Roamer's column

Just over two years ago, a draft concordat between Slovakia and the Holy See sought to guarantee Slovak Catholics their right, on grounds of conscience, to refuse to take part in abortions. This drew the ire of European Union lawyers and a group of pro-abortionists that included members of the so-called 'Catholics for a Free Choice' (CFFC) and a working group of the European Parliament led by Labour MEP Michael Cashman.

Founded in 1973, CFFC is led by Frances Kissling famously quoted as saying, "I spent 20 years looking for a government that I could overthrow without being thrown in jail. I finally found one in the Catholic Church". Of such is the kingdom of the bewildered.

Mr Cashman's group, which has close links to CFFC, and pro-abortion MEPs lobbied the European Parliament, which in turn called on the EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights to draw up a report on the Holy See-Slovakia agreement. Whose fundamental rights they were supposed to be protecting is not difficult to guess; certainly not those of the unborn child.

Inevitably, one conclusion reached by the experts was that 'the recognition of a right to exercise objection of conscience in the field' of what they call, euphemistically, "reproductive healthcare will make it in practice impossible or very difficult to receive advice or treatment". To the best of my knowledge, the European Commission did not formally take the report on board. But the point is that the pro-abortion lobby and the prevailing secular mind-set will not rest until the day when what they call, outrageously in the mater of abortion, 'freedom of choice', is a tenet of every government's healthcare policy. They are, in effect, Gomperts in disguise.

The Council of Europe (CoE) has recently come up with a draft resolution that has Malta in its sights. It calls on all member states to allow 'freedom of choice'. It should be made clear to the CoE that no power on earth will force Malta to buckle under, not least because she is backed by the power of heaven - a concept that is anathema to secularists, whose ultimate aim is to extinguish the role of Christianity in daily and, therefore, political life.

One is reminded of Chesterton's prophetic observation, made nearly a century ago and even more relevant today, "...these people have got into an intermediate state, have fallen into an intervening valley from which they can see neither the heights beyond them nor the heights behind. They cannot get out of the penumbra of Christian controversy. They cannot be Christians and they can not leave off being anti-Christian. Their whole atmosphere is the atmosphere of reaction: sulks, perversity, petty criticism. They still live in the shadow of the faith and have lost the light of the faith."

It may well be that Malta is being called upon to be the conscience of a godless Europe. We should not hesitate to take on this role. Paradoxically, it will earn the admiration of the world and demonstrate, to quote Chesterton (again) writing over 80 years ago, that "a dead thing can go with the stream; but only a living thing can go against it".

Pur-lease!

For reasons that defy reason, the government is being taken to task for re-joining Partnership for Peace (PfP). The opposition has been howling away as if the decision to do so were too grotesque to contemplate. That it is doing should not surprise anybody. It did the same in the '90s when Malta first signed into PfP.

Let's be clear about this business. Malta joined PfP before we had even joined the European Union. Much was made at the time by the Opposition about how this compromised Malta's neutrality when in fact it did no such thing, and claiming, absurdly, that the government's decision had been unconstitutional.

When Alfred Sant was returned to power for a brief period of time in 1996, the first two things he did were to freeze Malta's application to join the European Union and withdraw the island from the PfP. We know how much good both these moves did. What Sant undid then, the Government has now repaired. From some reactions you would think that it was making a pact with the devil.

Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici awoke from his slumbers and castigated the decision with characteristic irrelevance. It made this Government illegitimate, he ranted, echoing the hapless remark of Sant some years ago when the latter had concluded, weirdly, that Eddie Fenech Adami was leading just such a government and proceeded, without so much as a grin on his face, so to inform the chancelleries of Europe.

Malta's return to the PfP has been described, not a little curiously, as a 'unilateral decision' conflicting with the Prime Minister's declaration during the election campaign that his would be a government for all the people. Where is the conflict in returning to a status quo ante? Surprise was expressed at the seemingly extraordinary fact that the Opposition had not been consulted. Why on earth should it have been?

It has also been remarked that joining the PfP did not form part of the electoral manifesto. Nor was joining the EU. Suffice to say that no government on earth details out separate foreign policy decisions. Taking one that runs counter to the Government's known foreign policy is one thing, for which a government must give account; joining the PfP was perfectly in sync with the Government's commitments within the EU. If I may parody the luckless Charles Mangion, the PfP is a part of the EU's DNA - and ours.

If there is to be any criticism levelled at the Government's logical decision this should surely be directed against the post-1998 administrations for not re-entering the PfP between 1998 and March of this year.

Coming to terms

We are living through interesting times. The Labour Party is up to its neck, or one hopes it is, trying to find a new leader after delving deeply into the circumstances that led to a third successive election defeat (and a lost referendum) in the space of 10 years. Men and women of some standing in the party are demanding a cleansing that reaches deep into the party's soul.

They are asking for a fresh direction away from the negativity that characterised the past decade; only a traumatic examination of conscience, they urge, will do. The current mood is that heads should roll and a call has been made for a fresh wind to blow through the party machinery and the corridors of power, making all things new. Ironically, those making the call include individuals whose pre-election language was redolent of Old Labour. There is general acknowledgement that the shadow kitchen cabinet's modus operandi served the party ill and a well-founded accusation made that the party was at the mercy of machinery oiled by the Select.

We must wait and see before we can be sure that the expectations of those who argue in favour of this change will be met. The almost pre-emptive bid formally made by the young Joseph Muscat for the leadership suggests the Old Guard has been given notice: a generational change alone, he is saying, will bring about the political redemption of the party. His political relationship with Sant will no doubt be brought under the microscope by his opponents when these declare themselves.

He will not have it his way without a strong challenge from the party veterans. These have experience in their favour. He may claim with some justification that their experience did not get the party very far. Muscat's boldness in being the first to enter the ring has not made it any easier for them.

In terms of substance, candidates like George Abela have more to offer. He has the advantage, if those in the election process can but see it, of prescience. Did he not, after all, put his finger on the party's weakness 10, 11 years ago?

And was he not the first to warn that the avoidable debacle of 1998 was an error of judgment that would take its toll on the party? And are those who have finally seen the light and making such a to-do about the state of the party not the same who lacked Abela's courage?

Ironically, his moral ascendancy will not play well with those who failed to equal it - not only in 1998, but in 2003, too. Look at the Orwellian treatment he is receiving at the hands of the GWU, whose media are treating him as a non-person. Here is another institution whose leadership should come under review.

There are those in the party who think this is an internal matter for the party to resolve. This is correct up to a point. What happens next to the Labour Party is of more than prurient interest to the rest of us, who are very conscious that the outcome of the current struggle for power affects the nation as a whole.

Come on, get cracking

Irritating to hear how disappointed A was over not landing a ministerial appointment, how furious B that he was handsomely elected and waited impatiently for the call that never came. I know; it's fun to be a minister, not a barrelful of laughs, mind you, but what on earth happened to service pure and simple? Attitudes of resentment are immature. You stood to serve - get on with it then, and take a leaf out of Louis Galea's reaction to a surprising let-down in the 5th district.

With admirable insouciance he described his departure from the political scene as "my new beginning". This philosophical approach to disappointment is a measure of the man who made a great contribution to the party he served for more than three decades. The first decade he witnessed the destruction of education from the Opposition benches; on the Government's front bench, he spent the third transforming it. Now he is taking to the piano, a hopeful note. One prays, for his wife's sake, that he is not starting from scratch. After all, there are new beginnings and new beginnings.

And good for Francis Zammit Dimech, who received what he called a "corrective" seat and wrote it was now time to look ahead, to regard "public life as a dutiful mission" he intends to fulfil "passionately and vigorously".