The government has just published a Bill which, among other things, indirectly proposes the introduction of a new civil right on the Maltese Statute Book: the right to debase, humiliate and objectify women.
Contrary to other previous laws and administrative measures taken by this government intended to assist women to participate in the well-being of society, Bill 113 of 2015 takes a different route. It decriminalises pornography with its attendant consequential dehumanisation of women.
In this respect, the Bill is a direct affront to the dignity of women in particular and to women’s rights in general.
This is not a legislative measure that will better the position of women in society, bearing in mind that women have, throughout the centuries, been the underdog of society. No, this is a draft law aimed at relegating women to second-class citizenship and undermining rights acquired by them over centuries of laborious struggle to be treated as human beings rather than as objects, at par with males.
The Bill ensures that, in the sphere of pornography regulation, women will no longer be considered as subjects of the law but as objects. From a women rights’ perspective, this is a far cry from being a progressive measure. I consider it to be more of a regressive act which aims at depriving women of their innate human dignity.
In terms of the Bill 113 now before Parliament, Malta will now allow, among other things, the opening of sex shops, the licensing of adult TV channels on broadcasting platforms by the Broadcasting Authority and the unhindered reception of foreign-licensed pornographic channels.
Of course, one can proclaim that the civil right to debase, humiliate and objectify women is a necessary corollary to the enjoyment of economic well-being and freedom of artistic expression because such right will undoubtedly benefit the Maltese economy at large: it will inject more money into the economy, bring about more employment opportunities and even advertise Malta as a hub for sex tourism. It will also allow for fuller artistic expression.
There is always a plus side to all things being negative and a golden opportunity not to be missed.
Of course, such a legislative measure might irritate a woman conscious of her rights here and there or, perhaps, even women rights’ organisations. This notwithstanding, as Bill 113 proposes, the gain to be made from introducing the civil right to debase, humiliate and objectify women is by far greater, bearing in mind the lucrative results in terms of more revenue to government, to individuals’ pockets, to the economy at large and to the unrestricted free expression of artistic talent.
For Bill 113, women’s rights come second after a thriving economy and artistic expression
Malta will be in a position to easily prostitute itself as a destination or hub for the sex industry and the sex tourism industry and, why not, the film porn industry can also be attracted to Malta with all the economic benefits and further artistic expression the country might reap.
These are just some of the salutary economic benefits which the decriminalisation of pornography will bring about. Of course, women will have to sacrifice their rights so that this economic well-being may be achieved. Not to mention a fuller artistic expression the legalisation of pornography will usher.
In this way, the whole population will benefit to the detriment of the part: the minority of women. But at what cost will all this be achieved? And is it really worth such sacrifice?
I consider this to be a matter of principle and of values. It is quite evident that Bill 113 does not share my principles nor my values.
We live today in a consumer-materialistic society that places money at the top of the value pyramid. Other values, such as human dignity, appear to be, for Bill 113, of lesser importance.
Of course the decriminalisation of pornography will bring about negative side effects such as the debasement of women. But it appears that, in the hierarchy of values of Bill 113, women’s rights come second after that of a thriving and prosperous economy and artistic expression.
All the good words we have heard on women’s dignity, their central place in society, their immense contribution to societal well-being is now being put in a different context.
Women’s human dignity is no longer at the pyramid’s apex. Bill 113 ushers an era where society can ride roughshod over and trample upon women’s human dignity.
The right to debase, humiliate and objectify women is an affront to the human dignity of women, even if that might come at the cost of a prosperous economy or of freedom of artistic expression. Nevertheless, it is a right that I do not cherish, subscribe to nor associate with.
I prioritise more respect for human dignity than economic well-being or artistic freedom. Yet the proposed law will allow the objectification and debasement of women. But is this right from a societal point of view?
I do look forward to learn of the reaction of women rights’ organisations on this new acquired right-to-be and whether they will, through their silence, endorse it or, through their activism, forcefully oppose it.
I will also follow the debate and vote of all female MPs on this Bill and how they and women branches of the Labour and Nationalist parties will react to this new legislative proposal.
Kevin Aquilina is dean of the Faculty of Laws at the University of Malta.