Author: lifenetwork

Is-Sibt 17 ta’ Marzu 2018: L-Isqof ta’ Għawdex Mario Grech qal li soċjetà li taċċetta l-abort hija soċjetà omiċida, peress li “kull meta bniedem inaddaf il-ġuf billi jneħħi l-ħajja ta’ tarbija, huwa jkun qed joqtol persuna.”

Waqt il-laqgħa ġenerali annwali tad-Dar Ġużeppa Debono, l-Isqof Grech qal li “l-argumenti favur it-terminazzjoni tal-ħajja tal-bniedem fil-ġuf huma fake news jew parti mill-post truth culture.”

Mons. Grech qal li min huwa favur l-abort għandu l-ardir jgħid li lest li joqtol persuna biex isalva oħra. Huwa fakkar fi kliem il-Papa Franġisku li kien qal li “din hija mafja”.

Waqt l-indirizz tiegħu, l-Isqof ta’ Għawdex qal l-ebda raġuni ma tiġġustifika l-qtil dirett tal-bniedem. Huwa kompla jgħid li “hija tassew anomalija li filwaqt li d-dinja tad-dritt qed tawgura li titneħħa l-leġitimazzjoni l-gwerra tiġi deleġittimizzata, fl-istess nifs trid li l-abort jiġi leġittimizzat.”

L-Isqof ta’ Għawdex Mario Grech qal li l-problema tal-abort klandestin ma tissolviex billi jiġi leġitimizzat l-abort iżda billi jittieħdu miżuri soċjali li jindirizzaw il-kawżi li minħabba fihom omm tħossha kkundizzjonata li “toqtol lit-tarbija fil-ġuf”.

L-Isqof Mario Grech qal ukoll li l-abort imur kontra l-ġurament li jieħdu t-tobba biex jiddefendu l-ħajja u li ma joqtlux lill-bniedem b’mod dirett. Fi kliem Mons. Grech “meta tabib jintalab jagħmel abort, huwa jkun jikser din il-wegħda. X’fiduċja jibqgħalna f’tabib li jxellef il-ġurament li jkun ħa?”

Mons. Grech qal li l-bniedem qed jgħix f’epoka ta’ dittatura tad-drittijiet, fejn dak kollu li l-bniedem jixtieq jew irid, qed isejjaħlu dritt ċivili.

L-Isqof faħħar il-ħidma ta’ Dar Ġużeppa Debono favur il-ħarsien tat-tarbija fil-ġuf. Kompla jgħid li din il-ħidma hija meħtieġa ħafna peress li f’Malta qed ikun hemm “vuċijiet orkestrati favur l-abort.”

Huwa ħeġġeġ lid-Dar biex tkompli tkompli xxandar li l-ħajja umana mill-bidu tat-tnissil sat-tmiem naturali tagħha hija sagra u invjolabbli. Qal li d-Dar għandha tkompli toffri kenn, akkomadazzjoni u għajnuna lin-nisa tqal. Qal ukoll li hemm bżonn li d-Dar toffri servizzi ta’ counselling għal dawk li jinqabdu b’tarbija li ma tkunx ippjanata jew mhux b’saħħitha.

Fi kliem l-Isqof Grech, “dan is-servizz tajjeb jingħata wkoll lil dawk l-ommijiet tqal li jkunu ddeċidew li jagħmlu abort, bit-tama li dawn jirrevedu d-deċiżjoni tagħhom.”

L-Isqof ta’ Għawdex sejjaħ it-tqassim b’xejn tal-kontraċettivi “viżjoni miopika u parzjali”. Enfasizza dwar l-importanza tal-edukazzjoni sesswali.

L-Isqof Mario Grech irrakkomanda wkoll li d-Dar għandha toffri akkumpanjament terapewtiku u spiritwali lill-ommijiet li jkunu għamlu abort.

