Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1332685
THE past week has been characterized by the exploits of Ian Borg and Joseph Mus- cat who, in the space of a few days, man- aged to grab the attention of the Maltese population through their "learned" inter- ventions, respectively on ONE TV and in the law courts of the Republic. On 12 January, Ian Borg gave a veritable show on Karl Stagno Navarra's Pjazza. Fol- lowing an interview with the freshly elected Gavin Gulia, who was to remain in his MP's post for a few minutes, Stagno Navarra and Borg embarked on a fun evening between buddies. Their initial appetizer was to ded- icate a couple of minutes ridiculing me: "Dana professur?" (Is this guy a professor?), "Ikollu 3 likes" (He only has three likes). My grave offence? Going to the counting hall to help independent-minded PL candi- date Charles Azzopardi in the counting of votes during the by-election. Following their ridiculing of me, an inde- pendent candidate, Ian Borg then went on to make fun of the leader of the Opposition, Bernard Grech. He was so immersed in his part, entertaining his aficionados of "Pros- it, Ministru", "King int, Ministru", "Grazzi, Ministru" fame, that he let himself go a bit too far. First he came up with the most blasphe- mous of swearwords in the Maltese lan- guage, the colourful "Ħaqq ----", and then he followed up with a partially uttered "Li--", certainly not with the intention of paying tribute to the miraculous effects that male sperm can produce. Karl Stagno Navarro must have really enjoyed himself as he listened to Minister Borg giving vent to his linguistic skills. All this, live on ONE TV. Ian Borg must cer- tainly be the pride of the family. A few days later, it was Joseph Muscat's turn to come up with another colourful Maltese word, żobiku, this time during a law court sitting in Valletta. This word is derived from the word penis or related to 'penis envy'. Am I such a prude as to be scandalised by these words? Of course not. Even I have of- ten sinned like Ian and Joseph, by uttering some vulgar words. And have never any vulgar words been uttered in our parlia- ment? Of course not. During this legislature only, we have experienced Glenn Beding- field swearing in parliament and Ryan Cal- lus uttering the word għoxxata during one of his speeches. So why have I reported Ian Borg to the Standards Commissioner because of his "heavy" swear word? And why am I disgust- ed at Joseph Muscat's utterance in court? Simply, because of the contemptuous at- titude of the two and of the places where they're not meant to be uttered. Glenn Bedingfield mentioned the name of God in vain in parliament. But, soon after, he had the modesty to recognise his mis- take and to apologise publicly. Ryan Callus described Konrad Mizzi's lumping Enemal- ta with Electrogas's €40 million excise duty bill as an għoxxata. I fully sympathise with his frustration at Konrad's con, but the use of the word in parliament was not appro- priate at all. Callus had the humility to im- mediately admit that he had been wrong in speaking that way, and apologized. What did Ian Borg do, instead? Rather than being a real man and admitting that it was inappropriate for him to swear, com- pounded by the fact that this was all hap- pening live on TV at 6:45 pm, when every- body is still wide awake, he had the audacity to go on the attack and blame others for his misdemeanours. First he stated that the video where he clearly blasphemed God was manipulated and edited in such a way as to make him look bad. Then, not content with this, he decided to treat people as idiots, declaring that what he had actually said was Ħa Qalanqas". Of course, this expression does not exist in the Maltese language. Yet, most of the "Int king, Ministru" trolls were totally in unison with their kink: "Why waste energy on such nonsense. Just ignore and stay cool as always!", wrote Glenn; "Kemm int kbir", echoed Brian. The extent of brainwashing in this country is, alas, enormous. As regards Joseph Muscat, instead, last week he stormed into the courtroom in the same arrogant fashion that had dis- tinguished him in December, during the Daphne assassination Inquiry. Like then, he dictated to the learned judges the way proceedings were to be held in court. And, to the amazement of one and all, he was al- lowed to decide, practically unchecked by the judges, which questions he wanted to answer and those that he refused to reply to. Then, the cherry on the cake, in his last sitting he defined a lawyer's line of reason- ing as żobiku. Has this word never been ut- tered in the Maltese language? Of course, it has. But never has it been said in court, without the person uttering it receiving a severe reprimand by the judge. With Muscat, nothing. The man who con- siders himself to be invictus is so self-con- ceited that he believes he has a divine right to say żobiku as he pleases. Little does Invictus realise that the haugh- tier he behaves, the more żobiku he proves to be. THE question I would like to ad- dress is whether women should be required to give birth, in other words just because a woman has hadImagine your child requires a life-saving intervention, are you required to provide it by donating your own blood or tissue, to make sure your child remains alive? Should a parent put their own life at risk by allowing their body to be used to make sure the child re- mains alive? Imagine a situation where a child requires a kidney/liver transplant to stay alive and one of the parents is a viable candidate for transplan- tation, but that parent does not want to donate (for whatever rea- son), does the law force him to do so? Or imagine that a child has fall- en into a fast-moving river. Assuming the parent can swim, would s/he be legally responsible for the death of that child if they did not jump into the river at con- siderable risk to themselves? Must a parent run into a collapsing building to save their child? In each of these examples the parent might choose to take the risk, but are they required to by law? Most of us would agree that we should normally let parents make that decision themselves, and we would be sympathetic if they choose not to, in view of the risks to themselves. If a pregnant person (who is not even yet a parent) must continue with the pregnancy, whatever the circumstances, as our law requires, then it follows that after birth, that same parent should be required to do whatever it takes to keep their child alive. Since our laws do not impose the requirement to put yourself at risk to save your child, why is it that we have laws that prohibit a pregnant person from deciding to end the pregnancy? It would seem that the situation in Malta is one where the parent of a child is held to a lesser level of responsibility than a pregnant woman who is not allowed the pos- sibility of having an abortion. One might argue that it is a ques- tion of degree of risk. So, for exam- ple, jumping into a swimming pool to save your child's life, when there is minimal risk to yourself, might be considered legally your respon- sibility. But that assumes that you know what risks you are facing. For ex- ample, if you are a strong swimmer you can assume that the risk to yourself is small. However, we can- not assume that women know that their pregnancy will be uneventful. In fact, we cannot fully predict what will happen during a preg- nancy or birth which is the whole point of antenatal care. It follows that it should be up to the woman to decide whether she wants to take the risk of a pregnan- cy. In my view, nobody who is preg- nant should be required to take an unknown risk. They may choose to do so, or not. This is not about whether abor- tion is morally correct or incor- rect. If you cannot bring yourself to run into a building that is collaps- ing to save your child's life, then why should you be required to go through pregnancy? You do not know what will hap- pen when you take the risk. You might come out alive carrying the child or you might be buried with the child. You just do not know. What you do know when you are pregnant is that you have 40 weeks of unforeseen, albeit minimal risk ahead of you followed by a birth, with somewhat more risk. Bear in mind that certain pregnancies with pre-existing medical conditions would increase the risk. And whether you drown in a riv- er trying to save your child or you die during pregnancy, you are still dead. That is why it is the pregnant per- son who should decide whether they are willing to take that risk. Please note that I am simply using death as an example and I am well aware that maternal mortality is rare. In fact, there are no parental rights or obligations until there is an actual child who is living inde- pendently of the woman. If you do not want to donate blood or tissue, or jump into the water, you are not required to do so. This is what is meant by bodily autonomy. 13 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 24 JANUARY 2021 OPINION Prof. Isabel Stabile is a member of Doctors for Choice Arnold Cassola is an independent MEP candidate arnoldcassola@gmail.com Isabel Stabile Arnold Cassola When do parental rights and responsibilities begin and end? So zobiku: the self- conceit of men in power .