Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1294561
12 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 4 OCTOBER 2020 OPINION No one should be given a license to discriminate THE ongoing discussion in Par- liament of the Equality Bill is very positive and encouraging. If the Bill becomes law, Malta will soon be in a much stronger po- sition to address discrimination and inequality. As the Commission responsi- ble for the implementation of Malta's equality law, the Na- tional Commission for the Pro- motion of Equality (NCPE) is very well aware of the benefits of the equality legal framework on society and individuals. Alas, in our day-to-day work we con- stantly meet people who cannot be provided with the necessary protection from discrimination due to loopholes, inconsisten- cies and weaknesses in the law currently in force. For this rea- son, the NCPE was one of the main proponents of the Equality Bill way back in 2014. The Equality Bill is structured around the same principles contained in the current nation- al legal framework and EU Di- rectives, while empowering the people to require that the prin- ciples of non-discrimination and equality are respected in practice. This will leave a tangi- ble positive impact on individu- als who are at risk of discrimina- tion, but also on Maltese society at large. We emphasise that the negative effects of discrimina- tion transcend the individual. Discrimination stifles societal development and well-being by acting as a barrier to the full contribution, by all social groups, to Malta's economic, political and cultural life. People have a right to feel pro- tected from unfair treatment and harassment because of per- sonal characteristics such as sex, age, religion, ethnic origin, gender identity or sexual ori- entation. They also have a right to feel that, if discriminated against or harassed, accessible and effective legal remedies are available. It is thus essential that equality law avoids loopholes and ambiguities that would al- low unfair treatment or would convey the message that dis- crimination and inequality can be somehow justified. Surely, law should also give us clear parameters as to what is considered discriminatory and what is not. A list outlining dif- ferences in treatment that are not considered discriminatory is already included in the Equality Bill, and this provides for no less than fifteen such circumstances. For example, an employer is al- lowed to recruit a person with a specific personal characteristic if that characteristic constitutes a "genuine and determining re- quirement" for the job. However, if other types of differences in treatment – not based on objective considera- tions about the need and legit- imacy of different treatment – are added to this list, the Equality Bill would be weak- ened, leaving entire categories of persons unprotected. Let's take the case of educa- tional institutions run by reli- gious organisations, irrespective of which religion. According to the Equality Bill, such institu- tions are free to impose their ethos and the Bill explicitly al- lows these institutions to re- quire teachers to act in good faith and in line with the school policies. The Bill also clarifies that such requirement should not interfere with the private life of teachers outside that es- tablishment. Thus, once enact- ed, the new equality law will not stop religious organisations from running educational insti- tutions based on a faith-based ethos. What it prohibits is the discrimination against teachers based on their personal char- acteristics. This provision sim- ply reaffirms the principle of non-discrimination in employ- ment, applicable to the public, the private and the third sector. Should an exception to this rule be introduced in the Equality Bill - one allowing discrimi- nation in employment when the employer is a religious in- stitution - hundreds of teach- ers would be left uncovered by equality law and unprotected against discrimination in the sphere of employment. Likewise, the Equality Bill does not prevent educational institu- tions run by religious organisa- tions from transmitting the val- ues and teachings of their faith. Educational institutions are only obliged to ensure that curricula and textbooks do not propagate discrimination, and to promote diversity and respect. An edu- cational institution doing oth- erwise would be causing harm to both its students and society. Not representing, or unfavour- ably representing, certain social groups has a devastating impact on those students who are part of that social group as it engen- ders an educational environ- ment that is exclusionary and/ or hostile. It also has profound social ramifications. Just im- agine a situation where children are taught that men are superior to women, or that LGBTIQ in- dividuals are inferior to straight persons. This would contradict one of the main tenets of dem- ocratic society: the notion that we live together and relate to each, on the basis that we all are of equal value. Similarly, including a clause on "conscientious objection", within the context of equal- ity law, would go counter to the core principles of non-dis- crimination law itself, as well as to the fundamental values of a country aspiring for equal- ity. Since the law covers the prohibition of discrimination against persons on the basis of their personal characteristics, "conscientious objection" here would simply mean a license to discriminate against others. Once discrimination against others is made possible, every- one can be a victim of discrim- inatory treatment. The Equal- ity Bill covers the provision of goods and services within the social and public sphere, where one's actions will inevitably and directly impinge on the rights of others. If equality law allows persons to discriminate against others when invoking their own personal conscience, it would be disregarding the rights of those it is supposed to protect - persons experiencing discrimination and inequality. Current equality law already prohibits discrimination in the provision of goods and services. In fact, national legislation and EU Directives do not include any reference to "conscientious objection" in the context of non-discrimination. The Equality Bill aims to en- sure that individuals are not treated unfairly because of their personal characteris- tics, and that social groups do not become marginalized or placed in situations of inequal- ity. Every exception to the rule prohibiting discrimination and harassment would translate to weaker protection against un- fair treatment and abuse, and consequently, to more social in- equality. Thus, the Equality Bill should continue to be guided by the principle that everyone has a right to a social experience that is free from discrimination and harassment. Renée Laiviera Renée Laiviera is Commissioner for Promotion of Equality