Nhar l-Erbgħa 14 ta’ Marzu 2018, Dar Ġużeppa Debono żammet il-Laqgħa Ġenerali Annwali tagħha li matulha preżentat rapport tal-ħidma tagħha flimkien mar-rapport finanzjarju għas-sena 2017.

Iċ-Ċerpersin tad-Dar, Karl Wright, qal li fl-aħħar xhur Dar Ġużeppa Debono għaddiet minn proċess ta’ tiġdid li matulu evalwat il-missjoni tagħha u kif din tista’ tkun iżjed rilevanti għaż-żmien tal-lum.

Rapport: newsbook.com.mt

When Latvian Nils Muižnieks  took up his position as Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe in April 2012, in his welcome address he said: “It is my intention to keep human rights high on the agenda of European countries and to contribute to the development of more humane policies benefiting both present and future generations.”

Muižnieks was in Malta, a sovereign State,  last November using very tough language against present and future generations of unborn children in Malta.

It is becoming clearer that he came to Malta to give a helping hand to the one or two women’s organisations in Malta who, while declaring that they are neither pro nor against abortion, are doing their utmost to introduce abortion in Malta.

Probably he was pushed,  or lured, to come to Malta to preach abortion, and then proceed further by writing in the local press, “to  start the ball rolling” for the introduction of abortion.

This, after the same women’s organisations succeeded in introducing the morning-after pill  through a very fine subterfuge, through the Medicines Authority and its CEO.  Map is considered abortive in many medical and pharmaceutical quarters, locally and abroad.

They are now trying  to introduce abortion in Malta  by using the powerful position of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights. And Muižnieks is letting himself be used in this way.

At the beginning of February  MaltaToday published the result of a survey on abortion in Malta  which showed an overwhelming rejection of abortion across all age groups. Ninety-seven per cent of those interviewed said they were against unrestricted abortion at whatever stage of the pregnancy.

Yet, towards the end of February Muižnieks was either oblivious to this survey or, worse, arrogantly ignored it altogether and, again, came out, this time in the local press, preaching abortion in Malta against the wishes of the big majority of the Maltese.

The Europoean Union, of which Malta is a member state, does not interfere in these matters in any state of the Union. In fact, when Malta joined the EU in 2004 the Maltese government insisted, and succeeded, in signing a protocol with the EU which stated:

“Nothing in the treaty on European Union, or in the treaties establishing the European Communities, or in the treaties or Acts modifying or supplementing those treaties, shall affect the application in the territory of  Malta of national legislation relating to abortion.”

The Maltese Prime Minster himself came out strongly, lately, even before the result of the latest survey on abortion was published, declaring that the big majority of the Maltese do not want abortion.

Yet,  Muižnieks  keeps meddling in Malta’s internal affairs by dictating what the Maltese should do in this matter.

The six Maltese members of Parliament in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe should  raise up this matter in the parliamentary assembly to have Muižnieks  stopped from flagrantly  continuing to abuse Maltese hospitality.

Our Equality Minister should also come out insisting that Muižnieks should  stop meddling in Malta’s affairs by making known to him the Malta government’s position on abortion, explained  by the delegation which she led,  and which was spelled out in its declaration at a UN Conference on Malta in Geneva in December 2013, which stated:

“The delegation reiterated the [Malta] government’s belief in the need to protect the right to life, including that of the unborn child. It expressed the view that, as human life begins at conception, the termination of pregnancy through procedures of induced abortion at any stage of gestation, was an infringement of this right.

“Malta, therefore, could not recognise abortion or any other form of termination of pregnancy as a legitimate measure of family planning. Where the life of a mother was at risk, a medical intervention to save her life, even if that could result in the death of the child, was not precluded.”

In his article, Muižnieks  said he is “aware that some argue in favour of restrictions on access to abortion on the basis of a purported prenatal right to life”. Then he adds: “After a thorough analysis of how the right to life is interpreted within core treaties, it is clear to me that this right does not apply prior to birth and that international human rights law and mechanisms do not recognise a prenatal right to life.”

