In Northern Ireland, a bakery refused an order for a cake with a picture of Sesame Street’s Bert and Ernie on it. Above the characters, the client requested a message promoting gay marriage.
The bakers did not play ball as they felt that the message went against their Christian beliefs. The client took them to court.
It was ruled that the bakers discriminated against their client on grounds of sexual orientation and political beliefs. As the bakery provides a commercial service to the public, it must provide it to everyone.
A human rights barrister in Ireland is arguing that this ruling undermines freedom of conscience. It could, for example, oblige an Islamic newspaper to carry a paid advert with a cartoon insulting Mohammed. Or force a lesbian owner of a T-shirt company to print messages saying that same-sex marriage is an ‘abomination’.
While discrimination due to gender is clearly wrong, people also have the right to hold religious beliefs. You either support freedom of conscience, or not.
Should a Church newspaper be expected to sell advertising space to a campaign for same-sex marriage? Or an independent newspaper be obliged to carry a full-page advert insulting African migrants, if it is strongly opposed to this message? Of course not.
In Malta it appears that it is not unlawful to actively campaign against other religions. Members of the Għaqda Patrijotti Maltin recently handed out pork sandwiches to do this. If I were a baker, I would not be pleased to decorate a cake with their messages.
At times the government seems impervious to inappropriate behaviour
Perhaps I might also not want to bake cakes with political-party logos on them. Would that be discrimination on the basis of political beliefs? This verges on the ridiculous.
The Irish bakers should not be forced to bake cakes promoting same-sex marriage if they don’t want to. This dispute is, however, no longer about gay marriage, but has far wider implications. According to the ruling, business owners in Ireland could be obliged to support campaigns that they disagree with for religious or moral reasons. I hope we never reach these extreme conclusions in Malta.
The bakers have stated they did not even know or care whether the client was gay or not, but simply disagreed with the message he wanted on the cake. They insist it was a conscientious objection, and are now appealing the against the judgment.
Disagreeing with a message is surely not the same as discriminating against an individual. An idea is not a person, and I don’t quite see how discrimination comes into it.
• Mario Philip Azzopardi, artistic director of Valletta 2018, is having another bad hair day. Over the past week he fell out with his deputy artistic director, who resigned. He clashed with an established set designer working on a theatre production, who also resigned.
Azzopardi then took to the newspapers and accused the former manager of St James Cavalier of having achieved nothing except “fix the toilets”. This would be hilarious, if only he were not serious… and if he did not hold a senior public position. The man clearly does not know how to control his tongue or temper.
Last year he posted a strong anti-Islamic message on Facebook. At the time, Justice Minister Owen Bonnici had said that Azzopardi’s comments were “unwarranted” and did not tally with the government’s position.
The Valletta 2018 Foundation had dissociated itself from his message, saying that “personal opinions should not be allowed to mix with the implementation of public positions”. Azzopardi made a public apology.
The level of inappropriate behaviour of people in public positions is really quite alarming. It is even more distressing that the government does not have any grasp of the problem.
Last year, the nation’s special envoy at the World Tourism Organisation, former minister Joe Grima, had posted utterly unacceptable comments about African migrants on Facebook, and then proceeded to insult the President of Malta.
Within the stable of government rabble-rousers is the Prime Minister’s consultant, Glenn Bedingfield, who coordinates parliamentary questions at the Office of the Prime Minister. He also administers a blog on the side. The petty, partisan mentality laid bare in his blog posts is an eye-opener about the mindset at Castille.
When Lou Bondi wrote a hard-hitting blog in 2011 he was criticised for not being impartial. As he hosted a programme on the public broadcaster, his opinions were considered inappropriate. He soon stopped his blog.
If anything should be impartial, it is the OPM, serving the whole nation and not a political party, but Bedingfield seems to operate under different rules.
At times the government seems impervious to inappropriate behaviour, which is increasingly widespread among people in official roles, without any checks from above. The normal rules of engagement are becoming irrelevant, disappearing on the horizon.
Yet after his anti-Islamic rant, Azzopardi had apologised due to his position. Something, somewhere, clicked. What has happened now – is his behaviour acceptable?
Likewise, does the Bedingfield blog have the Prime Minister’s tacit approval? If not, he should end the connection, pronto. It sends an extremely distasteful message.
Just imagine a senior consultant at Downing Street or the White House writing a blog like that. Unthinkable.
petracdingli@gmail.com