Last week a priest, Fr Richard-Nazzareno Farrugia, wrote in this newspaper. He expressed his concern about schoolchildren being led over rainbow-coloured zebra crossings to promote LGBTI rights. His article was written in a civil tone, and naturally, he was entitled to explain his views, religious or otherwise.
The Human Rights Policy Coordinator at the Ministry for Social Dialogue and Civil Liberties quickly shot back with another article, taking Farrugia’s views apart. The article added:
“It is doubtful whether, as a young boy, Fr Farrugia learnt much about human sexual and gender diversity while reading the textbooks that he may have carried daily to school. This is indeed a shame. Such an education would have ensured that when he claimed holding ‘nothing against LGBTI rights’ he would have meant it.”
It is unclear whether this jibe tried to imply that Farrugia, who is a lecturer in moral theology at the Gozo seminary, is not well educated or that he is not sincere. I have never met Farrugia and am here not endorsing his views, but I don’t think that his article made him fair game for public insults from the government machine.
I would have thought it obvious that government officials should address all members of the public in a civil and impartial manner, whether they are gay, straight, religious, atheist or whatever.
This is also what tolerance means. The rude attitude in this reply is even worse coming from the Ministry for Social Dialogue. I do agree with promoting equality, but this official approach seems more fitting for a ministry for social propaganda.
Apart from tolerance, what about the principle of free speech? Everyone will know the famous line that was said about Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.
Journalists, activists, academics and politicians speak their mind and, arguably, even have a duty to do so. People want open, fair and informed commentary. Private individuals can also express their opinions, without pulling their punches, to the point that the mantra ‘stand up and be counted’ is now a cliché.
The rules are, however, quite different for public officials, as they are engaged to serve all citizens. Impartiality comes with the territory. They are also expected to have high standards of integrity when dealing with the public and to uphold the same standards in their personal lives, in this sense like politicians, particularly in senior positions.
This is what government codes of ethics say, all over the world, even though it might sound like gibberish to some.
Social Dialogue Minister Helena Dalli should not send out her staff as rottweilers to tear into people who oppose her stance or methods on gender issues
Social Dialogue Minister Helena Dalli should not send out her staff as rottweilers to tear into people who oppose her stance or methods on gender issues. Dalli’s views are certainly not shared by everyone, and people surely are allowed to disagree.
People should be able to engage in fair, honest ‘social dialogue’ without receiving an immediate (metaphorical) public punch in the face from irritated and hostile ministry officials. Members of the clergy can obviously also participate in social dialogue, in line with their beliefs. It is wholly tactless for the ministry to imply that a priest must lack education or sincerity, because he disagrees with the government on a topic which clearly concerns the Church and its teachings.
I did not notice any ministry officials leaping up to tell Joe Grima, former Labour minister in the 1980s, that his education must have been sadly lacking when he recently expressed very negative thoughts on desperate and impoverished migrants and which certainly conflict with ideals of human rights. Last year he had also called the human rights NGO Aditus “cultural rapists”.
Grima today holds a prominent and senior public post, as Malta’s official representative at the World Tourism Organisation. Vulgar rants on Facebook are out of line.
Only last week, he was again widely criticised for his offensive remarks about President Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca, triggered by some humanitarian comments on migrants fleeing persecution and poverty in Africa. He also crudely attacked tenor Joseph Calleja for his views on migrants.
Grima is unrepentant. He believes that he should speak his mind, as he has always done, even though he now represents Malta’s tourism sector on the world stage. He seems to have absolutely no sense of the inappropriateness of his comments in relation to his public position.
The Prime Minister has defended Grima, saying that his statements were personal. I disagree with this stand. It is not possible to completely separate official public roles from private behaviour.
If only things were so clear-cut. It is about time that the government sends a code of ethics to its representatives and officials.
A couple of years ago, Grima stopped hosting his television show Inkontri on One TV, due to his foul language criticising a priest who had written an obituary of Dom Mintoff. Grima never seems to change but Joseph Muscat’s approach towards him evidently does, as his offensive rants were recognised as a problem in 2012 but are being ignored now.
Government priorities work in mysterious ways. A priest’s divergent view on a silly rainbow zebra crossing is slammed with an official backlash, while odious comments on vulnerable migrants by a senior government representative are conveniently swept under the carpet.
petracdingli@gmail.com