Ten years ago this month the National Family Commission, which I then headed, presented the government with Malta’s first ever draft National Family Policy. It went through a number of revisions, but by then the 2008 general election was round the corner and government felt it could not risk the flak such a ‘hot’ document would attract.

The new Gonzi administration took up the policy once more and even discussed it in Cabinet, but when Minister John Dalli was kicked up to EU Commissioner it was put in limbo again. I got to know later that very senior Church Curia figures had threatened strong public opposition, in the run-up to the election, against what they considered unacceptably liberal proposals. President George Abela revealed in a radio programme that he had also urged government to publish the policy for discussion. But it became clear that there was no real political will for this, so in 2010 I moved on.

What were the policy’s seismic proposals? The main focus was on strengthening the family, in all its forms. We had recommended that the definition of ‘family’ would be the accepted sociological one, that went beyond the rigid husband-and-wife model espoused by ultra-conservative elements of the Church and that recognised other stable realities.

However, the definition of ‘marriage’ would be in line with the heterosexual model that at the time was universally accepted. We also made the first, timid proposals to safeguard the rights of individuals in non-standard families and the recognition thereof by the State, including of LGBT couples/families.

When the drive for the introduction of divorce kicked off, the Gonzi administration’s sclerosis meant that the public debate was not being held against a background of an official policy to strengthen families. The divorce referendum was dominated by the discourse of individual needs/wants/rights.

The eventual triumph of the pro-divorce lobby did not only mean that the plight of many hundreds caught in expired relationships could finally be addressed. Inevitably, it also legitimised, normalised and foregrounded as an instrument of public policy the conflation of personal wants, needs and rights over the common good.

The Bill is really about the imposition of a radical gender politics agenda

It was this new spirit that fed directly into the increasing cross-party attractiveness of Joseph Muscat’s secular and (faux) aspirational Muviment that swept to victory in 2013. People read well the sub-text of the Muviment’s high-flown rhetoric: vote Labour and get what you want, even in social issues. The resounding confirmation of the 2017 elections has now given added legitimacy to Muscat’s secular social engineering agenda under the umbrella of ‘civil liberties’.

Practically nothing is taboo. Euthanasia, the discarding of embryos and surrogacy are all on the table. Abortion is round the corner, waiting for just a little more social desensitisation of the public sphere. And the latest Trojan horse for this agenda is the so-called Marriage Equality Bill. If the Bill were just about what it says on the lid, then it would be par for the course. I personally do not agree with equating same-sex unions with heterosexual marriage, but I recognise the popular will and agree to disagree, allowing for the possibility that my concerns may be proved groundless. But the Bill’s real intentions go well beyond that, and this is proven by the statement issued by the Malta Gay Rights Movement (MGRM). The Bill is really about the imposition of a radical gender politics agenda, that includes eliminating even the reference to ‘male’ and ‘female’ and removing obstacles for surrogacy.

MGRM have the perfect right to pursue such an agenda. But by sneaking in these far-reaching measures without a real national debate as we had with divorce, and with the ‘suck it up’ arrogance that its statement displays, MGRM is not allowing Maltese society to absorb these changes.

This old house ain’t Żonqor

Last week the Marsascala local council objected to the ‘development’ of the oldest surviving house on its seafront. In a locality that has been plundered beyond recognition over decades by Lorry Sant and his successors, this house is one of the last reminders that Marsascala is an actual community with its own identity and history.

The council could go one better; it could buy the house itself and turn it into a Museum in Memory of the Natural Environment. Its prize exhibit would of course be a photographic memoir of Żonqor. But the developer of the contested old house need not give up just yet. After all the council was easily persuaded to change its mind on the Żonqor land grab with a bribe – sorry, a planning gain – of new council offices built for it free of charge by Mr Sadeen.

So really, all the developer needs to do is think up of a suitable inducement that will mollify the council. Considering the stink of double standards emanating from the council’s environmental credentials, a new public toilet would do nicely, thank you.