Definitely he is not informed and he should be considering his position as a CoE commissioner.

He should know that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which entered into force on September 2, 1990, in its preamble declares very clearly that “bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”.

Muižniek ignores this also and keeps harping only on women’s reproductive rights.

He says that “the international human rights law and mechanisms do not recognise a prenatal right to life”.

The Association of Pre & Perinatal Psychology & Health in the US, the International Society for PreNatal & PeriNatal Psychology & Medicine in Germany and the World Organisation of Prenatal Education Associations in Spain have been promoting womb ecology in world ecology for many years already. In his videos An Introduction to  Pre and Peri-Natal Psychology, Thomas Verny, psychiatrist and family therapist of world fame, expressed his view that if it were for him all pregnant women would wear a T-shirt with the words on it “baby under construction”.

In his capacity as Commissoner for Human Rights, Muižnieks should start talking much less on abortion, anywhere in the world,  and start promoting much more the human rights, the legal and other protection and the wholesome human development of all unborn children all over the world.

Let Muižnieks come to Malta again, after all, not to talk on abortion but to take part in the forthcoming national conference on womb ecology, on the first environment to man, the mother’s womb, which the Malta Unborn Child Movement, with the collaboration of the three international organisations named above, and Verny,  will be organising in the coming months with the Speaker of the Maltese Parliament and the political parties of Malta.

Muižnieks should know also that on February 4 all the political parties in Malta, including the Labour Party in government, together with the Acting President of Malta and Archbishop Emeritus Paul Cremona celebrated the dignity of human life from conception at the manifestation in favour of life organised by MUCM in Valletta.

Tony Mifsud is coordinator of the Malta Unborn Child Movement.

You might excuse me for digressing from my customary focus on environmental issues, but to ignore the current raging debate concerning the introduction or otherwise of abortion merits some consideration.

Without sounding patronising, I wish to contribute my tuppence about the matter, and especially to break the mould once and for all of pro-choice (a misnomer in itself) environmentalists.

As I hope to elucidate through this column, I see no contradiction in being an environmentalist and concurrently a pro-life campaigner. I truly believe that being otherwise would raise the spectre of contradiction, and not the other way round.

I mulled long and hard over whether or not to pen this column, especially since those who fly their kite tend to get burned in this country. This explains why so many valid individuals, especially academics, take a backseat when it comes to contributing to public debate.

The main battering rams deployed by those campaigning for the introduction of abortion on our shores include the fact that, globally, Malta is one of just a few countries which completely denies the ‘right’ to an abortion, as if there is anything shameful in being one of the few countries to safeguard human life, and as if the non-existent ‘right’ to an abortion can ever trump the fundamental right to life.

Similarly, the ‘restricted’ authorisation of abortion, acceded to only in exceptional cases, including life-threatening complications for the mother, rape and in instances of severe foetal physical and mental impairment. My take on the first circumstance is that in cases of a Hobson’s choice during delivery, there is no issue.

On the second, my gender risks giving me a paternalistic tone. I believe that aborting a foetus will only add to the tragedy of rape, adding a further victim to the one we already have, but I don’t expect to be able to fully understand the rape victim’s predicament and neither have I ever met such a victim. I can only make reference to the rape victims who have chosen to bring their pregnancy to a natural completion and whose offspring, whether they were given up for adoption or not, have been given a shot at life.

Concerning the viability of the foetus, this is a slippery slope indeed, bestowing the prerogative over who should live and should die simply on grounds of mental and physical fitness. This surely would be the epitome of discrimination which unravels all ongoing programmes to integrate individuals with different forms of disability and of different races.

Perhaps the most compelling of arguments made by the pro-abortion campaigners is that abortion is already happening on our watch, with a number of Maltese women purchasing online abortive pills and even heading abroad to have their abortion, raising the spectre of a discriminatory access to abortion, with those who can pay being able to circumvent the local ban.

