In the editorial of February 6, the Times of Malta in relation to the introduction of marriage equality, once again upholds its right to argue the government is promising what cannot be and then dismantling a fundamental pillar of society to achieve what it cannot.
The first marriage equality legislation was introduced in the Netherlands in December 2000, well over 17 years ago. Twenty-six countries now recognise marriages between same-sex couples. This means over one billion people (around 15 per cent of the world’s population) now have the right to marry someone of the same sex.
So, how can an argument denying something that clearly is and exists around the world be uttered or sustained with any credibility?
One may disagree with the introduction of marriage equality based on the archaic notion that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.
One may also assert that marriage equality somehow causes irreparable damage to the institution of marriage although one would be expected to provide valid proof of this assertion, proof which to date has been difficult to attain.
The right to freedom of expression does not absolve the press from criticism when it fails to provide sound and logical arguments for its opinions, particularly in its editorial.
The shift in the burden of proof is fundamental to EU equality law in recognition of the fact that discrimination cases are notoriously hard to prove. It was introduced in Malta through the transposition of EU equality legislation provisions including the Employment Framework Directive, officially known as Council Directive 2000/78/EC.
It aimed to ensure equal treatment of individuals in the European Union at the workplace regardless of their gender, race, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. It is therefore the legal reality that Maltese employers have operated under since Malta’s accession to the EU in 2004.
The Equality Act introduces important anti-discrimination measures beyond the sphere of employment, which is where Maltese law is currently most lacking
Despite the lofty aims of this directive, research conducted by the Fundamental Rights Agency of the EU shows a significant disparity between the discrimination in employment reported in EU-wide surveys conducted with various minority groups and the reporting and recording of such incidents in the member states.
This is an indication that the current legal regime is not effective enough both in creating inclusive workplace environments and in providing effective redress. The levels of under-reporting to date provide a strong argument that the cards continue to be heavily stacked in favour of employers.
The updating of Malta’s equality legislation provisions and the setting up of a truly independent Human Rights and Equality Commission are not some witch-hunt aimed at making the lives of employers more difficult, but simply a measure that will move us one step closer to effective access to the right to equal treatment for all workers.
More importantly, the new Equality Act introduces important anti-discrimination measures beyond the sphere of employment, which is where Maltese law is currently most lacking, and ensures that all grounds of discrimination are equally protected under the law.
The editorial also states: “A government administers for the common good, not of interest groups that could keep it in power.”
The LGBTIQ Consultative Council is fully cognisant of the diversity of the community which it is tasked to represent.
This diversity extends to all spheres of life including political allegiances.
While civil liberties are an integral part of what is often termed the common good, it would be presumptuous of anyone to claim that this is the only or even primary consideration for LGBTIQ individuals when deciding on how to cast their vote.
Gabi Calleja is a member of the LGBTIQ consultative council.