The abortion debate: just the beginning

The approval of Bill 28 is not the end of the abortion debate. It is just the beginning. Maybe, the end of the beginning! The original proposals of Bill 28 were promising, even if they were no big deal. As originally proposed, Bill 28 was a reasonable starting point to an abortion debate which has been stifled for years on end.

It is neither normal nor acceptable for the Head of State to take part in such a controversial political debate in whatever form he opts to participate.

“Everyone knows my position”, President Vella said, when queried by the press last December. His active lobbying of holders of political office against the introduction of any form of abortion in the Maltese Islands was substantial. To add insult to injury he also went public on his intention to resign office and ignite a political crisis, if Parliament approved an abortion bill. In so doing he was giving full and open support to the conservative elements within the Labour Party and beyond, as a result bringing Robert Abela and Chris Fearne on their political knees and forcing them to change the content of Bill 28.

The Labour Party has buckled under the intense lobbying to which it was subjected. As a result, Labour ended up adopting the conservative political position of the Opposition. It has thus once more illustrated that, in such matters, when push comes to shove, Parliament is led by a unified PLPN. George Orwell’s Animal Farm description is apt: they looked from pig to man and from man to pig again, and could not tell which was which!

As PN MP Claudette Buttigieg emphasised in the Parliamentary Committee for the Consideration of Bills, last Monday, the PN Opposition was consistently conservative throughout the debate. Labour, on the other hand, unfortunately, ditched a draft which was a reasonable start for a serious debate and at the end adopted the conservative PN position.

Where do we go from here? The conservative forces, represented by PLPN have presented a united front in Parliament through the unanimous approval of the amended Bill 28. There are however rumblings that the fundamentalist right is considering the possibility of collecting signatures to call an abrogative referendum as the abortion amendments to the Criminal Code, in their view, go too far!

Notwithstanding what the fundamentalists do, the abrogative referendum procedure, is a unique opportunity, to take the conservative PLPN establishment to task. It is also an opportunity to contest the artificial consensus leading to the approval of Bill 28 as well as an appropriate instrument to denounce the interference in the democratic political process by George Vella, President of the Republic.

On Monday, in their different ways, in Parliament, Professor Isabel Stabile, Integra Foundation leader Maria Pisani and ADPD Chairperson Sandra Gauci, exposed clearly that in view of the fact that Bill 28 as amended is a huge step backwards, it is worse than the status quo, as Rosianne Cutajar quipped after the parliamentary vote. The changes made will not save lives. It will only protect medical practioners, as ably explained by Professor Isabel Stabile.

The way forward is to scrap the approved amendments to the Criminal Code and to alternatively legislate in favour of decriminalisation of abortion. Any woman who opts for an abortion needs empathy and not persecution from the state. A limited legal access to abortion is essential, not only when the pregnancy is a potential threat to the life or health of the pregnant woman. It is also necessary to legislate in favour of abortion in cases of rape and incest as well as in those cases where a non-viable pregnancy arises. These issues have to date been avoided in the public debate. They must be addressed the soonest.

We need to clearly identify this as the moderate way forward. Far away from the emotional appeals of the fundamentalist lobby. Also, considerably distant from the extreme position of those who insist on total individual liberty without any limits.

The 2011 divorce referendum entrenched ethical pluralism in Malta’s political agenda. This was an irreversible step which affirmed that different ethical views not only exist: they need the protection of the state.

The PLPN approved abortion amendments entrench a 19^th century-Malta in our statute books. They need to be ditched and replaced with decent legislation fit for the 21^st century. This is the only reasonable way forward.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 2 July 2023

Proposta nejja tal-Labour dwar l-abort

Nhar it-Tnejn, il-Parlament approva fl-istadju tal-ewwel qari, l-abbozz ta’ liġi numru 28. Dan l-abbozz hu intenzjonat biex jikkjarifika l-provedimenti tal-Kodiċi Kriminali dwar l-abort terrapewtiku. B’mod speċifiku l-għanijiet u r-raġunijiet tal-abbozz huma biex “jipprovdu kjarifika dwar il-parametri fil-Kodiċi Kriminali li għandhom japplikaw għal cirkostanzi ta’ neċessità fejn ikun meħtieġ intervent mediku biex tkun protetta l-ħajja u s-saħħa ta’ mara tqila li tkun qiegħda tbati minn kumplikazzjoni medika.”

Uħud jikkunsidraw li l-abbozz numru 28 hu pass żgħir il-quddiem f’pajjiż li kontinwament ipprova jevita li jiddibatti l-abort. Sfortunatament, imma, l-proposta li ġiet ippreżentata hi waħda nejja.  

