The article ‘A discordant swansong’, by Martin Scicluna (April 2,), raises a few points which require some further reflection.

Scicluna has it with President Emeritus George Abela for having refused to sign the Civil Unions Bill when he was in duty bound to do so by the constitution. He insists that the president had no right to refuse signing the Bill simply because it “happened not to fit with his own narrow moral or religious beliefs”.

Had not this issue come at the end of Abela’s presidency, Scicluna insists, “Malta might have been plunged into a constitutional crisis”. Well, not necessarily.

Abela could have resigned and another president would have been chosen, the Bill would have been signed and there would have been no constitutional crisis. The Prime Minister preferred a different road. He opted to delay presenting the Bill to the President, presumably because the presidency was coming to an end and he reckoned that he could wait.

Was the President’s gesture of protest pointless? Maybe it will be helpful to realise that this was not the first time it happened.

In 1990, Belgium’s King Baudouin refused to sign the liberalised abortion laws passed by Parliament because his conscience would not allow it. On that occasion, King Baudouin asked the government to declare him temporarily unable to reign so that he could avoid signing the measure into law. Then, all members of the government signed the Bill and the next day the government declared that Baudouin was capable of reigning again.

Another pointless gesture of protest, some would say. However, others might see it differently. Group dynamists speak of groupthink and lobbyists make a lot of din, which oftentimes carries the day. Maybe it is not such a pointless thing for somebody to speak out, especially when their voice is at least heard, even if not necessarily listened to.

Sometimes we tend to forget that all rights are limited by other rights

Then there is the issue of the “narrow moral or religious beliefs”. I’m glad to see that the conjunction used is “or” and not “and”. In doing this, Scicluna is accepting the fact that morality is not necessarily connected to religion even though, further down, he insists on “the principle of the clear separation of civil and religious authority” and of “personal religious reasons”.

The Greek philosophers spoke about ethics ages before the coming of Christ and they never connected it to religion.

Another word used in the article which irks me is the adjective “narrow”. Of course, calling somebody’s arguments “narrow” is not refuting them.

I am sure Scicluna would not be impressed if somebody calls his arguments “superficial” or some other adjective, and he would be right not to be. Arguments are refuted by other arguments not by labelling them.

The argument which the article brings forward is that: “This is essentially and overwhelmingly an issue of civil rights, justice,fairness and equality of treatment in our society, not a moral issue.”

I find it difficult not to consider civil rights, justice, fairness and equality of treatment issues of morality.

When it comes to rights, sometimes we tend to forget that all rights are limited by other rights. The objection of most to the right to adopt by homosexual couples was that children had a right to be exposed to the different gender roles within their own family.

This was not denying anybody their fundamental rights but simply stating that these rights were impinging upon the rights of others.

The new President said that she would sign the Bill. I am sure that she too is following her conscience in doing this. Once she has weighed all the pros and cons of the argument and come to a decision, her decision is to be respected because it would be a moral decision.

After all, the country needs a president not a rubber stamp.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.