Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/955503
maltatoday SUNDAY 18 MARCH 2018 Interview 14 By Raphael Vassallo When presenting the WRF's position paper last week, you talked about abortion in the context of a 'human rights issue'. It is however by no means accepted that abortion is a fundamental human right. What makes this issue a human rights concern, in your opinion? Let's start with the European Convention of Human Rights. Article 8 deals specifically with the right to private and family life. This is compounded by the Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Wom- en, which also says that a woman has a right to time and space, bearing of children, and so on. From the word go, reproductive rights are also fundamental hu- man rights. But the problem with fundamental human rights is that you can put one against the other... what are we talking about here? A woman's right. It's not an issue that is related to man. The right to bear children is specifi- cally related to women... and it is a human right. But we are talking here about the right to end a pregnancy, which is not the same thing as the right to bear children. In fact, many would argue it's the opposite... The right to bear children, or not to bear children – to space them – is all part of the right to private and family life. There is also the right to live in dignity; so if something has led me to end up pregnant, in a situation where I cannot go on with that pregnan- cy, I have the right to live in dig- nity. I have the right to my life, too, as a woman. If, for example, the pregnancy is going to be det- rimental to the mother's life... In fact, that is one of the four scenarios where you recommend legal access to safe abortion. The others were rape, incest and fatal foetal impairment. The KPMD has just come out strongly against that last proposal, on the grounds (inter alia) that it would lead to eugenics. How do you respond to that argument? Again, let's go back to funda- mental human rights. I like look- ing at things from a rights-based approach. If – and it would have to depend on medical science – a woman is told that the foetus is going to die anyway... then even from the child's perspective, there is the right to live with dig- nity. I think it is very cruel, really, to go through with the pregnancy in that situation. It's cruel both to the child, but also to the par- ents... What would happen in that situation in today's legal framework? As things stand today, the mother would have to go through with the full pregnancy... unless, of course, they have the option – and it happens: we know that it happens – to travel and have an abortion abroad. With regard to the earlier example of a threat to the mother's life: there is also an argument that it already happens in such cases. When doctors have to choose between saving the mother or the foetus, the accepted practice is to save the mother. If that's the case, why is there need to enshrine this convention into law? 'It happens, it doesn't happen'... the reality is that we don't re- ally know. There's a lot we have to assume.... for instance, that in cases of cancer, the mother would still be given treatment, even if it will result in an abor- tion. But to me, it all boils down to choice. You have to put it in- to a legal structure. You cannot simply assume it's there... and yet it is not there, because to me, it is about choice. You have to give that person a choice... At the same time, the four 'exceptional cases' are only a small part of the full proposals, which also touch upon sexual health policy, education, and so forth. Malta has made several amendments to this national sexual health policy, as well as education, over the years... yet the actual law on abortion has not been amended, in any way, for decades. It still uses terminology that predates modern contraceptive methods, for instance. How do you account for our continued resistance to the idea of even updating that law to present-day realities? Part of it is down to insular- ity, and the sense of wanting to have our 'culture'... to stick to our 'identity', and to the belief that we are 'different'. Of course, it's also the influence of Catholi- cism. And indoctrination. For me, that is what it is. Even when one looks at the negotiations that took place to join the European Union: on top of everything else, [the abortion ban] was some- thing that had to be 'sanctified', if I can call it that. It had to be 'protected'. Which is also quite disappointing, really, to see that even the European Union, the rest of Europe, had no problem with that. It's OK to throw the woman under the bus... that's fine, as long as everything else gets going. This raises a curious paradox. The EU is committed to ensuring 'safe access to abortion' in third (mostly) developing countries; yet Malta has been an EU member state since 2004, and the same rights that the EU actively pursues elsewhere are still denied to women here. Are Maltese women second-class EU citizens? Yes, very much so. Maltese women are very much being discriminated against. Perhaps we're not particularly interest- ing because of our small popula- tion. It's kind of like we're non- existent, really. That is also one the reasons why we founded the organisation: because women here have never had a voice. They have somehow always been shushed and hushed in this coun- try. Something had to be done. We are not second class citizens; we're not there to be discriminat- ed against. We are human beings, with our own individual rights. At the same time, however, the WRF seems isolated on this issue. Most other women's rights organisations have not supported your proposals. Some have done the opposite. How do you account for this divergence? To start off with, there have been some organisations – kudos to them – which spoke out. For example, the Network of Young Women Leaders, and Graffiti. On the other hand, let's not for- get the taboo and stigma that shrouds the topic. That's another reason why we wanted to do this: to say, it's OK, we can talk about. It's fine to talk about it. But then again, even as organisations, we depend on funding... you never know how that's going to happen. They [women's rights organisa- tions] might be fragmented. But we have received private mes- sages of support, which is very encouraging for us. You have also received a lot of, let's say, 'negative' responses... which have even extended to death threats. Is that a factor affecting the reluctance of women to discuss this issue? And on a human level, how do you cope with that sort of extreme reaction? I am not afraid. If I were afraid, I wouldn't do the job that I do. As an organisation, we confront perpetrators every day. I con- front them in a court of law. I have been threatened; my tyres have been slashed, I have been stalked... I've received messages and calls at home, telling me who my children are... but I'm not afraid. Nothing is going to stop me from fighting for women's rights. [...] This is a debate that is going to happen anyhow... we're going to make it happen. That, too, is debatable. There are forces at work that want to stifle the discussion. In the recent past, there were efforts to entrench existing abortion laws into the Constitution, precisely so that this debate would never take place. What makes you so sure it will happen now? Our position paper has to be seen as a full package. We cannot just talk about abortion; other- wise, nothing makes sense. This is like a chain. We also have to talk about a national action plan. We have to talk about sex. An- other taboo subject... ooh, I said the word 'sex'. We have to edu- cate our children about sex, and about healthy relationships. We have to provide contraception: all forms of contraception... and make it accessible. We're saying, let's go for free contraception. Portugal has done it; and once Portugal introduced free con- traception, the rates of abortion went down. One [issue] is tied to the other. We cannot just talk about abortion. But we have to start by trying to eliminate the stigma around the topic. All these recommendations require legislation to be passed through Parliament, which in There's a lot we have to assume.... for instance, that in cases of cancer, the mother would still be given treatment, even if it will result in an abortion I have been threatened; my tyres have been slashed, I have been stalked... I've received messages and calls at home, telling me who my children are... but I'm not afraid ASSUMPTIONS INTIMIDATION 'This is not a popularity