Wara snin jevita dibattitu nazzjonali, kien ikun ferm iktar għaqli għall-Gvern li jippubblika White Paper fejn jispjega b’mod ċar u dettaljat dak li jrid jagħmel dwar l-abort kif ukoll dwar dak kollu relatat miegħu. Tajjeb li nirrealizzaw li l-leġislazzjoni dwar l-abort tal-pajjiż ma hi tal-ebda siwi. Wara li ġiet injorata għal 160 sena l-liġi teħtieġ li tkun aġġornata għaż-żminijiet u li tkun tirrifletti l-avvanzi fix-xjenza u l-mediċina tul dawn is-snin kollha. Hemm bżonn li tinkiteb mill-ġdid u dan fid-dawl tal-fatt li tul dawn l-aħħar għaxar sninil-pajjiż ħaddan il-plurliżmu etiku.

Hu ċar li l-Gvern qed jipprova jindirizza l-impatt politiku li rriżulta mill-kaz riċenti tat-turista Amerikana Andrea Prudente, f’liema każ Malta naqset milli tipprovdi l-kura medika li kienet mistennija.

M’għandniex ħtieġa ta’ proposta rejattiva, proposta nejja: imma għandna bżonn proposta li tindirizza ir-realtà tas-seklu wieħed u għoxrin.  L-abort hu parti integrali mill-ħajja Maltija, rridu jew ma irridux! L-indikazzjonijiet huma ta’ medja ta’ 400 abort li jsiru kull sena fost il-Maltin. Il-parti l-kbira jseħħu bl-użu ta’ pilloli li jinkisbu bil-posta.  Oħrajn iseħħu f’pajjiżi oħra, primarjament fir-Renju Unit kif jidher fir-rapporti mediċi annwali ippubblikati.

Il-Partit Laburista jidher li hu xott mill-ideat għax naqas ukoll milli jindirizza l-abort fil-manifest elettorali tiegħu għall-elezzjoni ġenerali ta’ Marzu 2022.

Dan it-tkaxkir tas-saqajn mill-Partit Laburista jikkuntrasta mal-proposti tal-partit immexxi minni li tul ix-xhur li għaddew ippreżentajna proposti diversi biex apparti iktar ċarezza fil-liġi nimxu lejn id-dikriminalizzazzjoni kif ukoll lejn l-introduzzjoni speċifika tal-abort limitat għal tlett ċirkustanzi partikolari u straordinarji. Il-proposta tagħna hi li l-abort ikun permissibli meta l-ħajja jew is-saħħa tal-mara tqila tkun mhedda, fil-kaz ta’ tqala li isseħħ riżultat ta’ vjolenza (stupru u incest) kif ukoll fil-kaz ta’ tqala li ma tkunx vijabbli.

Uħud jikkunsidraw li dak proposta hu ftit wisq, oħrajn li hu wisq. Fil-fehma tagħna il-proposta hi addattata għaċ-ċirkustanzi partikolari lokali. Hi proposta li mhux biss hi ferm aħjar mill-proposta nejja tal-Gvern, imma twassal ukoll biex il-liġi tkun aġġornata għal dak mistenni fi żmienna!

Hemm ukoll materji oħra li huma relatati u li jeħtieġ li jkunu diskussi. Matul din il-ġimgħa grupp ta’ akkademiċi lokali u oħrajn ippubblikaw dokument għad-diskussjoni in konnessjoni mal-proposta tal-Gvern dwar l-abort.

Il-proposti fid-dokument ippubblikat għad-diskussjoni jfittxu li jissikkaw id-definizzjonijiet dwar iċ-ċirkustanzi li fihom ikun ġġustifikat l-intervent mediku biex ikun possibli li tkun protetta l-ħajja u s-saħħa tal-mara tqila. Jeskludi ukoll kull xorta ta’ abort.

Il-punti mqajjma f’dan id-dokument hu dejjem utlili li jkunu diskussi. Għalhekk ilna ngħidu li hemm ħtieġa għal diskussjoni pubblika matura, diskussjoni li l-Gvern ilu żmien jevita.  Imma nistenna ukoll li jkun hemm akkademiċi oħra b’veduti u opinjonijiet differenti li anke huma jsemmgħu leħinhom. Għandhom bżonn joħorġu mill-friża.

Irridu nħarsu lil hinn mill-proposti restrittivi li dan id-dokument għad-diskussjoni jippreżenta. Sa mill-2011, meta kien approvat ir-referendum dwar id-divorzju, Malta għażlet it-triq tal-pluraliżmu etiku: rispett lejn il-pluralità ta’ opinjonijiet u valuri etiċi. Id-dokument li qed nirreferi għalih hu negazzjoni ta’ dan u effettivament hu proposta biex naqbdu triq oħra u differenti. Għandna nirreżistu dan l-attentat.

Fl-aħħar għandu jkun ċar li din mhiex diskussjoni dwar x’inhu tajjeb jew ħażin imma dwar min għandu jieħu d-deċiżjoni kif ukoll dwar il-parametri li jiddeterminaw kif u safejn nistgħu naġixxu. M’aħniex qed ngħixu f’teokrazija: hu dritt li naffermaw illi hu possibli li jeżistu veduti u valuri differenti.

B’hekk beda d-dibattitu li ilu żmien maħnuq.

