Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/323754
8 I n November 2007, the Gift of Life Foundation presented parliament with an approximately 40,000- strong petition, in favour of a Constitutional amendment that would have prevented future legislatures from altering the existing (and woefully inadequate) laws concerning abortion. I don't intend to dig all that up again, as this distant echo of the fundamentalism of yesteryear seems to have thankfully died a natural death since then. Or at least, it's in deep hibernation and not even snoring too loudly. But at the time it was very much alive and kicking. I remember sending parliament a media request for information as to the verification process of those 40,000 signatures. I was interested to know how (and above all, when) the petition would be scrutinised. Not, mind you, that it seemed unlikely at the time that 40,000 people would sign such a petition in this country. It's just that, for the sake of accuracy (and even because there were doubts concerning whether certain politicians had also signed), I felt it was important to establish that the petition was indeed legitimate. The reply I received from the chief clerk of the house, Ms Pauline Abela, was very simply that no verification process would take place at all. Her email pointed out two reasons for this extraordinary dereliction of duty: one, the petition itself had no legal bearing (unlike, for instance, the more recent petition to abolish spring hunting, which was collected as part of a Constitutionally- established mechanism governing abrogative referenda); and two, that the procedure used in the presentation itself had been flawed. "Once the document was not tabled during the time for petitions, the regulations listed in the House's Permanent Orders do not apply and for this reason there was no need for any verification of the document," Abela helpfully explained. In a nutshell, parliament very egregiously accepted a petition signed by 40,000 people, even though it knew that the entire exercise was invalidated on procedural grounds, and in any case had no intention of actually counting the signatures and verifying that the signatories did, in fact, exist. For all they knew, the 40,000 signatures could have included Mr Michael Mouse and Dr Donald Duck. One individual might have signed dozens of times. To be fair, I don't think this was likely to be the case with GoL's petition… but who's to say? As things stand we don't know, and probably never will. The petition is still gathering dust in some filing cabinet somewhere in the Palace in Valletta: unread, forgotten, possibly still in its original, unopened brown envelopes. But of course the same petition was at the time loudly cited as 'proof ' of the national support enjoyed by the Constitutional amendment initiative. By accepting the petition without bothering to subject it to proper scrutiny, the House of Representatives merely gave blanket credence to what (for all they knew) could just as easily have been a pack of forgeries. Right: as I said, the issue has since fizzled out on its own, and in the present climate it is unlikely to make a return any time soon. But the precedent was clearly not lost on some people out there. And this week another, even larger (and infinitely more dubious) petition likewise made its way into the same filing cabinet. It claims to number the astounding figure of 102,000 signatures – as Cyrus Enegerer gleefully reported, more than the PN's share of the vote in last week's election – and demands that government simply move the goalposts to pre-emptively invalidate any referendum held on the basis of another petition which (unlike this one) is being verified as we speak. I sincerely hope the proper parliamentary procedure was adhered to this time, because there is no way a petition numbering 102,000 signatories – and which is being used to derail another, legitimate petition calling for a referendum on spring hunting – can possibly be allowed to stand in the same way as its predecessor: i.e., uncontested, unverified, unscrutinised, but just accepted as Gospel truth by a House of Representatives that is increasingly coming to represent no one at all. If this is allowed to happen a second time, the entire debate surrounding spring hunting will be overshadowed by the colossal figure of 100,000 signatories – one fourth of the entire population – seriously skewing and distorting the playing field before the game even has a chance to start. There is, however, another reason why it is incumbent on Parliament to apply its own regulations and verify the data. As far as I am aware, misleading parliament is a crime in Malta. There is already evidence that the petition falls short of strict accuracy: FKNK PRO Joe Perici Calascione admitted that it contains underage signatories who would not be allowed to vote in a referendum. People have since come forward claiming they had been induced to sign under false pretences: one signatory thought he was signing a petition in favour of gay rights; others claim they were misled into believing they were supporting athletics, fireworks, bocci and off-road motorcycle races (among various other unrelated issues). If it also turns out that a number of signatures are fakes, there would (or should) be criminal liability for the people who presented this petition to the House. As these include at least one MP – Dr Michael Falzon, who is also the parliamentary secretary responsible for MEPA – it is simply inconceivable that no effort is put into determining whether this 'historical' petition is indeed a reflection of what one quarter of the Maltese population actually thinks... or, conversely, just a scam. Having said this, I for one won't hold my breath. Just as the Maltese parliament found a convenient excuse to duck out of its own responsibilities in 2007, I have no doubt a similar pretext will be cooked up again. Anything, I suppose, to avoid the herculean task of systematically scrutinising 100,000 signatures and cross- checking with a database of Maltese ID card holders. In this case, to get an accurate picture of the veracity of the petition they would also have to contact individual signatories and ask them if they really intended to express approval of spring hunting by signing. That's a lot of hard work, you know. And since when is the House of Representatives supposed to actually do any work…? But there are other reasons apart from sheer laziness not to want to verify this petition. One of them concerns the political responsibility that would have to be borne by the people who endorsed it. Michael Falzon, for instance, did not merely accept the petition on behalf of Parliament; he also gave it a blanket seal of approval with the following, extraordinary words: "Ignoring some 100,000 signatures would smack of arrogance and of somebody not in touch with reality." As a representative of a government which openly backs spring hunting, this was presumably Falzon's way of pressuring the House to comply with the petition's demands… which, for the record, involve setting up obstacles for the population to express itself in any democratic referendum in future, with serious implications for civil liberties. It would be an outrageous thing for Falzon to say even if the 100,000 signatures were duly verified and found to be genuine. (To put that into perspective: if 100,000 people genuinely signed a petition calling on government to abolish income tax, would Falzon likewise consider it 'arrogant' to ignore?) But if it turns out that the figure Falzon himself so blithely validated was wrong… well, there's his own credibility on the line. In any other country he would be expected to resign. Meanwhile there is another consideration. Genuine or fake, for better or for worse, the same petition also tells us something about ourselves as a nation. If 100,000 people really do believe that their own liberties should be curtailed, and that the people's right to take decisions through referendum should be diluted through legal mechanisms… well, I think the rest of us out here have a right to know. It is, after all, our rights that will be obliterated as a result. If the number of valid or bona fide signatures turns out to be significantly less than 100,000, it would mean the entire population has been duped by a ruse to which even MPs can, with hindsight, be viewed as accessories… unwitting accessories, no doubt, but accessories all the same. Again the people have a right to know exactly how they are being duped, and by whom. Lastly, failure to verify those signatures will mean that the House of Representatives is content to simply float the impression of a vast, unprecedented national majority in favour of spring hunting… which is of course perfectly congenial to both sides of the House, seeing as both the Nationalist and Labour Parties have declared themselves in favour of spring hunting anyway. It serves their purpose, then, to allow a ludicrously suspect figure to go unchallenged, because it gives the impression of overwhelming national support for their own stated positions on the same issue. The only party whose interest will NOT be served at all is the wider public: whom – ironically – the "House of Representatives" supposedly exists to represent. The sooner its members put aside their own little interests, and start actually trying to figure out what the population they represent actually wants – on this, or any other issue – the better for all concerned. maltatoday, WEDNESDAY, 4 JUNE 2014 Opinion Raphael Vassallo Opinion Genuine or fake, the hunters' petition must be verified If it also turns out that a number of signatures are fakes, there should be criminal liability for the people who presented this petition to the House If it turns out that the figure Michael Falzon so blithely validated was wrong, his own credibility is on the line