Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1545966
WHEN organisations that sel- dom find themselves on the same side of a public debate suddenly speak with one voice, perhaps the government ought to listen. That is precisely what happened this week in Malta. Fourteen organisations—Adi- tus Foundation, African Media Association Malta, Checkpoint Malta, Dance Beyond Borders, the Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation, the Foundation for the Ukrainian Communi- ty of Malta, Humanists Malta, Jesuit Refugee Service Malta, MGRM, the Migrants Com- mission, Moviment Graffitti, Repubblika, SOS Malta and Spark15—jointly called on par- liament to postpone the vote on Bill 3 to allow broader pub- lic consultation. Bill 3 is the National Com- mission for Human Rights and Equality Bill, which ultimately required a two-thirds majority in parliament to pass since it also contained changes to the Constitution. But the concern was not con- fined to these 14 organisations. Church educational bodies, the Chamber of Pharmacists, Doc- tors for Life, the Malta Employ- ers' Association, Life-Network Foundation, the Malta Wom- en's Lobby and representatives of the insurance sector also raised objections or requested further consultation. Even the Opposition, while supporting the establishment of a human rights commission in principle, withheld its support pending greater scrutiny. Indeed, the Opposition walked out of par- liament when the government went ahead with the vote. This widespread concern is not evidence of a sinister con- spiracy against equality. It is evidence that the bill touches many different rights, profes- sions and institutions, and that its practical consequences de- serve more than a legislative sprint before parliament closes for the summer. Bill 3 prohibits discrimina- tion across an open-ended list of protected characteristics, including sex, religion or be- lief, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, sex characteristics and "other status". It also covers employ- ment, education, curricula, harassment, publicly available goods and services, and the in- ternal rules of organisations. These are broad provisions. Broad provisions are not nec- essarily bad provisions, but the broader a law's reach, the clearer its safeguards must be. In this case, the safeguards re- main troublingly unclear. Consider healthcare. The bill contains no explicit safeguard for conscientious objection. Indeed, the Chamber of Phar- macists has warned precisely of this danger. Could healthcare professionals be required to participate in services, proce- dures or the provision of prod- ucts that they sincerely believe to be morally wrong? The same question must be asked of doc- tors, nurses and other health- care professionals. Could a doctor decline to participate in a procedure on grounds of con- science? And what will teachers be required to teach? Would a Catholic school remain free to teach Catholic anthropolo- gy concerning the body, mar- riage and sexual ethics? The bill protects religious commu- nities. But does that protec- tion extend equally to the lay teachers who carry out their educational mission? Could a biology teacher state plainly that human beings are sexu- ally dimorphic, while treating every student with kindness and dignity? Could a teacher distinguish between biological sex and a student's asserted gender identity? Here, Orwell's warning in Nineteen Eighty- Four remains uncomfortable because it remains relevant: "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four." There is also the question of privacy in schools. The bill does not expressly declare who must use which toilet or chang- ing room. Suppose a female student objects to undressing in the presence of a biologi- cally male student who identi- fies as female. Whose dignity is considered? Whose privacy counts? Is the girl permitted to object without being accused of discrimination? These are not uniquely Mal- tese concerns. Democracies across Europe have struggled with similar questions. Consid- er Finnish parliamentarian Päi- vi Räsänen. The proceedings followed several public state- ments concerning homosexual- ity and Christian sexual ethics, including a 2019 social-media post containing biblical verses and an older church pamphlet. She endured police investiga- tions and years of proceedings. One may dislike her words. One may dispute her theolo- gy. One may believe some of her terminology to be outdated or offensive. But a democratic society must still ask wheth- er such disagreements should lead to police interviews, re- peated prosecutions and years of legal uncertainty. None of this means that people who are gay, transgender, religious, disabled, foreign or members of any other minority should be left vulnerable to unfair treatment. They should be pro- tected in law, and their dignity should be defended. But digni- ty is not the same as immunity from disagreement. A Christian should be free to say that marriage is between a man and a woman. A hu- manist should be free to reject Christian teaching. A feminist should be free to argue that sex matters. A transgender person should be free to explain the reality of gender dysphoria and advocate for legal recognition. A journalist should be free to question all of them. Malta must not replace one social or- thodoxy with another and call the exchange progress. There is something faintly comic about passing a human rights law so quickly that hu- man rights organisations must beg parliament for the right to be heard. It is rather like organ- ising a conference on dialogue and locking the doors before the participants arrive 10 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 26 JULY 2026 OPINION Philosophy PhD candidate, poet and writer Equality. But at what cost? Mariana Debono There is something faintly comic about passing a human rights law so quickly that human rights organisations must beg parliament for the right to be heard