Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1510125
lution approved by the EP was in fact about [other issues apart from abortion]"; c) Reminding us that he had "voted AGAINST the in- clusion of a paragraph dealing with abortion rights, which featured in [the same resolu- tion]". And lastly; d) Getting a good old fashioned 'taste of his own medicine' (and not liking it very much, by the look of things…) Because yes, folks! As you will surely have worked out, by now: that other article I quot- ed earlier, also featured David Casa as one of its main protag- onists. Only in a slightly differ- ent role, this time… So let me fill in the details myself. The year was 2010. The European Parliament had just approved a wide-ranging report on the subject of 'tack- ling global poverty' – named the 'Cashman report', after the MEP who compiled it – which just so happened to include one clause, out of 67, calling on European governments to (inter alia) "support policies on voluntary family planning, safe abortion, treatment of sexual- ly transmitted infections and the provision of [reproductive healthcare]." Two Labour MEPs – John Attard Montalto and Louis Grech – voted in favour of the report, IN ITS ENTIRETY (de- spite having earlier objected to the 'abortion' reference)… and, my-oh-my, who was it who im- mediately 'latched onto that fact', to publicly accuse them of 'trying to introduce abortion to Malta'? Why… David Casa, of course! And which 'unidentified Mal- tese media outlet' had reduced the entire Cashman report to one 'only about 'killing chil- dren before they are born?' Why… In-Nazzjon, of course! (You know: the Nationalist equivalent of 'One News'…) Honestly, though. You can't make this shit up, if you spent an entire lifetime trying. But wait: there's more. When various other MEPs (including Michael Cashman himself) berated Casa, for his 'narrow-minded' reaction… the Nationalist MEP stuck to his guns: telling this newspaper that '"all Maltese MEPs should maintain a clear and unequivo- cal position against abortion. I stand by this declaration." (23 June 2010) Got that, folks? So David Casa first accused two Labour MEPs of… erm… doing EXACTLY what he himself has only just done, this very week. Later, he reaffirmed his position, which can be roughly summarised as: "voting against individu- al 'abortion clauses' doesn't count, if you go on to approve the document IN ITS ENTIRE- TY." So… um… doesn't that also mean – by Casa's own argu- ment, please note – that he himself has likewise just 'voted to introduce abortion to Mata': by 'approving an EP resolution IN ITS ENTIRETY (despite his earlier vote against the individ- ual abortion clause: which he himself argues 'doesn't count')? Speaking only for myself: I don't see any other way of in- terpreting it, really. But never mind that, for now; because – as always – there is a little more to the equation, this time round. Let's go back to our com- parison between those two EP resolutions – 2010, and 2023 – and this time, focus on the DIFFERENCES between them. I've already mentioned one: unlike the Cashman report (which was piloted by… erm… 'Cashman'), the rule of law res- olution was the brainchild of none other than David Casa himself. And granted: he prob- ably didn't foresee – though he should have, really – that the Liberals, Greens, and Socialists would try to 'ensnare' him (and the EPP, as a whole) by includ- ing an abortion clause, in a mo- tion he was already committed to supporting… The fact remains, however, that it was David Casa him- self, who set the ball in motion for that clause to be included. (And he also knew full well - when voting in favour of the entire resolution – that his ear- lier vote against the abortion clause, would not exactly 'stop it from passing'.) Another difference is that while the Cashman report had urged ALL European govern- ments, to take women's repro- ductive health seriously…. the 2023 resolution very specifi- cally targets Malta - and ONLY Malta – with its calls to "finally enshrine the right to safe and legal abortion". So it could very easily be ar- gued that - by approving that resolution, as a whole - David Casa took what he himself de- scribed as a "clear and unequiv- ocal position" IN FAVOUR OF abortion (and specifically: 'abortion IN MALTA'). Lastly, it must be noted that David Casa's 2023 actions took place in a very different con- text, from that of 2010. Two years before finding himself accused (using his own meth- ods) of 'being in favour of abortion'… Casa's colleague Roberta Metsola had similarly outraged Malta's pro-life com- munity, by pledging to sign the notorious 'Simone Veil Pact' (which defines abortion as a 'human right'.) And this also means that - regardless of Casa's actual in- tentions, when approving that resolution – his vote chimes in with what appears to be a grad- ual movement (on the part of the PN, as a whole) towards a more 'liberal', and less 'fanati- cally pro-life' position, that the one we are generally more ac- customed to. For all these reasons, David Casa cannot so easily distance himself from the (entirely pre- dictable) consequences of his own actions. So when I said, earlier that 'the cap sort of fits'… well, I now find I have to correct myself, on the score. The cap actually 'fits' David Casa, a heck of a lot more than it ever 'fit' anyone else (and it shouldn't really surprise us, ei- ther, because – let's face it – he designed it himself!) maltatoday | SUNDAY • 22 OCTOBER 2023 OPINION 11 David Casa's 2023 actions took place in a very different context, from that of 2010 David Casa cannot so easily distance himself from the (entirely predictable) consequences of his own actions