Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1287818
12 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 13 SEPTEMBER 2020 OPINION Drawing clear lines for equality THE sudden removal of the Mellieħa cross followed by its equally sudden reappearance jolted awake those Maltese who had not realised that something pretty dislodging might be at stake with the pending 'Equality' bills. In an excellent article on MaltaToday (9 August), Chris Vella rose up to the challenge with his own key questions and key fears about the impending changes. Vella is active in Drachma, which supports people of various characteristics in their quest for sexual and spiritual integration. Equality laws aim to promote equality by prohibiting discrim- ination against people with a wide range of characteristics, while setting up the structures and rules for the fulfilment of this role. Vella is aware of the complex- ity of translating this into prac- tice. As to principles, he basically wants respect for diversity and plurality, but is afraid that that practice may either go too far or not go far enough. In such a law, what counts in the end is what it forces us to do or not to do. Where do you draw the line? As to practice, he focuses on two areas: how far schools should restrict teachers who do not fol- low their ethos, and how far can conscientious objection allow different people to be treated dif- ferently. Vella confronts the issue of what basic values should decide the balance among competing values or interests. First, he claims, the law should be inclusive, "embracing peo- ple who are different, and have different opinions and views, subject to the very basic rule of mutual respect towards one an- other." Secondly, the law should be ef- fective, such as where it comes to conscientious objection: "…if my ethical beliefs are by their very nature exclusive, non-embrac- ing, racist, misogynist or homo- phobic/transphobic… [through] a vaguely defined conscientious objection, those same 'protected characteristics' would be over- ruled [later he says 'nullified']. Unless, that is, a very specific wording is adopted that clear- ly delineates specific scenarios where that right could be imple- mented." Thirdly, then, the laws must be clear and their interpretation predictable. Fourthly, teaching values to students should not be at the cost of failing to inform them of other beliefs and to induce them to accept and live harmoniously with the different. Responding in the parliamen- tary committee to civil socie- ty members' alarm at the law's vagueness and unpredictability, Minister Edward Zammit Lewis claimed that future law courts will take note of the intentions and interpretations expressed in Parliament (and in committee, one would ask?) But many ques- tions remain hanging. Few issues of interpretation have in fact been settled. The law has its mechanisms to settle uncertainties. If you ask me, their predictability looks like the blankest of blank cheques! A Commissioner will decide poli- cy, helped by a commission and a consultative commission, sup- posedly as widely representative as possible, but whose selection process can be hijacked and mo- nopolised. The law not only over- rules all Maltese laws (and signed international conventions) ex- cept only the Constitution, but metes out crippling punishments on law-breakers. It also allows authorities (pre- sumably the Commissioner) to invoke 'principles and practices' of other countries. How can one predict which laws the Commis- sioner will draw out of a hat: a Swedish law here to decide what is discrimination regarding abor- tion? A US law there to decide how far propertied people are allowed to dominate and deter- mine the running of political parties? A Russian one on the freedom of religion and religious symbols? One characteristic that is pro- tected by the law is 'property'. As far as I know, with so many claus- es clamouring for discussion, no- body has even had time to ask which minority is being protect- ed against discrimination by in- cluding property. Is it the 1% of the population that own 49% of the world's property? The ones who contribute massively to po- litical campaigns? Or does it de- fend the right of the have-nots to have equal access to good hous- ing, good legal representation in court and equal education? Is it up to the selected Commission- er to alone arbitrate on what this is supposed to mean? And is all jurisprudence characteristic of Maltese law now to bow out whenever the overruling author- ities cite practices that are com- pletely alien to Malta? Another anti-equality feature of the law is its discrimination against religious schools and religious symbols. While gov- ernment selects many public servants on the basis of personal trust, schools are not allowed to check whether a person teaching the Muslim or Catholic religion adheres to that religion, except in restricted cases. Religious symbols are very quaintly, and out of the blue, said not to be illegal "if they are cul- tural" or if removed once a reli- gious function is over, while the law nowhere says they are illegal in the first place! Political monu- ments and symbols, by contrast, are free of restriction. Back to the drawing board, then! What lines should be drawn? First, the arbitrary invoking of laws alien to Malta must be re- moved from the Bill: otherwise the law's predictability will be near zero. Second, as Vella suggests, ap- plicable scenarios or conditions should be clearly declared, giv- ing the law the predictability re- quired by elementary justice and democracy. Such as: - Religions are free to decide access to their religious services, such as the sacraments, accord- Charles Pace