Ippubblikat fuq Illum: 27 ta’ Novembru 2022

Labour’s half-baked abortion proposal

On Monday Parliament approved at first reading stage Bill number 28 which Bill seeks to clarify the provisions of the Criminal Code relative to therapeutic abortion. Specifically, the objects and reasons of the Bill seek to “provide clarification on the parameters that shall apply in the Criminal Code to circumstances of necessity in which a medical intervention is required in order to protect the life and health of a pregnant woman suffering from a medical complication”.

Some may consider that Bill 28 is a good first step in a country which has continuously avoided debating abortion. Unfortunately, government’s proposal is half-baked.

After years of avoiding a national debate, it would have been much better if government published a detailed White Paper explaining its views on abortion and the related issues and principles. It is about time that we recognise that the country’s abortion legislation is not fit for purpose. After being ignored for 160 years Maltese abortion legislation requires to be brought in line with medical and scientific progress over the years. It also requires a substantial redrafting in view of the fact that for over a decade Malta has embraced ethical pluralism.

It is clear that government has limited itself to addressing the political fallout resulting from the recent case of the American tourist Andrea Prudente as a result of which Malta failed in the provision of the expected medical care.

We do not require a half-baked reactive proposal but rather a proposal which addresses twenty-first century reality. Whether we like it or not, abortion is a regular occurrence among Maltese too! Indications point towards an average 400 abortions which are carried out annually, a substantial portion of which through the use of abortion pills acquired through the post. Others are carried out through abortion tourism, primarily in the United Kingdom as is evidenced by annual published medical returns for England and Wales.

Apparently, the Labour Party is short on ideas as it has even failed to address abortion in its electoral manifesto for the March 2022 general election.

In contrast to the reluctance of the Labour Party to come forward with proposals, the Maltese Greens, which I lead, have, over the past months presented proposals which in addition to the required clarifications in our legislation seek decriminalisation as well as the specific introduction of abortion in three extraordinary circumstances: namely when the pregnant female’s health or life is under threat, in cases of a pregnancy brought about violently (rape and incest) as well as in the case of non-viable pregnancies.

Some have considered our above proposals as being too little, others as being too much. We consider that in view of the prevailing local circumstances our proposals are just right, a substantial improvement over government’s half-baked proposals and an overhaul of the current mid-nineteen century legislation, which is out of tune with what is expected in this day and age.

There are other related issues which we should also discuss. During this week a group of local academics and some hangers-on have published a discussion paper which discusses government’s abortion proposal.

The proposals in the said discussion paper seek to tightly define the circumstances which justify a medical intervention to protect the life and health of a pregnant woman. It also seeks to exclude all forms of abortion by tightly defining the applicable parameters.

It is a point of view which should be considered and discussed. This is what a mature public debate should be about and what government has been continuously avoiding. I would however expect other academics having different views to come out of the deep freeze and speak up.

We should look beyond the restrictive proposals presented in the discussion paper. Since the 2011 divorce referendum Malta has embarked on a journey of ethical pluralism which respects a plurality of views and ethical norms. The discussion paper is a negation of this journey and an attempt to change course, which attempt should be resisted.

At the end of the day the debate is not about what is right and wrong but on who should take the decision and the parameters within which it is permissible to act. We are not living in a theocracy. Differing views and values can definitely co-exist.

Let the debate, at last, begin.

published on Malta Independent on Sunday : 27 November 2022

Ethical pluralism: the next steps

Malta’s divorce referendum in 2011 has reinforced ethical pluralism in the Maltese islands.

The intensive debate on civil rights, IVF and abortion are a direct result of the divorce referendum. All this would not have been possible without the positive 2011 divorce referendum result. Prejudices and inhibitions are being slowly overcome.

The debate on civil rights is substantially settled, even though there is always room for improvement. The IVF debate is works in progress: with the PN having buckled under pressure as a result of Bernard Grech’s U-turn in Parliament on Wednesday, even this debate seems to be on track towards a possible satisfactory conclusion. In particular Bernard Grech rightly discarded the reaction of his health spokesperson Stephen Spiteri.

The next steps relate to the abortion debate.

ADPD – The Green Party is only one of two political parties in Malta to support the decriminalisation of abortion and the introduction of abortion in limited circumstances, that is to say when the pregnant woman’s life is in manifest danger, in respect of a pregnancy which is the result of violence (rape and incest) and in respect of a non-viable pregnancy.

Early this week the Women’s Rights Foundation (WRF) has gone a step further. Through a judicial protest it has taken the State Advocate as well as the Health and the Equality Ministers to task on abortion legislation arguing that current abortion legislation discriminated against all persons who can get pregnant and obstructed them from making choices in their private lives. The judicial protest submitted on behalf of more than 188 potential mothers is the first shot in what promises to be a long drawn up legal battle, right up to Strasbourg’s European Court of Human Rights, should this be necessary.

