In the aftermath of its disastrous general election result, the conservative Religio et Patria faction of the Nationalist Party has given vent to its frustrations over the so-called “liberal” stance adopted by their leader on, for example, gay marriage.
Tonio Fenech, a former Nationalist Party minister once reportedly seen as a possible leader of his party, has “distinguished” himself with an article (August 5) entitled ‘Slippery slope of liberalism’. He sees “liberalism” as the fast road to perdition, which he sums up as a policy in Malta of “live and let die”.
I cannot avoid observing that he clearly shares a kindred spirit with Klaus Vella Bardon of the so-called Life Network, who, in an article entitled ‘Signs of political decadence’, railed against the onslaught, as he saw it, “on our traditional values and the institution of the family. As predicted, divorce legislation paved the way for more laws that hollow out any concept of what is right and sound”.
Both detest liberalism and, clearly, there are others in Malta on the conservative religious right who feel the same way.
But I would surmise that, like Fenech, they do so for the wrong reasons. Liberalism and being a liberal, did they but know it, is a term applied to politicians who, typically, are socially progressive and concerned to protect civil liberties. In the liberal democracies of the West – of which Malta is a recent member – liberty is widely held to be the most basic of human rights. It is an ideal that is worth fighting for – as, indeed, Malta did for centuries until attaining independence.
OPINION: Slippery slope of liberalism
Since the end of the 18th century, liberty has stood pre-eminent as the defining principle of liberalism. The freedom to hold whatever political and religious views one wishes. To express such views without fear or restraint. To decide for oneself where and in what manner to live one’s life and to tolerate the contrary views of others; these are the prizes of liberty which go to the heart of liberalism.
Even though there is no evidence of any desire to pass laws on assisted dying or abortion, he is obsessed – like members of the Life Network – with the latter.
The great value attached to liberty and liberalism is a measure of the many bitter struggles that have been fought to winit. Against the absolute power of monarchs. Against those religions that were willing to kill to defend their orthodoxies. Against the oppression of women and against slavery, prejudice, superstition and ignorance, among others.
But Fenech, on the contrary, views liberalism as a slippery slope. His article is riddled with questionable and simplistic assertions: “Many confuse liberalism with freedoms because liberals seem to champion more freedoms. But liberalism is not akin to democratic freedoms… Liberalism hates boundaries, ignores the vulnerable, wanting to believe that as long as I am okay then everyone can be okay, which is completely untrue… Life stops being sacred. Liberals will argue that our taxes should not provide for a person beyond a pensionable period...”
Liberalism’s development of an elaborate system of individual rights lies at the core of modern liberal thinking
In what passes for wit, he coins a silly mantra, defining liberalism as “Live and let live turns into live and let die”.
He has a general rant at everything wrong, as he sees it, with today’s Malta, which, he believes, can be laid at the door of the bogeyman of liberalism and, specifically, this Labour government: hard drugs; abortion (“the liberal world around us has no qualms with abortion”); assisted dying (“if we disagree [with euthanasia] we become heartless”); legalisation of prostitution; changes to the Embryo Protection Act (“will we protect the vulnerable or will we live and let die?”).
Even though there is no evidence of any desire to pass laws on assisted dying or abortion, he is obsessed – like members of the Life Network – with the latter.
At its most straightforward, liberalism is about the defence of the liberties of the individual against abuses of power, based on a view of individuals as rational, autonomous agents, each of equal value and, thus, worthy of equal consideration.
Liberalism’s development of an elaborate system of individual rights lies at the core of modern liberal thinking. Since its inception, to be a liberal has been to be against bigotry (racial, religious, sexual orientation) and dogma (advocating choice on abortion, for civil rights and gay marriage) and against fundamentalism. The liberal outlook, being, in essence, progressive, is by its nature opposed to a right-wing ultra-conservative world view.
The central aim of protecting the rights and autonomy of the individual, far from requiring the scope of government to be limited, has demanded instead – as we have seen consistently throughout Europe (and in Malta with every government since independence) – robust intervention in which the power of the State has been expanded to correct injustices caused by unfettered capitalism. The objective of liberalism remains the same but its choice of means to achieve it has been completely transformed.
On the other hand, the essence of fundamentalism – to which I suspect the Fenechs and Vella Bardons and others of this world subscribe – is certainty. Fundamentalists of all kinds believe that, through some form of divine revelation, they have privileged access to certain elemental truths, which are true beyond any question or doubt. The views of others that contradict their own must, therefore, be incorrect beyond doubt.
Moreover, the beliefs concerned are so supremely important in the minds of those who hold them that they generally consider it morally justified, indeed a duty, to impose them on those who do not share them. Tolerance is no virtue when you are right and the will of your God is defied.
Nowhere has fundamentalism’s ambivalence towards modernity been clearer than in its tortured relationship with modern technology or scientific advances. In the area of medical science, the right to die, abortion, surrogacy and stem-cell research (among many others) have been abominated, usually on the grounds that they contravene some sacred principle.
The Maltese civil rights of freedom of the press, legal separation and civil marriage took us over a century to attain in the face of stubborn opposition by the Maltese Church. Divorce, the introduction of civil unions and gay marriage, the abolition of the vilification laws, the acceptance of contraception and the morning after pill are huge advances that Malta has only achieved in the last few years.
Individuals should be left free by the State to act in any way that does not damage the interests of others. Liberty is a right that should not be limited without cause, yet neither can it be unlimited or absolute.
Plans to regulate prostitution, to examine the efficacy of legalising certain drugs for recreational use, to expand the scope of the Embryo Protection Act in the light of modern advances in science are helping to make Malta a liberal, modern European society. This is something of which to be proud, not ashamed.