Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/252940
12 FEW issues are more immedi- ately prone to controversy as those which involve the 'best interests of the child'. So when the present gov- ernment moved to enact an elec- toral promise in the form of a Civil Unions bill – which also envisages regularising adoption by same-sex couples – reactions in traditionally conservative Malta were predict- ably mixed. On one level, the administra- tion is buoyed by a healthy major- ity that approved its manifesto in March 2013… though whether a similar majority approved (or even knew about) this particular prom- ise is naturally another question altogether. Government's actions have also been applauded by various minor- ity and special interest groups: including human rights advocacy NGO Aditus and (perhaps unsur- prisingly) the Malta Gay Rights Movement. However, as details of the same manifesto emerge there appears to be a backlash threatening to derail the promised law – or at least, to substantially erode its contents. And there is evidence to suggest that opposition to same-sex adop- tion is steadily mounting. Matters arguably came to a head when Auxiliary Bishop Charles Scicluna weighed in heavily to the debate last month: citing a Misco poll which suggested that 85% of the population opposes same-sex adoptions, and separately declaring that support for the bill in parlia- ment would constitute a 'grave im- moral act'. Elsewhere the Opposi- tion echoed Bishop Scicluna's calls for a social impact assessment, and has hinted that the law being enacted is not identical to the one promised in the Labour manifesto. I meet Helena Dalli, the minister responsible of civil liberties and equality, at her new offices on Bar- riera Wharf overlooking the Grand Harbour. Let's start with the obvi- ous: Bishop Scicluna's comments regarding 'grave immoral acts' may have put government MPs in a tight corner. On one hand, they are committed by the electoral result to implement the law, on the other they risk a crisis of conscience (at least, if they are committed Catho- lics) by openly defying a rather un- ambiguous religious instruction. Does Dalli herself feel pressured by this diktat? And have any other MPs expressed concern about a po- litical course of action that would put them at loggerheads with the Church? "No one told me they are worried, no… but that doesn't automatically mean that they are not worried." Dalli however questions whether Scicluna's comments can indeed be taken to represent the voice of the Catholic Church on this issue, pointing towards a somewhat dif- ferent tone earlier adopted by the two official bishops Paul Cremona and Mario Grech. "Their pastoral letter last Octo- ber took a very different line from Bishop Scicluna's comments. They echoed Pope Francis's spirit of con- ciliation, and even if they expressed their own opinion that the tradi- tional family is a better option, at no point did they argue against the legal rights of minorities." In view of this, Scicluna's input appears at best tangential. "It's al- most as if Scicluna decided to go it alone. These are not my words, by the way, but those of Fr Rene Camilleri, who also argued that the contradiction may impact the credibility of the Church." Dalli herself proves reluctant to be drawn into open confron- tation with the Curia on this is- sue, preferring to point towards independent nay-sayers – in this case, a notoriously controversial theologian who has often spo- ken critically about the Church he represents – while conced- ing that Church exponents 'have every right to speak out in the matter'. "But the government of Malta is bound by a legal commitment to legislate on behalf of all its citi- zens, and cannot therefore also be bound by the strictures of the Church," she adds. "Personally I believe the division lines between Church and State are clear, but sometimes it must be said that ef- forts are made to blur them." Does she mean deliberate at- tempts? And if so, is this a direct reference to Scicluna's com- ments? She pauses before replying. "I can't say whether it is deliber- ate or not, but there has been a lot of misinformation surround- ing this issue. One of the things I feel I have to rebut all the time is the notion that the new law goes beyond the one we had originally proposed before the election. Yet we had made it clear when the manifesto was launched that the Civil Unions bill would grant same-sex couples all the same rights, duties and obligations as married couples, and that this would include the possibility of applying to adopt a child. I can't understand how people can in- sinuate we kept anything hidden before the election…" Another possible cause of mis- information may have arisen from flawed interpretations of data. She points towards a recent press article (by another Church exponent, Fr Paul Galea) where she herself was quoted as refer- ring to studies by the American Sociological Association… which, among other things, found that "a higher proportion