Preposterous

The present on-going discussion on the proposal that sections of the Criminal Code dealing with abortion should be entrenched in the Constitution has shown how some column writers are unable to deal with a subject such as abortion without throwing in irrelevant material. Such practice reduces the subject to just an other routine item discussed in the daily political skirmishes.

Why should abortion be juxta-positioned in the order of "top action priorities" that this nation faces? Alfred Sant obviously sees nothing wrong in this (June 1).

By top action priorities we have to assume he means unemployment, the fiscal deficit and other politically charged items. But he did make an exception. He singled out paedophilia.

While I share Dr Sant's abhorrence of paedophilia, it has to be pointed out that this vile crime is sometimes an opportunity crime while, at other times, it is the result of some psychological disturbance on the part of the offender. Never to be excused, paedophilia cannot be treated on the same level as abortion. The finality of the latter speaks for itself. Victims of paedophilia can be helped to rebuild their shattered lives and many have been helped to lead a normal life. The victim of abortion is not given any opportunity whatsoever.

Dr Sant's hotchpotch approach to the Tonio Borg proposal becomes even more glaringly obvious when for good measure he threw in neutrality and electoral reform into the melting pot. As if this were not enough, Dr Sant adopted a cynical approach by referring to "quite a number of bowling and tombola clubs" that have rushed to Dr Borg's assistance.

For a man who holds a very important position in the land, and who aspires for an even higher position, such an attitude is reprehensible. Even the bowling and tombola club members are citizens with a voice and they should not be subjected to ridicule if and when they express an opinion about anything.

As it happened, some of the organisations that spoke in favour of the proposal are learned groups of people such as the Malta Union of Professional Psychologists and the College of Superiors of Major Religious Orders.

The height of Dr Sant's cynicism was reached when he concluded: "may God bless the Deputy PM in his holy efforts". These same holy efforts are taken as some of the signs that a "strand of fundamentalist fervour is rising within the government". Surely one cannot be branded as a fundamentalist because one believes that life begins at conception and that it should be defended from that point.

Many, including myself, who tend to be liberal and even critical of some aspects of the Church's teaching regarding contraception, celibacy, women priests and other issues, draw the line when it comes to the defence of life from its very beginning and at its most vulnerable point of existence. Are we all fundamentalists?

To add even more non sequiturs, Dr Sant brought in the Rocco Buttiglione case and the position taken about IVF by the Commissioner for Children "appointed by the PN government".

The Buttiglione case was based on a misrepresentation of what he actually said and stood for and, as for the latter case, Dr Sant very conveniently failed to mention the statement made by Minister Dolores Cristina on the matter.

Dr Sant asked whether we had joined the Europe of the 21st century or the Europe of the Middle Ages. What a misguided question to ask. Are we supposed to buckle under all the influences that come our way from abroad? Do wrongs become right because they are part of the pluralist values held elsewhere? What has happened to Alfred Sant, the defender of our identity?

If the entrenchment of the banning of abortion in the Constitution of Malta sends a message to the whole of Europe that we stand for life from its very beginning that should be read as a message about our beliefs as a nation. A part of our identity as a people.

This does not mean that those who dissent have got to be tarred as anti-religion or Protestants. What an unfortunate label! I met and worked with many Protestants who have been and still are at the forefront of the life movement and would do anything in their power to see that abortion is banned in their countries.

I do not believe Dr Sant is either pro-abortion or anti-life but his column has sent very confusing messages. It bordered on the preposterous which my dictionary tells me means "utterly absurd".