The report by the International Commission of Jurists regarding Malta’s blanket abortion ban is nothing more than a blatant redefining and reshaping of human rights as part of gender mainstreaming.
Malta is a safe place for the unborn child
In a 1997 document, the United Nations’ Economic and Social Council had defined gender mainstreaming “a strategy for making women’s as well as men’s concerns and experiences an integral dimension of... the policies and programmes in all political, economic and societal spheres so that women and men benefit equally and inequality is not perpetuated”.
Gender mainstreaming does away with absolutes and puts everything in a relativistic context. Its ideology invariably leads to redefinition of words and rights as is deemed convenient to their agenda. Gender mainstreaming “asserts that all human rights are relative, culturally constructed, and need reinterpretation over time” (RM Joseph in Feminist Rights Agenda Storm UN, Population Research Institute Review, 1999).
The ramifications of this ideology are very dangerous and can lead to direct conflict with other rights. Unfortunately, there was widespread blanket adoption of the gender mainstreaming concept by the UN General Assembly Resolution 52/100 on December 12, 1997.
In fact, according to a report drawn by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), this has led to a move to try and redefine the values and goals of the UN system. Pressure is being put on the right to religious and conscientious objection, which must now take a submissive second place to the “new women’s rights” such as the right to abortion. CEDAW has sought to repeal conscience rights for doctors in order to force them to perform abortions on children whose mothers request that they be aborted.
Other ideologically-driven organisations have also called for overriding conscience rights to facilitate access to abortion.
On December 14, 2005, the European Union Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights, which monitors and advises the European Union on the status of fundamental rights within the EU, issued an opinion on health providers’ right to conscientious objection. However, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe recently passed a Resolution overwhelmingly supporting the right to objection of conscience in health care.
Malta is a safe place for the unborn child because, despite pressures from other ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’ countries, we still treasure life and refuse to murder our children in the womb in the name of choice.
What choice is there for the unborn child in ominous words like ‘termination’, ‘reduction’, and ‘prenatal testing’?
The ICJ should also know that, regarding the humanity of the unborn, science firmly comes down on the pro-life side.
There is absolutely no doubt that the unborn human being is just that … a human being. Paradoxically, despite recognising the equality of all human beings, nevertheless the pressure to legalise abortion remains.
The ICJ would do well to respect Malta’s stand.
The ICJ report regarding Malta is grossly unfair, defamatory and highly prejudiced. The Government should defend Malta’s stand.