While I still don’t believe that this justifies the fully-fledged introduction of abortion on our shores, the support services provided to expectant mothers who are considering abortion should be thoroughly widened. Although touted by many as a panacea, adoption is not an option for all women considering an abortion, for whom assistance in all its forms cannot wait a further nine months until delivery.

Consistency in views is certainly not our forte as a culture. Take capital punishment. Many are those who are against such a terminal act, normally on the ground that everyone deserves a second chance in life, however heinous his or her crime, and that no one should have the prerogative over another individual’s life. This stance I fully support, but the mind then boggles as to why the same compassion and understanding is not extended to an innocent foetus who certainly does not deserve to pay the ultimate price.

Indeed, the swelling ranks of those who consider the eating of meat as repugnant (a view I respect but don’t share) similarly brand anti-abortionists as hypocritical in view of their support of the culling of farm animals. Respectfully, I fail to see the parallels between the two.

I wish to believe we are living in an age of compassion, especially since we are, and rightly so, granting more civil rights than ever before. We are considering the assisted termination of life (euthanasia), surrogacy and even extended parole rights, just to mention a few examples. We have just granted the right to make medicinal use of cannabis and we even have a Commissioner for Future Generations.

We split hairs, and rightly so, over the lack of open space that future generations will have to contend with, and over the unsavoury climate change scenarios which will await them. We seek the protection of all forms of non-human life, from the most endangered of plant forms to a poorly-known insect, up to the few non-human mammalian species roaming our islands. We regularly support calls to adopt endangered animals in foreign countries.

Hence – and this is where it starts getting murky – why are we not as compassionate when it comes to an unborn, defenceless and unrepresented foetus, who represents the immediate next generation?

Through this, I am not purporting to place humans on a rung above other species, as this view would be construed as being driven by some form of religious creed.

Scare-mongering (such as through the dissemination of butchered foetuses), judgemental hand-wringing (such as the demonisation of those considering an abortion), the drawing of parallels with the divorce issue and the bandying about of religious dogma should definitely not be deployed when countering pro-abortion arguments, since they have been proven to backfire in a spectacular fashion.

Such a debate should neither be reduced to a gender contest and should be decoupled from the priority of addressing current gender inequalities, which should proceed unhindered given its importance. Anti-abortion women, pro-abortion men and anti-abortion atheists are not a figment of our imagination and dispel the stereotypes we would like to attribute to the two sides of the debate.

Despite no political party holding the mandate to initiate the relevant debate, and despite current polls placing the anti-abortion camp well ahead of the pro-abortion one, advocating a referendum on such an issue is simply equivalent to using sheer muscle rather than reason to carry the argument. Persuasion through level-headed and compassionate arguments should be resorted to rather than veiled threats to implement the will of the ‘majority’.

Piero Angela, a mainstay of Italian TV since the early 1980s, was recently interviewed on national Italian TV, with the parting question being about 20th century attributes that he would have gladly brought over to the current century. His glib reply was that in his days, no one spoke of the ‘rights’ they purported to have, but rather spoke of the ‘duties’ they had.

This has completely metamorphosed into the flipside in this day and age, when talk of ‘our body’ is rife (despite overlooking the fact that the same ‘body’ is nurturing another human being, at least for the gestation period).

It is indeed ironic that, while no stone is being left unturned by infertile couples wishing to become parents, with IVF techniques being broadened, some seek to dispose of human life.

I feel a sense of resignation as I write this column, as the introduction of abortion to our shores is increasingly seeming inevitable, especially as the spiel about turning Malta into a ‘modern’ society picks up, as if there is anything progressive about having the unborn pay the ultimate price.

It’s up to those who value human life to prove their case and to convince the uninterested hordes sitting on the fence that it’s an issue worth campaigning for.

alan.deidun@gmail.com

In no uncertain terms, there is nothing Catholic in the US pro-abortion funded lobby group called Catholics for Choice featured by your paper on the March 3.   I do not like bringing in religion into the abortion argument, as I believe that recognising the inherent dignity, equal and inalienable rights of all human beings at whatever stage of life is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace.

