Muslim demonstrators hold placards during a protest near Downing Street, in central London, in February against what they called "insulting depictions" of the Prophet Mohammad by French newspaper Charlie Hebdo. Photo: Stefan Wermuth/Reuters

Over 2,000 years ago, Aristotle described free-dom as the basis of a democratic State. The very first article of our Constitution declares that “Malta is a democratic republic founded on work and on respect for the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual”.

Freedom is an inherent right we are born with and not a right that is granted to us. It is part of our human nature. When a State or a system denies or curtails an individual’s freedom, we denounce such State or system as being despotic and dictatorial.

In Europe, we consider individual freedom as one of our greatest values. It is a universal value that defines the very essence of our culture and civilisation. When, on January 7 this year, gunmen attacked the offices of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris, killing its editor and a number of cartoonists, many people declared themselves as “Charlie” in support of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

However, there were also those who had refused to adopt the Je Suis Charlie slogan claiming that, although they still condemned the attack, they could not subscribe to the irreligious content of the magazine.

The debate as to whether there should be limits to the value of freedom of speech or, indeed, to other freedoms too has been an ongoing one.

Is freedom an absolute value? Are there instances when it is justified to somehow limit or curtail an individual in the exercise of his/her freedom?

Our own Constitution does place limitations to the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights and freedoms, declaring that such limitations are “designed to ensure that the enjoyment of the said rights and freedoms by any individual does not prejudice the rights and freedoms of others or the public interest” (article 32).

Moreover, the supreme law also provides that fundamental rights such as the right to freedom of expression and freedom of conscience or worship may also be limited by law where “reasonably justified in the interests of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or decency, or public health”.

Citizens are today less inclined to allow the State (and society) to interfere in an individual’s life situation and choices

Our system of separation of powers between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the State should provide the necessary checks and balances to put our minds at rest that, where limitations are justified, they are indeed reasonable and necessary. This is re-assuring, particularly when dealing with freedom of expression and freedom of conscience and worship.

To what extent can, for example, faith-based schools “discriminate” in the recruitment of staff? Article 4 of the European Union’s Employment Equality Directive allows member states to provide for a difference of treatment on grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation with regard to employment and occupation “where, by reason of the nature of the particular occupational activities concerned or of the context in which they are carried out, such a characteristic constitutes a genuine and determining occupational requirement, provided that the objective is legitimate and the requirement is proportionate”.

It is further stated that “this directive shall thus not prejudice the right of churches and other public or private organisations, the ethos of which is based on religion or belief, acting in conformity with national constitutions and laws, to require individuals working for them to act in good faith and with loyalty to the organisation’s ethos”.

I mention this in particular because the matter has been raised recently following the issuing of a document entitled ‘Practicing Catholic as a requirement of eligibility and selection of staff in Church schools’ wherein the Maltese Episcopal Conference mandated that, in Catholic schools, “possibly all staff but more so those appointed to key posts should be ‘practicing Catholics’”.

This means, according to this document, that they must be baptised and practicing Catholics as well as individuals whose life choices reflect a religious, moral and ethical behaviour in accordance with Church teaching and not detrimental or prejudicial to the religious ethos and character of the school.

Apart from ascertaining the fact as to whether a person is baptised or not, the rest are hardly objective criteria and, hence, I would not be surprised if, sooner or later, the Maltese courts could be asked to intervene, especially should school administrators decide to enforce the Maltese Church directive in such manner that may give rise to claims of discrimination on other grounds other than religion or belief.

There is, however, another kind of limitation to one’s freedom, one that does not stem from any legislative provision. It is a societal limitation that the individual may sometimes even impose on him/herself.

Let me give one example. In the run up to last Saturday’s referendum on spring hunting, full-page advertisements were published by the No camp featuring the leaders of the two main political parties and a statement to the effect that both leaders were allowing us to vote as we deemed fit.

In the terminology of our post-Independence two-party system, there is a tendency to refer to citizens as though they ’belong’ to one or other party. Of course, political parties may legitimately campaign and exhort individuals to vote one way or another. However, I for one, will never accept a situation where, out of their magnanimity, the political parties concede to us the liberty to exercise one of our most fundamental of rights: the right to express ourselves freely through the ballot box.

We are not medieval serfs bound to the Lord of the Manor. Hence, I consider it a positive factor that, last Saturday, 49.6 per cent of voters did not follow the pro-spring hunting stand that had been publicly declared in advance by the leaders of the two main parties.

This system, whereby the political parties or, indeed, the Church, claim some sort of fiefdom over us in terms of our choices as citizens of this republic is, thankfully, something that we are gradually overcoming.

The EU accession referendum in 2003 marked a turning point and set in motion a chain of events that has led to many otherwise unthinkable outcomes which, though not a direct consequence of joining the EU, are a healthy by-product of it.

It is not so much a question of being liberal or not but, rather, a consequence of the fact that we value personal freedom more such that we have seen the recent unanimous enactment by Parliament of the Gender Identity, Gender Expression and Sex Characteristics Act, practically one year after the enactment of the Civil Unions Act.

Thankfully, citizens are today less inclined to allow the State (and society) to interfere in an individual’s life situation and choices. This is, of course, healthy and, rather than leading to an erosion of the values of our society, it does, in my view, strengthen that most fundamental of values: freedom.