The comments by Kevin Aquilina on the need to protect religion (July 22) and on whether objectifying women constitutes a civil right (Times of Malta, July 27) deserve the attention of politicians on both sides of the House of Representatives and of Maltese citizens who respect the Constitution of Malta and have religion and public morality at heart.

His comments come in the wake of the Bill “to amend the Criminal Code (Cap. 9) and to provide for any other matter ancillary or consequential thereto”. What makes the comment worth-noticing is the fact that it centres around three fundamental principles inherent in the Republic of Malta’s identity: the supremacy of the Constitution, the relationship between human rights and public morality, and the value of human dignity.

The Bill is proposing the deletion of articles 163 and 164 and changing article 165 of the Criminal Code.

Removing the two articles implies that “the vilification of the Roman Catholic Apostolic religion” would no longer remain a criminal offence on Malta’s Statute Books.

As for the amendment of article 165, substituting the words “of the Roman Catholic Apostolic religion” with the words “any other religion tolerated by law” would mean depriving the Roman Catholic Apostolic religion of its primacy of place established by the Constitution.

Article 2(1) of the Constitution unambiguously declares that “the Roman Catholic Apostolic religion is the religion of Malta”.

Of constitutional importance is also the fact that article two keeps ‘religion’ and ‘Church’ as two separate institutions.

While the Roman Catholic Apostolic religion is recognised as the official belief system of the Maltese State, “the authorities of the Roman Catholic Apostolic religion” are granted “the right and duty to teach which principles are right and which are wrong”.

The Constitution is, thus, from its very beginning, introducing a moral dimension in the life of the Maltese State.

There is reason to draw the conclusion, therefore, that the deletion of those legal provisions which safeguard the vilification of religion in Malta is in contradiction of the Constitution.

The Constitution is more than a mere legal instrument. The Constitution is the source of law.

It is a special kind of law which regulates order, stability and governance in society according to the rule of law.

It determines what the cultural values of the republic of Malta are: its territorial boundaries, its national flag and the national anthem, the Maltese language and religion and the Constitution itself as the supreme law.

It solemnly declares what Maltese statehood should be and how the symbols of the State be granted equal respect and recognition. To discriminate against one of them, in the case of the Bill against the Roman Catholic Apostolic religion, is to violate an essential provision of the Constitution. To contradict the Constitution is to run counter to article six.

Why create a constitutional issue and/or give ground for popular action to challenge the validity of the law passed by Parliament?

The Objects and Reasons of the proposed law is “to provide for the better implementation of the right to freedom of expression…” By all means, freedom of expression is not only a human right but a fundamental one protected by the Constitution. However, the enjoyment of human rights is not absolute.

If society and the State collapse it is individuals themselves who collapse

Human rights stop at the frontiers of human duties. The Constitution itself sets the limits to the effect that entitlement of fundamental rights and freedoms is “subject to respect for the rights and freedoms of others and for the public interest…”

An important aspect of public interest is the institution of the family and public morality. Even fundamental human rights are bound by the exigencies of public morality. This is clearly established by the Constitution with a similar safeguard in the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which has been incorporated into domestic law by an Act of Parliament in 1987.

The government should weigh the consequences of its decisions on issues of public morality and decency directly affecting people as individuals and families.

As the guardian of good governance, the government has the duty to protect and promote the common good in the interest of society. If society and the State collapse, as may happen when public morality and public order collapse, it is individuals themselves who collapse.

Aquilina has also rightly argued that “The Bill ensures that, in the sphere of pornography regulation, women will no longer be considered as subjects of the law but as objects”. I would rather extend this to all individuals. Rendering citizens as objects cannot be considered as a civil right, let alone a ‘progressive’ civil right. And certainly it can by no means be considered as a fundamental human right.

Human rights, qua human and fundamental, determine ‘who’ I am as a person, hence, my personality, my identity and my dignity. To propose legal provisions that permit the display of pornographic material in public places, with no consideration of the consequences on public morals, is to debase human nature and to attack the very dignity of the person. I, therefore, fully agree with my mentor, Aquilina, and consider pornography regulation as proposed in Bill 116 “to be more of a regressive act which aims at depriving women [and I add, all individuals] of their innate dignity.”

The Constitution is so fond of human dignity that it dedicates a whole chapter to the protection of fundamental human rights which, as innate rights, constitute the dignity of the person.

Even the very articulation of the human rights provisions in sections 31 to 46 speak of ‘the person’ (rather than ‘the individual’) precisely to emphasise this statement of fact. To run counter to this is to turn democracy on its head.

The Bill states that pornography regulation is being introduced “in the interest of science, literature, art or learning or other objects of general concern”, which should include economic gains.

However, literature, art and learning are primarily higher-order values which transcend the material world to express the spiritual dimension of the person.

As for economic gains made through, among other things, sex tourism one has to evaluate materialistic values that are based on efficiency and calculability versus human values as the expression of human dignity.

Are we to allow materialistic values to gain precedence over human values?

Shall Malta allow global consumerism to potentially eradicate the core values of traditional Maltese culture?

Can we afford to permit a materialist value system suggest a mentality that ‘you are what you consume’?

These are the kind of critical questions that Maltese society needs to ponder upon within the context of a consumerist, materialist culture that the Bill in question is likely to foment.

This also seems to reflect the logic and reasoning of the position paper of the Church in Malta as a response to the Criminal Code (Amendment) Bill.

The document masterly captures the essence of the proposed legislation with another important critical question: “Why should it not be self-evident that the arguments in favour of public decency are more compelling than those in favour of public indecency?”

I would also take the risk of adding: why should it not be self-evident that the arguments in favour of defence of the Roman Catholic Apostolic religion in Malta are more compelling than those in favour of not protecting it from vilification?

Let politicians from both sides of the House and Maltese citizens who want a way of social behaviour under the law and who still cherish religion and public morality reflect on their eventual decisions in the best interests of the country.

Philip Said is a Żebbuġ local councillor.