Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1369939
11 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 9 MAY 2021 OPINION My body, my rights – in all areas of life (including mental health care) decision, for David Casa not to be elected as a Member of the Euro- pean Parliament, and it does not transpire that hundreds of messag- es were exchanged between Adrian Delia and Yorgen Fenech…" He also described Adrian Delia himself as "not in the pocket of any businessman, and is, therefore, a part of the fight against corruption without hindrance or compro- mise"… I don't know; by this yardstick, even Alfred Sant's own 2004 feat starts looking rather lame. For let's be brutal about this, for a change: either those 700 WhatsApp mes- sages existed, or they didn't. Like- wise, Yorgen Fenech either did bribe Delia to sabotage Casa's re-election… or he didn't. By the same token, Azzopardi was either lying when he made those claims last year; or he was telling the truth. And if he was lying… well, his motives were not exactly that dif- ficult to decipher at the time (and even less today). Obviously, it was intended to destabilise, and ulti- mately overthrow Delia's leader- ship; and timed to coincide with the eve of an election. And while I don't exactly begrudge any pol- itician for trying to replace their party leader, in a situation where they feel he or she needs replac- ing… but… to frame Adrian Delia, over fake criminal contacts with a notorious suspected murderer? That's a rather shabby way of going about it, wouldn't you say? In all honesty, makes you wonder what that sort of politician would actually end up being like, if they ever go on to become… ooh, let's see now: Malta's next Minister for Justice, perhaps? Much more damagingly, howev- er… it would also call into ques- tion the entire chain of events that culminated in Bernard Grech's appointment to replace Adrian Delia in the first place. For if there is suddenly no reason whatsoever to doubt that Delia is "a part of the fight against corruption without hindrance or compromise"… then there was no real reason to even hold that leadership election to begin with, either. In fact, it would be no exagger- ation at all to surmise that – were it not for all those allegations, that Jason Azzopardi has suddenly dis- avowed only now – Adrian Delia would have had a very good chance of still being PN leader today. Certainly, at the very least we now have to ask ourselves whether Bernard Grech himself ascended the throne in much the same way as Shakespeare's Henry IV: who, in later life, admitted to "the unusual paths and indirect, crooked ways that led me to this crown…" All of which leads me to believe that what we all witnessed this week, was no less than the polit- ical U-turn of the century (if not millennium): for not only has Ja- son Azzopardi managed to sin- gle-handedly annihilate his own political credibility (while boosting that of his adversary)… but he has even managed to de-legitimise his preferred choice's claim to the Na- tionalist Party leadership. And that is precisely the sort of daredevil, death-defying stunt, that no one – not even Bo and Luke's body-doubles – would ever dream of risking their own necks for… BODILY autonomy is the right to govern over our own bodies and have the right to de- cide, without external coercion or influence. Although a basic concept and fundamental right, it is still highly debated. Such attack on fundamental rights has meant reduced level protection for individ- uals, and especially marginalised groups in society such as LGBTQ+ people, racialised communities, women and girls, and people with mental health problems, including psy- chosocial disabilities. As such, it reinforces the rhetoric and ideology that people's free- doms and claim over their bodies can be re- moved, thus preventing people from enjoy- ing their full rights. The problem is at our doorstep At a time when we should be working to- wards achieving a better future for all, we are grappling to have our rights recognised and even observe a reversal of rights protec- tion. Alarmingly, there has been an increased back-pedalling in political support for ending all forms of discrimination, as well as little at- tention paid to the tireless advocacy against de-institutionalisation and more. This wor- rying shift is impeding the rights of individ- uals to personal integrity, self-determination and self-ownership, which will have harrow- ing consequences in the future. In Europe and neighbouring regions, coun- tries such as Turkey and Poland progressing in withdrawing from the Istanbul Conven- tion, an internationally agreed framework for zero-tolerance for violence against women and girls and gender-based violence, is a hu- man rights guarantee. Moreover, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has called on the EU and its member states, as ratifying members to the Convention, to move away from institutional care and towards community-based support. However, over ten years since the Convention came into existence, European countries are still over-reliant on psychiatric institutions as a response to mental ill-health, despite prom- inent examples of de-institutionalisation for example in Italy. Supportive decision making should be a reality Before the COVID-19 pandemic, it was es- timated that mental health problems affect about 84 million people across EU countries. According to the Organisation for Econom- ic Co-operation and Development (OECD), one in two people will experience a mental health problem in their lifetime. The active and informed participation of everyone in decisions that affect their lives and rights is consistent with the human rights-based ap- proach in public decision-making processes, and ensures good governance and social ac- countability. However, suppressed right to bodily autonomy will contribute to the nor- malised violence, either by dismantling legal protections or by preventing progression to- wards holistic support systems. In systems of mental health care, the right to bodily autonomy continues to be contest- ed across Europe. Until today we can find mental health laws that allow for some form of involuntary treatment, including forced institutionalisation, justified when a person is deemed dangerous to themselves or oth- ers. And in times of Covid-19, haven't the last months taught us that exposure to men- tal distress is something human and under- standable, and that periods of discomfort are intrinsically linked to our personal feelings? The call for freedom from coercion in mental health care seems more comprehensible than ever, simply because coercion is not care. In- stead smart forms to support an individual's decision-making, especially in times of per- sonal crisis, should be encouraged. Unfortunately, the negative trend of find- ing justification for violating bodily autono- my continues, for example with the so-called draft additional protocol to the Oviedo Con- vention at the Council of Europe. Such pro- tocol would further cement the idea that oth- ers, including mental health professionals, uphold authority over our bodies and subject them to involuntary treatment. Now, as much as ever, this needs to be a top- ic of conversation, before the work that has been undertaken by activists, persons with lived experience, local, national and regional organisations for decades, is unravelled. No one should have a claim to our bodies, except ourselves. Fatima Awil is Advocacy and Policy Officer, Jonas Bull is Policy and Research Officer and Cyrus Engerer is an MEP for the Labour Party Fatima Awil, Jonas Bull and Cyrus Engerer Active and informed participation of everyone in decisions that affect their lives and rights is consistent with the human rights-based approach in public decision- making processes