The abortion debate has been and will remain highly emotional. To date Malta’s predominantly conservative institutions have been intolerant and have done their utmost to obstruct this debate from developing. This situation cannot and will not last much longer as it is inconceivable in this day and age to further obstruct the co-existence of contrasting values: ethical pluralism is here to stay.

The decriminalisation of abortion and its possible legalisation, irrespective whether limited or otherwise, signifies one basic and important decision. It means that that the state no longer takes the decision on your behalf but rather that you will be able to take your own decision, subject to a regulatory framework which sets reasonable limits.  

It is estimated that around 400 Maltese women every year opt for an abortion. Some go abroad, others take pills, without medical supervision, which pills they receive through the post. Others resort to backstreet abortions. Prohibiting and criminalising abortion only drives it underground, away from the medical services, as a result exposing women to death or serious medical repercussions.

Therapeutic abortion is already permissible in the Maltese islands although this is not that clear in Maltese legislation. The way forward in the debate is to realise that abortion legislation in Malta, first enacted over 160 years ago, is not fit for purpose and needs a complete overhaul. It requires to be brought in line with medical and scientific progress over the years.

Decriminalisation and legalisation of abortion in limited circumstances should be the way forward. No woman who opts for an abortion for whatever reason should be subject to criminal law. Any woman in such circumstances needs help, empathy and not state prosecution. This is the way forward.

published in Malta Independent on Sunday : 19 June 2022

An invitation: keep the doors open

The abortion debate gets nastier by the minute. This was expected. It may even get worse!

The priest who described pro-choice PN candidate Emma Portelli Bonnici as a later day Hitler, kicked off this week’s instalment! The Archbishop’s Curia at Floriana forced the removal of the facebook post where he published these views: yet the damage was done. Will we ever learn to discuss anything respectfully? Is this too difficult to expect?

The Labour Party is being extremely cautious. It is very rare to hear any Labour Party speaker express himself or herself on the subject of abortion. Labour is aware of the different and contrasting views within its ranks when debating abortion. That in itself is healthy and could potentially lead to a mature debate. The current Labour Party leadership, however, as readers are aware, is acutely conservative on the matter even though there is a progressive element among its voters which is of the opposite view. This includes a couple of present and former electoral candidates and MPs/MEPs.

The PN on the other hand, going by Bernard Grech’s declaration earlier this week has not yet learnt its lessons from the divorce referendum campaign, ten years ago. I respect its political position on the matter but I still cannot understand its constant denigration of those within its ranks who have the courage to speak their mind. Stifling political debate is very damaging.  It has long-term effects which go much beyond the current debate!

As pointed out elsewhere, Bernard Grech’s declaration signifies one thing: the abortion debate is closed within the PN ranks, and anybody who dares think otherwise should start packing. From where I stand that is the clear message conveyed by Bernard Grech.

Within ADPD, the Green Party, last May, after a three year long internal debate, we approved a clear political position in favour of decriminalisation of abortion, as a result of which any woman opting for an abortion would not be subject to criminal action. We further emphasise that abortion should not be normalised but that it should be limited to specific, extraordinary and well-defined circumstances.

We have highlighted that Maltese legislation on abortion is not fit for purpose. It needs to be brought up to date after more than 160 years since its enactment. It requires to be brought in line with medical and scientific progress over the years.

We identify three such extraordinary circumstances in which abortion is justified, namely, when the life of the pregnant woman is in danger, when a pregnancy is the result of violence (rape and incest) and when faced with a pregnancy which is not viable.

There is definitely an urgent need for more emphasis on reproductive and sexual health education at all levels of our educational structures. This is a gap which needs plugging at the earliest!

We have been criticised by some as not going far enough. Others have stated that we have gone much too far.

Empathy, the ability to understand and share the feelings of others, is key in the abortion debate. It is essential that women who undergo abortion are not threatened any more with persecution and prosecution. They need the state’s protection as a result of which more will seek help before taking critical decisions. This will save lives as well as avoid unnecessary medical complications.

The abortion debate in Malta is unfortunately characterised by long periods of silence, alternating with outbursts of hate, insults and extreme intolerance. This is definitely not on. Political parties should take the lead by encouraging contributions to a clear and objective debate.

While others close their doors to the debate, ours will remain wide open.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 14 November 2021

L-abort: nippruvaw niddiskutu bil-kalma

Id-dibattitu dwar l-abort hu wieħed emottiv. L-insulti u t-tgħajjir li għaddejjin huma bla limitu. Huwa f’din l-atmosfera li qed issir id-diskussjoni. Ċerti nies ma jitgħallmu qatt.

Id-dibattitu huwa ibbażat fuq l-istess punt fundamentali tad-dibattitu dwar id-divorzju: fil-pajjiż jirrenja l-pluraliżmu etiku. Jiġifieri jeżistu valuri kuntrastanti. Kuntrasti li ilhom jinbnew ftit ftit tul is-snin imma li ġew moħbija mil-lenti pubblika. Id-diskussjoni kienet waħda ipprojibita. Ma saritx minħabba l-biża’ minn soċjetà intolleranti, frott tal-fundamentaliżmu li għixna fih għal ħafna snin. Is-soċjetà tagħna illum żviluppat f’soċjetà lajka li immanifestat ruħha fir-referendum dwar id-divorzju u fl-aċċettazzjoni tad-drittijiet LGBTIQ.

