Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/975483
11 maltatoday SUNDAY 29 APRIL 2018 News created when they had a bigger chance of dying, Fr Peter said this prudent way of looking at things was not the remit of the State. "While prudence is a virtue in individual human behaviour, I ab- solutely do not believe the State should practise it [prudence] at the expense of other values like justice and freedom," Fr Peter said, add- ing that it was not the State's duty to prohibit embryo freezing. There was nothing wrong in em- bryos being kept for future use by the couple who created them, even if this meant that frozen embryos risked degenerating naturally over time, he argued. The State's obligation was to protect freedom and not to regu- late for prudence, Fr Peter insist- ed. Unknown fatherhood is problematic But Fr Peter's avant-garde views did not prospect a situation were frozen embryos were given up to couples who were not the biologi- cal parents, especially if this was done anonymously. The same held for anonymous gamete donations. Fr Peter's concern on the matter was that the child would not know who his biological parents were, creating a problem of identity. "While children born without knowing who their father is should not face discrimination, unknown fatherhood should not be brought about intentionally… I find it im- moral to generate a person who remains all her life uncertain about her identity but there could be ways on how this could be su- perseded such as has happened in the case of adopted children," he told the committee. Murder of an embryo? Fr Peter also dealt briefly with the central issue at stake for many people when discussing the sub- ject: when does life begin and is an embryo a person? He was responding to a concern raised by PN MP Joseph Cassar, who later became health minis- ter in the 2008 legislature, about the ethical dilemma of choos- ing which embryos to freeze and which should be implanted in the womb. Cassar asked: "Aren't we remov- ing the individuality of the embryo by deciding on its behalf to freeze it?" Fr Peter described this as a rhe- torical question because the em- bryo could never make any such decision. Decisions on behalf of future generations are taken con- tinuously, he pointed out. What happens to frozen embry- os should be a decision taken by the parents and the doctors, who have the duty to keep in mind the welfare of the embryos. In response to another question by then PN MP Franco Galea over whether the destruction of an em- bryo outside the womb could be considered murder, Fr Peter in- sisted he was not advocating for the deliberate destruction of em- bryos. But he did question the concept of murder on the basis that there were differing views as to when an embryo could be considered a person. "There are some who argue that an embryo is a person 24 hours after the fertilisation process and others argue after 14 weeks be- cause until then it is still possi- ble for twins to develop – in this case you cannot call the embryo a person because it can still split into two different persons. Then there is the position adopted by St Thomas, that a person devel- ops when the brain develops. Be- fore that you have human life [but not yet a person]. Destroying the embryo will still be a grave thing because you should never destroy human life but you still do not have a person and so there aren't the circumstances to call it a mur- der," Fr Peter argued. Married or not Fr Peter said that until Maltese public policy dictated that the family was based on marriage, he saw no reason why IVF should be allowed among couples who were not married, even if they had been in a stable relationship. In 2005 Malta still did not have divorce legislation, which meant that separated people who entered into a second relationship had no possibility of getting married again. Fr Peter argued it would be more appropriate to legislate for divorce – thus allowing couples in irregu- lar situations to re-marry – rather than change the notion of family through the backdoor by using the IVF law. He did not rule out a separate discussion on the re-definition of the family but insisted if this had to happen it should be clear to all and not done surreptitiously through IVF legislation. Malta got its first IVF legislation in 2012, following another round of intense meetings by a parlia- mentary committee that was set up specifically to deal with the controversial issues. Circumstances have definitely changed since 2005 with the intro- duction of divorce, the re-defini- tion of marriage to include same- sex couples and the constitutional provision that bars discrimination on the basis of gender and sexual orientation. It would be preposterous to try and figure out what Fr Peter's an- swers would have been to the ethi- cal and moral dilemmas legislators face today as they overhaul IVF legislation. But his views 13 years ago could serve as a benchmark to help law makers and ordinary people navi- gate the complex issues at stake. ksansone@mediatoday.com.mt Fr Peter said it was not the State's duty to prohibit embryo freezing and that there was nothing wrong in embryos kept for future use by the couple who created them, even if they risked degenerating naturally over time The disappearance of Labour's 'moral minority' COMMENTARY Muscat made Malta a happier place for minorities but has Labour become too homogenous in the