Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/844299
11 maltatoday, SUNDAY, 2 JULY 2017 News liberal turn under Busuttil. Yet one may well argue that the cost of conservative retrenchment far outweighs any losses among conservatives. The party still suf- fers the damage done to the party's brand by its divorce and civil unions fiascos. Yet the issue of the party's identity has never been resolved through a compre- hensive debate in the party, which resolved the split between conservatives and liber- als in the party. The risk of having such a debate is one of paralysis. One potential solution is the realisation that there is a diversity of views and the party is essen- tially a coalition of factions with different views, which converge on governance is- sues. In this sense Christian democrats, so- cial democrats and liberals in the PN may converge without sacrificing their views on ethical issues. Yet it is more than clear that the party can't afford to be cornered by Muscat whenever socially liberal issues crop up. In Merkel's footsteps? Moreover the debate in the PN coincides with similar debates in centrist and social- ly conservative parties across Europe. Only this week Angela Merkel has hint- ed at a change of heart over gay marriage within the CDU – which has so far opposed full marriage equality – giving her MPs freedom of conscience on this issue and thus clearing a stumbling block for a coalition with the greens and the liberals. This also repudiates claims by Tonio Fenech that being in favour of gay marriage de- fies the Christian democratic tradition, which in Europe is embodied by Merkel's party. Under David Cameron the UK Tories, who unlike Merkel, are not members of the European People's Party, went as far as introducing gay marriage while in governing in coalition with the liberal democrats. Still one has to appreciate that compared to most parties represented in the Euro- pean People's Party, the PN's stance on gay marriage is one of the most progressive. Ultimately just as discrimination based on ethnicity has been eradicated from main- stream political opinion, mainstream cen- tre right parties may also evolve to accept full equality with regard to orientation. Forced unity or free vote? One major issue facing the party is whether it should keep seeking a united stance on these issues or whether to allow freedom of conscience. Both paths are full of land mines. For if the party chooses to grant freedom of conscience to its MPs, it risks giving free reign to the most conserv- ative elements to go on record with regres- sive views. On the other hand, seeking a united stance through a balancing act, which sees the party seeking amendments to tone down the law while ultimately supporting the bill, the party risks sowing more con- fusion, irking conservatives by supporting the law and irking liberals by resorting to a discourse which irks liberals. In fact the gay marriage issue has solic- ited three different responses from the party: Tonio Fenech's stance against the bill and the concept of marriage equality, Clyde Puli's and David Agius's le- galistic stance against gender- neutral definitions in the bill and unequivocal sup- port for the bill from Mario de Marco and the two Democratic Party MPs. On this issue as was the case with drug laws, the PD's stance flies in the face of an attempt to depict the party as a conservative one, in what could be an in- dication that the only red line for the party's junior partner revolves around reproductive rights and life issues. But the party has also indicated its support for surrogacy to ensure that gay people have a right to use IVF to have chil- dren of their own, something which con- servative PN MPs oppose. In his bid to secure full support for the bill, Busuttil has had to concede to his MPs the right to present amendments. In so doing he has so far prevented a dam- aging mutiny of MPs who are opposed in principle to gay marriage. Still some MPs seem to have used this opportunity to un- derline a more socially conservative orien- tation and thus play the flag of retrench- ment. Clyde Puli is the most sophisticated representative of this strategy, which does not openly defy the granting of rights but seeks to appeal to popular common sense in suggesting that the use of gender-neutral terms like spouses is a threat to the use of words like mum and dad in every- day parlance. "The law will now give some the right to have their same-sex marriage recognised while at the same time, taking away the right for someone to be called a husband or a wife, or a father or a mother," Puli said in parlia- ment. He argued that while striving for equality was positive, the bill in- troduced a "perverse" way of recog- nising equality. The law and everyday parlance Yet the latter strategy has its pitfalls. For it fails to distinguish between terms used in laws and everyday parlance. David Agius went as far as suggesting that the new law may be invoked by lobbies to ban the celebration of mother's day. But the in- sertion of gender-neutral terms like spouse does not change in any way the use of terms like husband and wife. Moreover such an exercise