Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/785757
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 12 FEBRUARY 2017 16 News TIM DIACONO THE proposed Equality Bill has been hailed by civil liberties minister Helena Dalli as a landmark law that will clamp down on dis- crimination across the board. However, critics – notably the Malta Em- ployers' Association and PN MP Clyde Puli – have warned that the proposed law is lack- ing in clear legal definitions of what consti- tutes discrimination and as such could open the door to all sorts of frivolous cases. Moreover, they have warned that it risks reversing the burden of proof, requiring people charged with discrimination to prove their innocence rather than plaintiffs having to prove their guilt. MaltaToday presented Silvan Agius, the policy chief who spearheaded the bill, with a list of abstract cases to get his view on which could be deemed legitimate discrimination by the Equality Commissioner and which could be deemed frivolous. A teacher who claims that she was not given employment in a church school as a geography teacher because he is vocally pro-abortion. 'Political opinion' is a protected character- istic under the Equality Bill and therefore cannot be used as a ground for discrimi- nation. Furthermore, it would appear that no particular political opinion is necessary (genuine occupational requirement) for the teaching of geography. Nonetheless, schools are allowed to have their own policies based on their ethos, as long as such policies are not discriminatory, and therefore teachers' political participation on matters that con- flict with the school's ethos may be reason- ably curtailed. A lecturer who claims that he was not given employment at University or MCAST because he expressed xenophobic views on Facebook. Once again, 'political opinion' is a pro- tected characteristic under the Equality Bill and therefore cannot be used as a ground for discrimination. However, it is not discrimi- natory for an educational establishment to require its staff members to abide by certain policies, for as long as such policies are not in themselves discriminatory. Specifically, with regard to this case, not being selected for a job because of one's political opinion would be discriminatory, but being required to follow a certain standard of behaviour in public is not. A man who claims that he was not given a job because he wears the Verbum Dei (Society of Christian Doctrine) badge. A workplace has the right to establish its own policies with regard to the attire of its staff, including the display of religious or po- litical symbols at the place of work. Based on that policy, which policy has to be non-dis- criminatory, the exclusion of this man from the workplace can be justified for as long as all other employees are equally required to not wear any religious symbol at the place of work. A Muslim who claims that s/he was not given a job in a supermarket as s/he refuses to handle products containing alcohol or pork. It is reasonable for supermarkets to re- quire their staff who handle food and drink items, to do so with all of the products sold in their establishment. It would thus seem clear that such a requirement on the part of the supermarket constitutes a genuine oc- cupational requirement, and the exclusion of an employee who refuses to handle such products is not discriminatory. A foreign person who claims that s/ he was not allowed to rent a flat from a specific landlord because s/he is a foreigner. Discrimination in access to housing on the grounds of 'race or ethnic origin' is al- ready illegal under the Equality for Men and Women Act. A receptionist, air steward, promoter or TV presenter who claims s/he was rejected for a job because s/he is not physically attractive enough. 'Genetic features' is a protected charac- teristic under this Bill. This means that discrimination on features such as height, hair colour or texture, or bone structure, for example, is illegal (for as long as such char- acteristic do not constitute a genuine occu- pational requirement). This said, one should draw a difference between genetic features and personal presentation and/or charisma. An office worker who claims he was denied a job because he is not physically attractive enough. Once again, 'genetic features' is a pro- tected characteristic under this Bill, and the onus of proving that a certain look is neces- sary for the performance of a particular of- fice job rests on the employer. A journalist who claims that s/he was rejected from a job because their personal views contrast sharply with the paper's editorial stand. While 'political opinion' is a protected characteristic under this Bill, the world view of any journalist or opinion maker is highly likely to inform the viewpoint employed in the writing of articles. Since it is under- standable that a newspaper would have an established editorial stand and would expect its staff to abide by that ethos in their work, if those personal views are likely to impinge Is this discrimination Clearing the grey areas of the Equality Bill Will Church schools be able to refuse to hire a vocally pro-abortion teacher? Will media houses be able to deny TV presenter jobs to physically unattractive people? Silvan Agius, policy chief within Ministry for Civil Liberties