I can fully appreciate the shock of Ramona Depares in her contribution “Enabling gender violence?” (timesofmalta.com, January 25) on the decision by Edwin Vassallo to vote against a Bill being passed through Parliament dealing with domestic violence as Parliament should be four square against domestic violence.

However, such a conclusion is only justified for a person who has not followed Vassallo’s speech and who unequivocally stated that his position should not be interpreted as condoning rape and domestic violence as his concerns related to other aspects of the Bill that have nothing to do with domestic violence, such as abortion, the new gender definition and other concerns.

Nationalist Party deputy leader for party affairs David Agius, in the name of the PN, too shared the same concerns but strategically decided to handle the situation differently, to vote for the Bill (being against domestic violence) but conditioned the final vote to the acceptance of a number of amendments to address concerns relating to abortion and other issues unrelated to domestic violence included in the Bill.

I believe the PN’s position was more suitable, allowing for changes and clarifications to be made.

That Vassallo was allowed to express his vote freely without inhibition is a breath of fresh air, and reflects a stronger PN, not needing to suppress the conscience of any individual for the sake of a meaningless show of party control.

I found the conclusion by Depares that people should not vote for the likes of Vassallo because, as she claims, they have “no respect for the principles of a modern society”, to be very concerning.

Such a statement goes against a number of important principles of today’s so-called modern society that should include tolerance, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of conscience and so on.

Also, those who voted Vassallo in Parliament and gave him 47 per cent of votes in the party deputy leadership contest, had no illusion about what he stood for and did so consciously. They too constitute part of modern society.

The Istanbul Convention has been a matter of controversy in a number of countries. In fact, only 17 of the EU countries ratified the convention with changes and clarifications. Of concern is the new definition of gender detached from biological realities and the state intervention in matters of education.

These objections are unrelated to domestic violence but especially for eastern European countries the imposition on education matters that convention promulgates brought memories of a Soviet socialist education system that was used to mode their children into an ideology their parents opposed, an education system they do not want to see again.

Equality is not about redefining gender but accepting and respecting each other as equals

When the Maltese government decided to use the convention to introduce an even more ambiguous, to say the least, gender definition, some well-meaning clauses in convention create confusion and concern.

According to this new law “gender” means the socially constructed roles, expectations, activities, behaviours and attributes that society at any given time associates with a person being either male, female, or any other gender. What does this definition actually mean?

Since when is gender not a biological, scientific fact, but something which changes with what society thinks at any given point in time?  Frankly, I think this government is going a bit too far to please one audience in society without seeing the real consequences.

When we start calling red “orange” and green “red” and orange “green” we only create confusion and not equality. Can you just imagine reading the pelican lights in a cross road with these new definitions? Equality is not about redefining gender but accepting and respecting each other as equals despite our differences, distinctions and orientations.

Allow me to just point at to two clauses that within the new gender definition become confusing.

Articles 12 and 14 of the Istanbul Convention make a lot of sense within the context of a convention that seeks to defend women from actual or potential domestic violence. However these two articles also introduce the concept of stereotyped roles for women and men emanating from customs and traditions.   What are stereotype gender roles?

It is just fine if it is simply about educating our children that a woman having a career is positive (when in some countries only recently a woman has been allowed to drive), or that a family that opts for the husband to stay home to bring up the kids while the wife assumes the responsibility of being the bread winner, is healthy.

However, if because of this new and ambiguous gender definition the concept of a husband and a wife is classified as a stereotype that needs to be eradicated because it is born from tradition and custom such as the Catholic faith, then we have a problem, as according to the convention Article 12:

“Parties shall take the necessary measures to promote changes in the social and cultural patterns of behaviour of women and men with a view to eradicating prejudices, customs, traditions and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority of women or on stereotyped roles for women and men.”

In Article 14, dealing with education, the convention states: “Parties shall take, where appropriate, the necessary steps to include teaching material on issues such as equality between women and men, non-stereotyped gender roles, … in formal curricula and at all levels of education”.

I am not sure how the government is interpreting these clauses but clearly as is, Article 14 is concerning because it seems to empower the State to determine the education of our children into a “new gender philosophy” that may go against the beliefs and convictions of many parents, and whose conviction the State is now obliged to eradicate.

If this is not the intention of the government, it should come out clearly and unequivocally reaffirming the principles of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights that emphasise the obligation on the State to respect the right of parents, including their religious and philosophical convictions in education, and that the parents have the primary responsibility for the kind of education that their children receive.  To both these conventions Malta is signatory.

Vassallo’s decision to vote against was a wake-up call for many who did not read the convention or Bill.

Considering the declaration the government already made on not using this Bill to introduce abortion, I believe that making a more reasoned gender definition and a clear and unequivocal declaration by the government that this convention is subservient to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights should ensure that this Bill achieves it real intended aim to fight domestic violence without reservation and with genuine national consensus.