Mhux kull abort hu xorta. Mhuwiex ġustifikat li taqbad l-“agħar każ ta’ abort” u tuża lilu bħala eżempju.

Il-kampanja kontra l-abort hi iffukata fuq abort bla limitu li ma jeżisti kważi mkien. Fuq l-iktar każ estrem, kontinwament jinbena argument li jappella għall-emozzjonijiet flok għar-raġuni. Argument li jbezza’ lil uħud imma li ma jikkonvinċix lill-kotra li kapaċi taħseb b’moħħa.

Il-kampanja favur id-dritt tal-għażla (pro-choice) min-naħa l-oħra tagħmlu l-argument li mara għandha dritt li tagħżel dak li trid, x’ħin trid u bla ma jindaħlilha ħadd. Dan jinkludi dritt li tagħżel jekk u meta tidħol għal abort. Argument neoliberali fejn il-libertà individwali m’għandhiex limiti.

Id-dibattitu hu kuntrast bejn dawn iż-żewġ estremi. Id-djalogu min-naħa l-oħra taf twasslek x’imkien ieħor li jkun aċċettat abort f’każijiet limitati fejn is-sens komun jgħidlek li dan hu ġustifikat. L-argumenti emottivi dan kollu jinjorawh u allura jimminaw d-diskussjoni matura li tant neħtieġu f’dan il-pajjiż. Il-pajjiż ma jeħtiegx l-abort bħala stil ta’ ħajja imma l-abort bħala rimedju f’ċirkustanzi straordinarji.

F’Malta l-abort isir. Jagħmluh n-nisa li jixtru pilloli online u jeħduhom mingħajr ma jikkonsultaw tabib, bil-kumplikazzjonijiet kollha possibli. Ma teżistix statistika dwar kemm minnhom jidħlu l-isptar bħala riżultat ta’ dan.

L-abort isir ukoll fl-isptar Mater Dei f’ċirkustanzi fejn tittieħed azzjoni biex tkun imħarsa l-ħajja ta’ nisa tqal li jiffaċċjaw kumplikazzjonijiet fit-tqala. Riċentment kellna l-polemika dwar t-tqala magħrufa bħala “ectopic”, jiġifieri meta l-bajda ffertilizzata teħel f’tubu intern fil-mara. Dan it-tubu (Fallopian tube) hu żgħir u jekk ma tittieħed l-ebda ażżjoni jinfaqa’ u jipperikola l-ħajja tal-mara tqila.

Il-kura li tingħata f’dawn iċ-ċirkustanzi hi mediċina li taqla’ l-bajda iffertilizzata minn mat-tubu u tarmiha. Jekk dan idum ma jseħħ jikber il-periklu u tkun meħtieġa operazzjoni. Fiż-żewġ każi dan hu abort li bħalu jsiru numru kull sena f’Mater Dei. Imma ħadd ma jgħid xejn, għax kulħadd jaċċetta li dan hu intervent meħtieġ, anke jekk il-liġi tqis din is-sitwazzjoni bħala illegali.

Hu ċar li l-opinjoni pubblika f’Malta, fil-parti l-kbira taċċetta l-abort meta dan hu meħtieġ biex iħares il-ħajja tal-mara. Meta tiddiskuti bosta jaslu biex jaċċettaw li l-abort f’dawn iċ-ċirkustanzi hu tollerabbli.

Hemm ċirkustanzi oħra fejn l-abort hu inqas kontroversjali. Qed nirreferi għal meta jsir abort f’kaz ta’ stupru jew f’każ ta’ inċest. Fejn it-tqala hi sfurzata, bi vjolenza, hu ġustifikat li jsir abort preferibilment fil-fażi l-iktar kmieni possibli tat-tqala. Mara li għaddiet minn vjolenza ma tistax issib il-liġi bojja lesta biex tikkastigha, għax inkella tispiċċa soġġetta għal vjolenza doppja.

Xi żmien ilu ktibt artiklu fejn kont ikkumentajt dwar il-fatt li hawn min fil-fażi inizjali tat-tqala jagħmel xi testijiet u jekk minnhom jirriżulta xi difetti fil-fetu, il-mara tirrikorri għal abort. Dan mhux aċċettabbli. Imma mhux biżżejjed li ngħidu hekk. Hemm ħtieġa li nifhmu lil min jagħmel din l-għażla u nistaqsu jekk parti mir-raġuni hijiex soċjetà li ma tindukrax biżżejjed familji li jgħaddu minn sitwazzjonijiet ta’ disabililtà. Minkejja li sar progress kbir xorta għad hawn nuqqas enormi kemm ta’ komprensjoni kif ukoll ta’ għajnuna iffukata lejn min għandu bżonnha.

