terrorism? The death penalty? People dying from starvation and disease because not enough people care?

No. Believe it or not, he was referring to abortion. And this man, ladies and gentleman, is our representative on Foreign Affairs and the deputy PM.

 “The great majority of the Maltese opposed abortion”, he said. Phew, thank God for that, we do not form part of society’s “culture of death”. Talk about perspective!

Of course very few people favour abortion. Most of the women who have it suffer emotional trauma before and well after it. Despite what some people think it is almost never a decision taken lightly. Referring to it as a symptom of today’s society culture of death is way over the top.

Why are we seeing such melodrama from the Bishop of Gozo and a number of politicians? Are they trying to impress the Pope before his forthcoming visit?

Yet another one of our ‘sophisticated’ politicians, Social Affairs Committee chairman Edwin Vassallo is proposing a “care order for unborn children”.

What is needed to avoid women having abortions is support, not the Gestapo. What is, in fact, happening is that the women who have the courage to raise a child on their own are being treated like parasites.

The government was intent on safeguarding human life starting from conception, Mr Vassallo told a pro-life manifestation at the St John's Co-Cathedral Oratory, last Sunday "We must introduce legislation to protect unborn children, not just from abortion but even from behaviour such as drug abuse," he said.

This would not require the right to life of the unborn child to be entrenched into the Constitution, he said. There you have it. Having failed to ingrain the right to life of the unborn child into the Constitution, the fundamentalists are embarking on another tack.

"The mother would be put under observation to protect the child. She could be put in an institution or housed with another family," he said.

What other family? I thought that the government’s current philosophy was to keep ‘the nuclear family’ united. Or “she should be put in an institution”. Doesn’t this just smack of when women were spirited away to mental institutions if they did not tow the line?

Maria Vella, a doctor working with pregnant women with a drug addiction, hailed this as a step in the right direction. She believes that there should be a law, which make treatment compulsory for pregnant women who are dependent on drugs.

“With the care order, we will be taking care of mothers and their children, while giving a voice to the unborn child," she was quoted.

Am I missing something here? Is this woman doctor seeking compulsory treatment for drug addiction, or agreeing with a care order on an unborn child?

Now of course it is not right that babies born to mothers addicted to drugs such as cocaine and heroin are themselves born addicted to the drug, but surely what is being suggested is too extreme.

This also raises other questions: the doctor referred to amphetamines as well, so if an expectant mother is addicted to a legal drug such as Valium, for example, or any other drug prescribed by a doctor, is the foetus similarly affected?

Is a baby also born addicted to tobacco or alcohol?

Foundation for Social Welfare Services CEO Sina Bugeja said that issuing a care order on the unborn child could not be done, but pregnant drug abusers could be issued with a "court-sanctioned treatment order to protect the mother and her child".

However, she pointed out that from Sedqa's experience the absolute majority of drug users sought help and tried to behave in a responsible manner when they realised they were pregnant.

So the Social Affairs Committee chairman was over reacting to the risk of a child being born an addict when he says he was responding to the professional concerns expressed by Sedqa.

Though serious, according to the people who should know, the risk of a child being born an addict is negligible.

Therefore it is not the real reason behind this proposed care order, but it is being used as emotional leverage.

In a letter to The Times, yesterday, Ruth Farrugia, advocate and senior lecturer at the University’s Law Faculty points to other important factors, which demonstrate the short-sightedness and rapidity the concept of a care order for unborn children was formulated.

“Care orders are at present issued in dire situations mainly because of the lack of placements available. This means a number of children who require care and protection remain in undesirable and/or inappropriate placements... It might be advisable to pay more attention to the existing care order system before extending its remit.”

So all this concern about the unborn child does not extend to the children already born.

In an article in The Independent on Friday, mainly targeted at Americans, the US Ambassador, Douglas W. Kmiec hit the nail on the head: “Divorce, abortion, and same-sex marriage are of course illegal in Malta, yet all exist here de facto,” he said.

Being a diplomat he only comments that “the leaders of the PN and PL have interesting takes on these issues”, without going into detail. However, he is more forthcoming with his opinion on the issue.

“Let me just say that in America at least, turning too many of these intimate questions over to the government is unhealthy, unwarranted, and unworkable”, he said adding “a lot depends on the homiletic strength and empathy of the Church, so what needs to be said in public law varies by context even when universal teaching is at the core.”