process? JAMES DEBONO LABOUR has never been so homogenous on ethi- cal and moral issues than during this legislature. It suggests an unarrestable drive to complete the secularisation process initiated by the divorce ref- erendum of 2011. But President Marie Louise Coleiro Preca's ap- peal for more reflection on the IVF law and em- bryo freezing earlier this week could reflect mis- givings among a segment of Labour voters. Since its inception in the 1920's, Labour – once represented in the senate by none other than the prelate Mikiel Gonzi – contained within it a strong pro-clerical element. Under the Fabian so- cialist Dom Mintoff that dominant position was lost, but the party remained conditioned by the prevailing mores of a traditional society – to the extent that divorce remained taboo for the party till the 1990s. Dr Alfred Sant was the only prime minister in Maltese history not to take his oath of office by kissing the cross, but he faced open dissent in his party when he appointed a commission for the fu- ture of the family, which recommended the intro- duction of divorce. Opponents in his parliamen- tary group included a young MP called Joe Abela. But even more secularist MPs like Lino Spiteri sounded caution, insisting that Labour had no mandate to introduce divorce. After 1998, back in Opposition Sant sidelined moral and ethical issues to focus on Labour's mission to block EU membership. Prominent on Sant's front bench was the vociferous conserva- tive Adrian Vassallo, a medical doctor and son of Times columnist J.G. Vassallo. Vassallo went as far as denouncing the screening of porn in hotel rooms, apart from opposing divorce and gay mar- riage. Joseph Muscat was himself elected Labour lead- er on a platform which included a pledge to intro- duce a private member's bill in favour of divorce. This highlighted the contrast with the more con- servative and Church-aligned George Abela. Yet even Muscat was initially cautious, and while favouring civil unions he declared his opposition to marriage equality. Abortion remained a taboo, with some party stalwarts like Justyne Caruana going as far as to propose a "curator" for the womb in a bid to help husbands stop women from leav- ing the country to get an abortion. Muscat himself was wary on committing his party to support the pro-divorce campaign – something which he did energetically on a per- sonal level. Party stalwarts like Carmelo Abela and Marie Louise Coleiro Preca did declare their stance against divorce even if they refrained from campaigning against it. The referendum was the watershed moment, which convinced Muscat that social liberalism was an asset of the party. In what signalled a clear departure from the Sant era of co- existence, Adrian Vassallo decided to call it a day, accusing Muscat of behaving like a dictator. After winning the 2013 election by a landslide Muscat renegotiated the agreement regulating marriage annulments with the Vatican and pro- ceeded with the introduction of civil unions with- out facing any internal opposition. It was on the contentious issue of embryo freez- ing that internal dissent was brewing, with promi- nent MPs like foreign minister George Vella and parliamentary secretary Deborah Schembri ex- pressing reservations. Neither of the two are particularly close to the Church. Schembri was herself the leader of the divorce campaign while Vella had no qualms on divorce and LGBTI rights. But both have red lines on this particular issue. Still, with Marlene and Godfrey Farrugia defect- ing to the Democratic Party, George Vella not contesting the 2017 election and Schembri failing to get elected, Muscat ended up with a more co- hesive parliamentary group. If there are any con- servatives left, they do not speak. This new consensus in Labour may reflect the more liberal attitudes of Labour voters on various contentious moral issues as confirmed in numer- ous surveys. But the same surveys also show a vast majority of Labour voters in favour of retaining Catholicism in the Constitution and overwhelm- ingly against abortion. The current uniformity in parliament is not rep- resentative of all Labour voters, a bloc that also includes moral conservatives as well as voters who are generally liberal but may have red lines on spe- cific issues like surrogacy. In some ways the Presi- dent's intervention gave back some representation to this category. The exclusion of Labour's moral minority may prove tricky for a big tent party. It gives Muscat the opportunity to complete a legacy as the politi- cian who changed Malta from a world laggard in civil liberties to an open society based on the pur- suit of happiness. This gives Labour a distinctive ideological mark which partly compensates the loss of socialist values. Labour's unity also contrasts with the more embarrassing but perhaps more real diversity of opinions on the Opposition's benches. But it also raises the question on whether the current consensus is based on a genuine belief in a progressive agenda or is simply based on defer- ence to the leader. It may not be surprising if the first cracks in Labour start emerging on the moral front rather than on the corruption one. jdebono@mediatoday.com.mt The current uniformity in parliament is not representative of all Labour voters, a bloc that also includes moral conservatives Deborah Schembri was the leader of the divorce campaign but emerged as a conservative on IVF