of children with lesbigay parents are them- selves apt to engage in homosex- ual activity". "In actual fact it was the jour- nalist who quoted those studies, not me, and it was quite clear from the article itself. We've had to send a letter to correct the mis- understanding." Dalli does not disguise her exas- peration at this sort of mistake… which, though probably unin- tentional, also contributes to an unnecessary sense of confusion surrounding an already emotive issue. But to be fair to her critics, they do not seize only on inaccuracies when challenging her govern- ment's intentions. What about the statistic that 85% oppose this aspect of the law? The Labour Party may enjoy an unprecedented majority in parliament, but experience also shows that hefty electoral margins do not automatically translate into blanket support for all government policies. Is she concerned that gov- ernment's resolution on this issue might be alienating and possibly eroding its support base? But Dalli dismisses the survey ar- gument out of hand, pointing out a reality we already experienced in the divorce campaign of 2011. "I don't question the result of the survey, even if we can argue about the methodology. But that is not the point: even if the methodology were flawless, and the result was 99% in- stead of 85% against, it would still be irrelevant. The issue here concerns the protection of minorities. If 1%, or even one single person, exists and needs protection, they are by defini- tion a vulnerable minority and must be protected. Justice demands that we legislate for them, too. Otherwise we would not have a democracy at all, but a tyranny of the majority." Quoting surveys, she continues, is not only irrelevant to the argu- ment at hand, but "it also suggests a certain insensitivity towards the minorities concerned, as though their rights could be subjected to the whims of a majority". All this seems to be familiar ter- ritory: it reminds me of similar ar- guments raised during the divorce debate. Dalli was herself a member of the bipartisan action committee that had organised the 'Yes' cam- paign. "Even then, I didn't agree that it should have gone to a refer- endum. How can a majority decide on behalf of a minority? There is an immediate conflict with one of the basic democratic principles." Still, the result itself also points towards another facet of the 'major- ity' argument. In both issues, there was an underlying assumption that if a person has an opinion about a particular subject, he or she will ex- press that opinion in a democratic vote. In the divorce debate, it clearly took the 'No' campaign by surprise to discover that many who may have been personally against divorce, also felt they had no right to determine other people's future for them. "The Maltese showed great matu- rity on that occasion," she reflects. "Many voters reasoned that, 'even I have no need for divorce myself, who am I to deny that possibility to others?' The same consideration ap- plies here also, and my government is acting in the same spirit of that result." But are we really talking about the rights of minorities? Another argu- ment brought forward by all op- ponents is that adoption does not, in itself, constitute a right. On pa- per this is seems correct – neither adoption nor even having children is listed as a human right in any in- ternational convention. Doesn't this attack a main platform of the gov- ernment's argument that the new law protects minority rights? "Adoption is not a right, this is true. Here I think we are all in agreement, as we are about the need to preserve and protect the child's best interest." But she quickly adds that both those considerations are already implicit in the proposed bill itself; and more cogently points out that failure to enact the bill would be more detrimental to the child's best interests. "Nobody has the right to adopt, but in a country based on the principle of social equality everybody should have the right to apply for adop- tion. Whether they are successful or not is something that cannot be determined just by the law. This is why the civil unions' bill envisages that applications are processed and vetted by a team of experts. This is where the 'social impact assessment' comes into the picture." Here she vents a little frustration at the Opposition's demand for such an exercise to be carried out on a nationwide platform. "What more of a social impact assessment could you want, than a situation where every applicant – including traditional couples, by the way… screening is there for all pro- Interview By Raphael Vassallo SOCIAL IMPACT What more of a social impact assessment could you want, than a situation where every applicant has to undergo rigorous scrutiny by a panel of experts on a case-by-case basis? MINORITY RIGHTS If 1%, or even one single person, exists and needs protection, they are by definition a vulnerable minority and must be protected. Justice demands that we legislate for them, too Adopted children of a lesser god