People might bury their heads in the sand and pretend that we are different from the rest of the world, but when it comes to human frailty, truth will out.

Published, with the title "Fundamentalists using Babaw tactics" title, in the Malta Sunday Independent Feb 14, 2010

Read More

We need more than knee-jerk reactions

"We are constantly bombarded with outrage online on all kinds of issues, but is it getting results?"

My first reaction, as well as that of the many people who commented online to the Malta Times report, “Probation for 17-year-olds who raped girl, 14”, was that surely probation was not enough for that kind of crime.

I wondered whether there would be an appeal, although according to the report, “the prosecution and the defence agreed that what had happened was an act of foolishness by three young men who thought their deed to be some achievement. (att to bluha ta' tlett guvintur minorenni li hasbu le qed jaghmlu xi bravata).”

So no crime then? What were the courts projecting calling the gang rape of a 14 -year-old girl an act of thoughtlessness and foolery, only done to show ‘bravura’? That word bravata alone really raised my heckles.

If it is the same as bravado, is that how the court saw the young men’s thinking, i.e. that their actions were courageous, daring and gutsy? The Maltese dictionary gave me the meaning of “bravata” as an act of bravery, a well-accomplished piece of work, or an escapade.

If the court used the word ironically, it is certainly badly done. Can such educated people not see the misuse of the word? Are we being told that it’s only youthful exuberance when young boys want to show how macho they are by resorting to sexual assault? Is that really how the magistrate, prosecution and defence lawyers read this? What kind of a message was being given out here?

I would have expected much harsher words to be meted out to the boys even if probation was the right solution. As The Malta Confederation of Women’s Organisations said in their press release “Admittedly, their youth and clean records entitle them to a second chance.  But not to the extent of playing down what they did as ‘an act of foolishness’.  That, to say the least, is degrading, humiliating and horribly insensitive to the victim and to society in general.”

I sent off an email to the Police Community and Media Relations Unit (CMRU) to find out more. I was impressed by the prompt response. As the police rightly told me justice needs to be seen to be done, but it was not seen to be done by the public in this case. 

According to the police, the press report failed to mention that the girl involved was in court accompanied by her lawyer, who also agreed with the verdict. As often happens just reading a media report does not give one the full picture. Should the courts have a press office that could rectify or clarify press reports?

According to the police source, the young people were all drunk in a house where no adults were present and things got out of hand, which of course is no excuse to what happened. I do not know how the girl has been affected, or whether she was just advised to go along with what was being decided. Did the reporter try to get a comment from the girl or her lawyer after the verdict?

The sentence is not going to be appealed. However, a point made by the police did make me ponder. Do we really think that Corradino Prison was the right place for 17-year-olds? There is no facility for the incarceration of young men, or women. 

So here is a challenge for the new administration. We need an institution that caters for the young first offenders of serious cases that is a truly corrective place, rather than the current situation that puts young men, or women, in a place where influences are more likely to engender criminality and also puts the vulnerable at risk.

Apparently, the law on rape also needs to be amended since as it currently stands rape is seen as a crime against morality not an individual. It is right that the public expresses outrage when such things occur. But is outrage enough? We are constantly bombarded with outrage online on all kinds of issues, but is it getting results?

How much are young people being told on what is and is not acceptable in sexual behaviour by their parents at home and their teachers in schools? How will this very disturbing case affect future behaviour patterns of parents and teachers? What kind of sex education goes on in schools? Yet another challenge for the new government.

A recent report from the GU (Genitourinary) Clinic that deals with sexually transmitted diseases, which incidentally we get a repetition of every few years, informed us it found youngsters’ ignorance about their bodies and sexual health dumbfounding and that the high rate of casual sex and very low rate of condom use has remained unchanged. It highlighted the need for a thorough revision of sex education delivered in schools.

Are parents going to be more vigilant and give guidance on the sexual behaviour of their children? Does the media, especially television, do enough to portray violence against women as totally unacceptable? 

The Police Force also recognises that it has the role of an educator. In this respect, it integrates and blends in with other educational institutions in order to educate especially children in preventive measures and co-ordinates educational lectures in schools, Local Councils and the various NGOs. Time to organise something on sexual behaviour?

Read More