may look like legalistic bick- ering, which simply creates banter but does not in any way impact on the rights granted by the law. Moreover it may also be a question of emphasis. For while presenting a token amendment to appease the conscience of conserva- tives is something one may expect from a party which includes different shades of opinion, it is clear that this has given con- servatives MPs the opportunity to empha- sise this aspect rather than their support for a revolutionary bill which stands as a monument for Labour's progressive agen- da on civil liberties, which has seen Malta transformed from a laggard to a trend set- ter. The PN's choice is between being per- ceived as a spoiler or to take ownership of this national achievement, especially in view of its pre-election acceptance of gay marriage. Jason Azzopardi "We are all for equality but not for uni- formity" – The Nationalist Party shadow minister for Justice insists that he sup- ports same sex marriage, recognising that this formed part of the party's electoral programme and because the reality has already been recognised in the civil un- ions bill. But he is strongly opposed to the sub- stitution of references to husband, wife, mother and father with gender-neutral terms such as spouses. Asked whether the emphasis on linguistic detail risks ob- scuring the party's support for the princi- ple, Azzopardi reiterated his stance that the law as it is includes "aberrations." "A liberal government does not im- pose. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander. In the same way that the government should not impose a particular lifestyle on the rest of society, it should not impose uniformity on all. If the government was truly liberal it would have kept references to mothers, fathers, husbands and wives alongside terms like spouses." Asked whether Nationalist MPs were exaggerating when they suggested that the law is a threat to the use of terms like mother and father in everyday life, Azzo- pardi insisted that "the law sends a clear message to society from parliament" and therefore has a direct bearing on the use of these terms in public administration. He also insists that laws introducing same sex marriage in New York and Ire- land, and laws presented in Australia all keep the references to husband and wife along gender neutral terms. Jason Azzopardi also expressed his con- cern that the phrase "born to sex part- ners" could pave the way to practices such as gamete donation and surrogacy to which he is opposed. Despite his reservations Azzopardi con- firmed that he will vote for the law in its second reading "because he agrees with it in principle" but will be seeking amend- ments at committee stage before the final vote on the third reading. A question of emphasis Nationalist MPs Jason Azzopardi and Karl Gouder interviewed on party's stance on marriage equality bill Karl Gouder Nationalist MP Karl Gouder insists that he is supporting the bill with "no qualms" and with conviction. "This is fundamentally a matter of ensur- ing that nobody stays behind. It was the next logical thing to do after civil union." While emphasising his support for the new law he appealed for compromise when it comes to the inclusion of words like fa- ther, mother, wife and husband. "We can easily solve this without un- dermining the principle and objective of the law. Good sense should prevail. Why should we bicker on small things, which can be solved by accepting the opposition's amendments? Ultimately the aim is equal- ity and as long as we agree on that we can find a compromise." Asked whether he is concerned that some PN MPs are more concerned with linguis- tic detail than the main objectives of the law, Gouder replied, "We are not robots… God forbid that we agree on everything." Gouder welcomed the fact that instead of the usual Yes or No the debate on the new bill is more nuanced. But Gouder also insisted "all Nationalist MPs have agreed to stick to the whip and vote for the bill at all stages." Asked how the current debate on gay marriage reflects the PN's identity, Gouder insists that throughout its history the PN was a party which stood for "openness." "The PN always represented openness. This was the case during the EU referen- dum. Unfortunately we were derailed from this path by our stance on the divorce ref- erendum and the abstention on civil un- ions. Both were mistakes. We have not only learned from these mistakes but we are acting on it by supporting this bill." Gouder also insisted that the party's stance in favour of gay marriage is one based on "conviction" not convenience. But Gouder also thinks that being more open and liberal would help in making the party electable again. "We always won when we were open. We need to remain on track by opening up further. This does not mean that we should not be open by conviction." Clyde Puli Tonio Fenech One major issue facing the party is whether it should keep seeking a united stance on these issues or whether to allow freedom of conscience David Agius Compared to most parties represented in the European People's Party, the PN's stance on gay marriage is one of the most progressive