However, I cannot accept that this US lobby group created to purposely present religiously warped arguments to confuse Catholics cannot remain unmasked.

Catholics for Choice are no pious organisation, they are a US lobby group created by the strong financial powers supporting abortion in the US and worldwide, and dressed in a Catholic garment, to create confusion among Catholics who oppose abortion because of the love God gave us for humanity, including the child in a mother’s womb.

There are powers from inside and outside of Malta that are intent on creating a debate on abortion, stir doubt and change Maltese public opinion that today is convinced that abortion is a wrong and expects its leaders to stand up in international fora and say so with heads held high.

Richer countries see overpopulation in the poorer countries an economic and security threat to their well-being and pushed the United Nations to promote contraception and abortion as a means of population control.   This is why foundations the like of the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Playboy Foundation, and Soros’s Open Society Foundations to mention a few fund so aggressively pro-abortion lobby groups like the one Amanda Ussak represents, because abortion is not about woman’s rights as the lobby groups they fund try to make us believe, abortion is about bigger economic interests to which they pertain.

Malta, Ireland, other countries, Christians, other religions and pro-life people in countries that have legalised abortion, form part of the world’s conscience that reminds humanity that abortion is a killing of the innocent.  These powers want to shut us up.

Our stand exhumes the guilt that they have buried under the false definitions of “potential life”, “choice”, “cells” as they look the other way of the crushed body of the innocent lifeless child in the bucket in an abortion clinic, whose life has been destroyed for bigger commercial interests.

What motivates Ussak from the US to assist in creating a debate in Malta on otherwise a non-existent issue (as the recent Maltatoday survey has shown), is the agenda set by these powers that finance her lobby group and who want every nation to become pro-abortion suiting their bigger interests.

These interests have nothing to do with women’s rights and even less with the few Maltese mothers that might find themselves in a situation of difficulty and need our tangible support and not selfish impositions.   See the UN’s indifference to the civilian killings and Syrian conflict, and other similar humanitarian tragedies and tell me what “choices” are women in these countries given.

The first principle of being Catholic is to accept the authority of the Catholic Church in one’s life.   Indeed, this is quite the opposite for this lobby group which actually in its website advocates that it “disagrees with the dictates of the Vatican” and “helps people and organisations confidently challenge the power of the Catholic hierarchy”.   If these people are Catholic, then a beef burger is a vegetarian meal.   This group is actually notorious for its failed attempt to downgrade the Catholic Church’s status in the United Nations.  The United States conference of Catholic Bishops has rejected this organisation’s claim to Catholic identity and describes it as “an arm of the abortion lobby”, as has that of Canada and Mexico where the lobby has been active.

For 25 years CFC was led by its founder Frances Kissling quoted as saying: “I spent 20 years looking for a government that I could overthrow without being thrown in jail. I finally found one in the Catholic Church.”  Great Catholic credentials.

Interesting while CFC claims to represent a majority of Catholics, this lobby group is actually not open to membership and meaning Catholics have no say.  Catholics are not allowed to join as members and participate in the group’s positions with the board appointed by the financial interests that support it.    How they claim to represent a majority baffles me.

Where is this majority of Catholics for abortion, I fail to find?  Not in Malta and not even in the US where this lobby group is founded, and where Catholics are notoriously known to be pro-life (for clarity’s sake, against abortion).

This lobby group relies on paid employees to promote abortion in a Catholic-looking wrapper.  In the US the strongest opponents to abortion are Christians especially Catholics and Evangelicals.  This organisation was purposely created by the pro-abortion foundations to create inroads with Catholics, which seems to become less and less successful.  It is interesting to note that it is the younger generation in the US that is becoming more pro-life.

Her arguments are even less Catholic.  When Catholics talk of conscience, we talk of a formed conscience that includes the knowledge and understanding of what the Church teaches on the matter and not its outright denial or resistance.