Xi kultant naqraw b’min jirrikorri għal abort għax it-tqala u t-twelid jitqiesu xkiel għall-iżvilupp tal-karriera! Hemm soluzzjonijiet diversi għal dawn it-tip ta’ ċirkustanzi, minn edukazzjoni aħjar dwar is-saħħa riproduttiva għal sens ikbar ta’ responsabbilta’ mhux biss tal-mara imma wkoll tar-raġel.

L-aħħar eżempju huwa fejn issir għażla favur l-abort minħabba l-faqar. Jintqal li hawn każi fejn il-mezzi ta’ familja huma tant ristretti li ma jifilħux għal wild ieħor. Anke hawn hemm soluzzjonijiet li minħabba n-nuqqas ta’ dibattitu pubbliku ftit li xejn jiġu esplorati. Irridu nindirizzaw l-għerq tal-faqar u mhux il-konsegwenzi tiegħu. Inkella nibqgħu fejn konna. Anke hawn in-nuqqas ta’ edukazzjoni dwar is-saħħa riproduttiva hu enormi.

Mhux in-nisa biss jeħtieġilhom jitgħallmu iktar imma anke l-irġiel għandhom ħtieġa kbira għal dan: uħud jeħtieġu doża iktar qawwija ta’ rispett u sens ta’ responsabbiltà.

Id-dekriminalizzazzjoni, almenu f’ċerta aspetti, hi parti essenzjali mit-tibdil meħtieġ. L-ebda mara m’għandha tkun soġġetta għal passi kriminali għax ħadet il-pilloli li waslulha bil-posta inkella għax irrikorriet b’xi mod għall-abort wara vjolenza li taqqlitha. Il-mara li tagħmel abort hi ukoll vittma hi stess u teħtieġ l-għajnuna u mhux is-swat tal-liġi.

Fid-dawl ta’ dan kollu l-proposta ta’ Marlene Farrugia iktar kmieni din il-ġimgha ser isservi biex taċċellera d-dibattitu pubbliku. Imma jkolli ngħid li saret ftit bil-għaġġla u hija nieqsa minn preparazzjoni pubblika dwarha.

Neħtieġu dibattitu kalm għax hu b’hekk biss li nistgħu nifhmu iktar lil xulxin. Dan hu dibattitu li mhux ser jispiċċa fi ftit ġranet iżda ser idum. Jekk ma nagħmluħx bil-kalma ma nkunu wasalna mkien.

ippubblikat fuq Illum : il-Ħadd 16 ta’Mejju 2021

Issa li l-Arċisqof irriżenja ……………..

 

L-Independent tal-lum qed jgħidulna li l-Papa taptap fuq spallejn l-Isqof t’Għawdex Mario Grech wara d-diskors li dan ta’ l-aħħar għamel waqt is-sinodu tal-isqfijiet f’Ruma.

L-Isqof Grech kien rappurtat li għamel diskors li fih saħaq fuq il-ħtieġa ta’ kemm il-Knisja trid toqgħod attenta dwar x’lingwaġġ tuża’. Meta tqis li waqt il-kampanja dwar id-divorzju l-Eċċellenza Tiegħu uża kliem iebes ħafna fil-konfront tal-kampanja favur l-introduzzjoni tad-divorzju, jidher li dan hu progress kbir.

L-anqas ma jista’ wieħed jinsa li l-ET l-Isqof t’Għawdex f’pontifikal fil-parroċċa tal-Munxar ftit wara r-referendum tad-divorzju kien rappurtat li ma kellu l-ebda dispjaċir minn dak li qal u li jekk meħtieġ kien lest li jirrepetieh.

 

Logħba Ċess fil-Kurja tal-Arċisqof

 

Mill-kummenti diversi fil-gazzetti jidher ċar li fil-Kurja tal-Arċisqof għaddejja logħba Ċess.

Il-kliem li qed jintuża fil-kitba hu indikattiv ta’ dak li għaddej minn moħħ min qed jgħidu. Ir-Rev. Joe Borg per eżempju jiddeskrivi lill-Knisja Maltija bħala li qegħda fl-istess stat li kien il-Partit Nazzjonalista wara l-elezzjoni ġenerali tal-1976. Jiġifieri, r-Rev  Joe Borg qed jgħid li l-Knisja hi b’Kap iżda bla tmexxija, b’viżjoni imċajpra u bis-segwaċi imgerfxin.

Analiżi iebsa li iżda taqbel mad-deskrizzjoni tal-Knisja Maltija bħala waħda li ġiet imsikkta. Din hi deskrizzjoni ta’ Simon Busuttil u ta’ oħrajn fil-PN xi xhur ilu.

Minbarra din il-kritika hemm oħra bħal dik tar-Rev Rene Camilleri dwar il-prokrastinazzjoni tal-Arċisqof biex jagħmel it-tibdil meħtieġ fil-Kurja kif ukoll il-kummenti validissimi ta’ Fr Joe Inguanez fuq l-istess linja.

