The debate surrounding the Marriage Act and other Laws (Amendment) Bill left many with a sense that there was no constructive debate. While the law was speedily enacted, there are many people who are not fully aware of what it brought about.
Every social reform will have its proponents and its detractors. An informed debate in and outside the House of Representatives is not simply a basic practice in democratic systems, but also serves the purpose of both sides understanding the issue at hand.
The onus lay on the government to ensure that there was an informed debate, but as days passed it became manifestly clear that Joseph Muscat’s government was doing its utmost to provoke an anti-gay rights sentiment for political expediency.
The Opposition side had a handful of detractors who should have made their point without pegging any grudges they may have on the party leadership. It is positive to have politicians speak up, even if their views are contrary to what the official party position is, as outlined in the PN manifesto. In normal democracies politicians break ranks continuously.
Simon Busuttil played his cards well and from the outset pointed out that the Opposition will be voting in favour of the Bill. His was a call to have consensus and to seek ways of improving the Bill. To Muscat’s disappointment there was no stamping of feet, but a reasoned request to tweak the Bill.
Opposition MPs such as Karl Gouder and Claudette Buttigieg gave very positive speeches. Faced with a request to debate the terminology used, Muscat at the outset said no amendments submitted by the Opposition would be accepted.
It is ironic that in a Bill on equality the Opposition MPs are less equal than the government MPs in the drafting of legislation
It would be understandable had there been this attitude following a debate, but to declare a priori that no amendment would be taken on board smacks of an anti-democratic position. It is ironic that in a Bill on equality the Opposition MPs are less equal than the government MPs in the drafting of legislation. This intolerance does not augur well for the rest of the legislature.
The government was in fact more intent on scoring political points and getting the PN backbench to vote against the Bill. Labour’s strategy failed as there was only one vote against.
Not even the positive aspects of the Bill were discussed and explained in Labour’s frenzy to embarrass the PN. One of the most confusing aspects was the replacement of ‘mother’ and ‘father’ with the more neutral term ‘parent’. The government should have debated this issue, particularly once there was such a public outcry.
The Act introduced positive amendments to various laws, a case in point being the Criminal Code. Under this code if a person is aware of a conspiracy to commit certain crimes and within 24 hours does not disclose that knowledge, that person is liable to a conviction which includes imprisonment.
Article 62 of the Criminal Code creates an important exception, if you are a husband or wife of one of the conspirators and you do not report the conspiracy you are exempted from being punished. The Marriage Act and other Laws (Amendment) Act says this article should not only apply to husband and wife, but to all married couples of whatever gender. There is now certainty in the law as to who the ‘exception’ applies to, which is a positive step of equality before the law.
On the subject of being on the ‘right side of history’, no party has any monopoly on equal rights. While Labour is trying its best to create a narrative in which it has a superior status, all level-headed people in Malta know that the real watershed on the protection of equal rights was the enactment of the European Convention Act under a PN government in 1987.
Through this legislation, litigation on discrimination on ground of sex became possible in Malta and beyond, as any individual among us can seek remedy at the European Court of Human Rights for any breach of such rights. Effectively an individual could petition the European Court.
In 2004, again under a PN government, legislation was introduced prohibiting employment practices which discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Far from being the ‘medieval left’, the PN has contributed the most fundamental legislative framework against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.
The new PN leadership would do well to start putting the record straight against this manipulation of Malta’s political and legal history.
More discussion will inevitably take place on the Marriage Act amendments, such as the birth certificate. The way it is now worded is clearly intended for surrogate births. It is putting the cart before the horse. We should have first debated whether to allow surrogate births and then introduced amendments. No government should introduce legal practice by stealth.
A comparison could be made with Malta’s accession to the EU debate. There was a healthy debate in the country and nobody scorned any public gatherings. I used to watch the conservative tone of anti-EU scaremongering of Muscat’s programme on Super One.
Not to mention the Dom Mintoff and Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici pjazza meetings harping on the Europe of the Cold War. I found them quite entertaining at the time, not medieval, but rather conservative.
While setting out to create division within the PN, Labour actually ended up irritating many a moderate on the subject. This was a missed opportunity to mend bridges. Instead, a priori the government said it would not take note of any amendments, the draft law apparently having the stamp of perfection. The experience of the enactment of this Act could not have been more diametrically opposite to a democratic process of an informed debate.
Stifling the debate was a disservice to the individuals who are legislatively brought on a par with the rest of society, as what we should aspire to is their respect by every member of society and not just legal equality.
Paul Radmilli is a Nationalist Party Sliema local councillor.