The right to life

The Council of Europe's decision to legalise abortion is a sad landmark in the history of the "old continent". Further, its effects and significance go much further than may appear.

There are four forms of killing at the human hand: murder, abortion, euthanasia and capital punishment. Murder is definitely illegal. The other three are legal or, at least, permitted in some states (whether by law or subsequent to a court judgment). What is the difference? Can any form of killing be justified, whatever the circumstances? It is plainly one human being taking away the life of another. Abortion is permitted by law in many states. Euthanasia has been permitted by courts of law in some states in some cases.

Capital punishment, fortunately, has been done away with in Europe a long time ago. It has also been done away with in other civilised states. One exception of a "civilised state" that still allows capital punishment encompasses some states in the United States. To me it is absolutely inexplicable how a country that has one of the most democratic, if complex, electoral systems in the world, for example, can still behave in this uncivilised manner.

But it is very positive how the four members of our parliamentary delegation to the Council of Europe were at one, not only in voting against the resolution but in opposing it vehemently, speaking out and standing up to be counted. There is no doubt that this position has at its base the underlying Roman Catholic values, which we have all inherited and largely nurtured. It is also significant that the other three delegations that opposed the resolution came from Poland, Ireland and Italy, all strongly Roman Catholic. The fact that Roman Catholic (not generally Christian) values are at the base of these positions is undisputable.

Article 33 of our Constitution states: "No person shall intentionally be deprived of his life save in execution of the sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence under the law of Malta of which he has been convicted" (very strange, when capital punishment has been abolished). The Constitution goes on to list a number of exceptions to this fundamental right, which are basically related to cases of self defence, the exercise of police and military powers in exceptional circumstances and during times of war. Save for these exceptions, this fundamental right to life should cover all the acts of killing referred to, viz. murder, abortion, euthanasia and capital punishment (although this is still inexplicably provided for).

There is, of course, the bio-ethical problem as to when a foetus becomes a "person". Accordingly, the Constitution needs to be amended to include a definition of "person" in such a way as to protect the unborn child. I will not attempt to provide a definition myself. That would be presumptuous. I will leave it to the experts. But, perhaps, that is what Gift of Life Malta (which have my full backing in this sense) is aiming for. Including a definition of "person" under article 33 or under the definition article of the Constitution would automatically mean that the right to life of an unborn child (inversely the prohibition of abortion) would be automatically entrenched, that is, requiring two-thirds of the votes of all members of Parliament, to be amended. Of course, the same majority would be required to include the definition in the first place. Gift of Life Malta must resume its campaign now that Parliament will be reconvening. Although the Council of Europe's resolution is not binding on Malta, the issue has become even more important in the face of it.

On another point, I would like to throw my weight behind the proposal or, at least, idea that the two leading political party officials (leader and secretary general) should be voted for by all party members. This is true democracy. One may ask: Why secretary general? Because that person heads the party's administration. I realise that there may be organisational difficulties in terms of party membership lists. The point has been made that some are members of more than one party (so as to keep one leg on each side of the fence, just in case!) but a way must be found to sort this out. After all, who's to say that a delegate is not a member of more than one party? Delegates are not representative of a party's grassroots. The voting in of sectional committees is often a farce, attendance of members being minimal.

Post scriptum: Many of us have lost a great friend. The things that people write about the dearly departed often tend to be standard clichés. Not in this case. Noel Radmilli was truly larger than life. As my wife Rita observed (and she knew him very well, often in debate), he was not only a lover of life, but a lover of living. Noel was his name, "Ġakk" was his identity. He was everywhere with everyone in everything. He was a vociferous debator on all subjects under the sun - politics, culture, business, whatever - and was to be found at the centre of every argument or discussion, which he would smell from a mile away. The best forum for debate would invariably be the lunch or dinner table (more appropriately il-mejda ta' l-ikel) where we would spend hours in the company of good food and fine wines. Many times the session would end with Ġakki's inimitable rendition of O Sole Mio, to which he would receive a standing ovation, with chants of "Ġakki, Ġakki".

The sad news was broken to me via SMS on Thursday night with the words: "Il-Ġakk mar ikanta ma' l-anġli" (Ġakk is singing with the angles) to which I replied "M'għandix dubbju li jieħdu pjaċir bih" (No doubt, they'll love it).

I could write volumes of reminiscences (Maltembu - which days he always encouraged me to write about - San Pawl, Neptunes, Kartell, Stamperija and so much more).

Sandra, Rachel and Paul, I know that words are no solace but sometimes they help. I hope these do.

Addio Gakkin. Ci rivediamo.