It-tmexxija tal-Knisja f’Malta kienet komda għal ħafna snin. Għax minbarra l-Arċisqof fil-Kurja kellha ukoll ieħor jilgħaba tal-Arċisqof, għal ħafna snin, fil-Berġa’ ta’ Kastilja.  Il-protezzjoni li l-“Arċisqof Lawrence Gonzi” , kif ukoll il-predeċessur tiegħu ta lill-Knisja Maltija tul is-snin billi rreżista t-tibdil soċjali spiċċa iktar għamel ħsara mhux biss lill-Knisja imma anke lis-soċjeta’ Maltija. Għax it-tibdil li seta tħalla jseħħ bil-pass tiegħu, minflok qiegħed iseħħ f’daqqa u b’ritmu mgħaġġel. Mhux kulħadd hu ippreparat għal dan it-tibdil.

Il-protezzjoni artifiċjali tagħtik sens falz ta’ sigurta’. Sigurta’ li fil-fatt ma teżistix. Meta l-poplu allura xeba’ u ivvota favur l-introduzzjoni tad-divorzju nhar it-28 ta’ Mejju 2011 il-protezzjoni tal-Arċisqof Lawrence Gonzi spiċċat.

It-tmexxija tal-Knisja li jrid r-Rev Joe Borg tikkuntrasta ma dik tal-Prof Victor Axiaq. Ta’ l-ewwel irid Knisja mhiex siekta fuq materji ta’ interess pubbliku. Tat-tieni jrid Knisja mhedija fl-ispiritwalita. Ikolli ngħid li dawn iż-żewġ veduti m’humiex inkompatibbli. Id-diffikultajiet iżda jmorru lura s-snin sa żmien l-Arċisqof Gonzi l-ieħor.

Għax dan pajjiż li mhux dejjem tista’ tifhmu: kellna Arċisqof li kien politiku u politiku li iktar kien jidher qiesu l-Arċisqof!

Sadanittant għaddejja l-logħba ċess. Uħud iżommu s-skiet bi prudenza jew iktar b’makakkerija. U l-Arċisqof Pawlu Cremona, skond Joe Borg, qiesu George Borg Olivier, jistenna li jew jitlaq inkella itellquh.

Wara kollox anke fiċ-ċess hemm 4 isqfijiet, tnejn fuq kull naħa  !

Ippubblikat fuq iNews, il-Ħamis 21 t’Awwissu 2014

Busuttil fuq il-passi ta’ Gonzi : għan-niżla

 

F’diskors riċenti Simon Busuttil qal li hu bniedem differenti. M’għandux x’jaqsam mal-predeċessuri tiegħu. Qalilna li għandu ideat differenti għax iħares il-quddiem wara li tgħallem mill-iżbalji tal-passat.

Fost l-iżbalji tal-passat hemm il-posizzjoni ta’ Lawrence Gonzi li sfida l-vot tar-referendum favur id-divorzju.  Hemm ukoll il-posizzjoni inumana li l-Gvern Nazzjonalista immexxi minn Lawrence Gonzi ħa kontra t-transesswali. Dwar dan kien għamel apoloġija Mario de Marco għan-nom tal-PN.

Minn dan kollu l-PN ma tgħallem xejn. Għax kuntrarju għal dak li qal Simon Busuttil, taħt it-tmexxija ta’ Busuttil innifsu l-PN ma ivvutax favur il-Liġi li introduċiet l-Unjoni Ċivili. Busuttil baqa’ miexi fuq l-istess passi ta’ Gonzi, jisfida ir-raġuni u s-sens komun.

Il-lum f’artiklu (b’mod ironiku intitolat The Right Man for the Job) miktub minn Frank Psaila  li sal-elezzjoni ta’ Marzu 2013 kien Direttur Informazzjoni tal-PN, Busuttil ġie għal darba oħra ikkritikat b’dan l-iżball. Żball li iktar kmieni f’dan il-blog jiena iddeskrivejtu bħala wieħed li mhux ser jintesa.

Jekk hux the right man for the job jew le, ma jinteressanix. Li hu ċar pero hu li m’hemmx differenza minn ta’ qablu.  Miexi fuq il-passi ta’ Gonzi: għan-niżla (jekk hu possibli li tinsel iktar l-isfel).

Ir-Referendum: għodda demokratika

Ir-referendum hu għodda demokratika. Il-votanti jesprimu l-fehma tagħhom dwar suġgett wieħed biss.  Meta jsir referendum Gvern demokratiku jbaxxi rasu għar-riżultat bla argumenti, għax il-poplu jkun tkellem.

F’Malta saru diversi referenda li permezz tagħhom saret konsultazzjoni mal-votanti dwar diversi affarijiet. Ħafna jiftakru r-referenda f’Malta dwar : l-Integration (1956), l-Indipendenza (1964), l-Unjoni Ewropeja (2003) w id-divorzju (2011). Kollha kienu ta’ kontroversja. Fl-ewwel tlieta minn dawn ir-referenda d-deċiżjoni li jsir ħadha l-Gvern. Fl-aħħar wieħed id-deċiżjoni ħadha l-Parlament. Dawn ir-referenda jissejħu konsultattivi għax permezz tagħhom issir konsultazzjoni mal-poplu. Id-deċiżjoni li ittieħdet f’kull wieħed minn dawn ir-referenda kienet deċiżjoni politika favur l-Integration, l-Indipendenza, l-Unjoni Ewropeja u id-divorzju.

Fl-1996 ġiet emendata l-liġi dwar ir-Referenda biex ikun possibli li l-votanti jieħdu l-inizjattiva huma jekk jidhrilhom illi għandu jsir referendum dwar xi suġgett partikolari. Dan ir-referendum jissejjaħ Referendum Abrogattiv, jiġifieri referendum li jħassar, għax il-proposta tista’ tkun biss waħda li tħassar liġi, regolamenti jew parti minnhom.

Ma jistax isir referendum abrogattiv fuq kollox. Hemm affarijiet li dwarhom ma jistax isir referendum. Dawn jinkludu l-liġijiet dwar finanzi u taxxi, il-Kostituzzjoni, d-drittijiet tal-bniedem, it-trattati internazzjonali li minnhom jirriżultaw obbligi għall-pajjiż, kif ukoll il-liġi dwar l-elezzjoni ġenerali.

Biex isir referendum abrogattiv ikunu jridu jinġabru 10% tal-firem ta’ dawk li għandhom vot f’elezzjoni ġenerali u li isimhom jidher fuq ir-reġistru elettorali. Il-firem jinġabru skond formola apposta li hemm fil-liġi u f’din il-formola trid tissemma dik il-liġi jew regolament li r-referendum ikun qed jitlob li jitħassar. Bħalissa biex isir referendum hemm bżonn ta’ madwar 35,000 firma.

Meta jinġabru l-firem dawn jiġu ppreżentati lill-Kummissjoni Elettorali li tieħu ħsieb tiċċekkjhom. Wara mhux iktar minn ħmistax-il ġurnata il-Kummissjoni Elettorali tippreżenta l-firem fir-Reġistru tal-Qorti Kostituzzjonali b’nota li tgħid jekk hemmx jew le il-firem mitluba mill-liġi: jiġifieri l-10% tal-votanti reġistrati.

Jekk il-firem neċessarji jkunu nġabru l-Qorti Kostituzzjonali permezz tar-Reġistratur toħroġ avviż li biħ tagħti tlett xhur ċans biex min ikollu oġgezzjonijiet validi iressaqhom biex ikunu ikkunsidrati mill-Qorti. Wara li jgħaddu t-tlett xhur għall-oġġezzjonijiet il-Qorti tgħaddi biex tiddeċiedi fuq l-oġġezzjonijiet li tkun irċeviet.

Jekk il-Qorti Kostituzzjonali tara li minkejja l-oġġezzjonijiet li jkunu ġew ippreżentati r-referendum abrogattiv xorta għandu jsir tagħti deċiżjoni li biha tordna lill-Kummissjoni Elettorali biex torganizza r-referendum. Id-deċiżjoni tal-Qorti imbagħad tmur għand il-President tar-Repubblika li jiffirma l-ordni biex isir ir-referendum abrogattiv f’data li ma tkunx qabel ma jgħaddu tlett xhur mid-deċiżjoni tal-Qorti iżda mhux iktar tard minn sitt xhur.

Id-deċiżjoni fir-referendum abrogattiv tkun waħda finali. Jekk il-votanti jaqblu u jiddeċiedu li liġi jew regolament jitħassar dan jitħassar mat-tħabbir tar-riżultat mingħajr ħtieġa li jkun hemm xi deċiżjoni oħra.

Dan ir-referendum jiddependi biss mill-volonta’ tal-votanti. Għalhekk hu għodda demokratika għax jagħti saħħa lill-fehma tan-nies li ħadd u xejn ma jista’ jżommhom sakemm jimxu mal-liġi. Ma hemm bżonn l-ebda deċiżjoni da parti tal-Gvern biex isir referendum abrogattiv. La biex jimbuttah u l-anqas biex iżommu.

Hi ħasra li s’issa din l-għodda demokratika għadna qatt ma għamilna użu minnha. Il-firem li qed jinġabru bħalissa għal referendum biex iwaqqaf darba għal dejjem il-kaċċa fir-rebbiegħa tista’ tkun l-ewwel darba li jsir użu minn dan id-dritt. Issa jidher li din il-possibilita’ hi fil-qrib għax kif ġie imħabbar il-firem li inġabru s’issa qabżu l-25,000.

Nistennew ftit ġimgħat oħra u naraw.

Ippubblikat fuq iNews: it-Tnejn 25 ta’ Novembru 2013