She claims to advocate abortion to enable women to live to their full potential.   Whose potential, definitely not of the child but also not of a pregnant woman who if supported would opt to retain the child that is within her.  With her argument the State should legalise all killings when the person killed is limiting someone else’s potential. A thinking derived from the law of the jungle and not civilisation.

The most appalling reason that Ussak put in favour of abortion is to claim that the unborn child “does not have a developed conscience or an understanding of Church and societal teachings to enable it to make decisions”, and therefore that life can be terminated.

Seriously? So according to Ussak, if you have an undeveloped conscience you can be killed?  Or whoever does not understand the Church and societal teachings has no right to life?  Since when one’s ability to make decisions is the criterion if one has a right to live or die?  Since when anyone has the right to decide who lives or who dies?  Surely not Catholics.  What Ussak is advocating is not Catholicism but Nazism.

With an annual budget of $3 million and financially backed by notoriously pro-abortion foundations such as the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and notoriously the Playboy Foundation, no wonder Ussak if finding the time to try and confuse the minds of Catholics in Ireland and Malta, promoting an agenda of death.   Truly the case of a wolves wearing sheep clothing.

Tonio Fenech is a former Nationalist Party minister.

Ref: https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180316/opinion/Those-Catholics-for-Choice-Tonio-Fenech.673495

 

It is amply clear that the campaign for the eventual legalisation of abortion is gearing up and using all available means to keep the issue on the front burner.

This in spite of the repeated assurances from the Prime Minister himself, if I read what he says correctly, that there is no chance of abortion being legalised, under his watch.

This concerted campaign also flies in the face of the unequivocal, clear and impressive message, sent by respondents to a survey conducted recently (February 4) by another section of the press, which showed in loud and clear terms that the overwhelming majority (over 95 per cent) of the Maltese population, across the whole age spectrum, are against abortion, with figures dropping slightly when emotional and highly debated ethico-moral situations, such as ‘mother’s life put in danger’, ‘severe disability of the unborn child’, ‘rape’, ‘pregnancy in under-16s’ are factored into the equation.

The message is there for everyone to see.

This is why I was once again appalled at the patriarchal and didactic attitude assumed by the outgoing Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, in his contribution to this paper (February 26).

Following his first pronouncements on the subject last November when he visited Malta, instead of answering to the challenging questions addressed to him concerning as to where he gets the mandate to recommend the killing of new life in the womb (abortion) as a human right, and to quote chapter and verse which Council of Europe convention backed by the unanimous vote of Member States declares abortion as a human right, he finds the audacity to come back lecturing us on the ‘need’ to reform abortion law.

I am sure the commissioner can employ his remaining weeks in office, more profitably campaigning for more human rights for people in war-stricken areas such as Syria, on human trafficking, and the rights of suppressed, downtrodden and exploited minorities.

The commissioner made the daring declaration that “the right to life does not apply prior to birth and that international human rights law and mechanisms do not recognise a prenatal right to life”.

He recommends “abortion care” should be available on a “woman’s request” in early pregnancy and throughout pregnancy, “to protect women’s health and life and ensure freedom from ill treatment”.

The commissioner astounds me when he speaks of avoiding what he calls “ill treatment” of the mother in the same breath that he recommends the killing of the foetus/baby (throughout pregnancy).

This extreme barbarous treatment of the baby in the commissioner’s dictionary goes by the euphemism of “abortion”. There cannot be more extreme ill treatment than outright killing.

The only positive recommendation the commissioner made, and with which we all agree, was when he appealed for full access to comprehensive sexual education and modern contraception, so as to help prevent unwanted pregnancies and reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies.

Let me point out that whereas the commissioner states that international human rights law and mechanisms do not recognise a prenatal right to life, the Declaration of the Rights of the Child adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations (a global not simply European organisation) in November 1959, and recognised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, declares in no ambiguous terms that “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”.

Killing the foetus/baby during abortion surely does not qualify as “special safeguard and care”.

In this frenzied push to justify putting abortion on the political agenda we have also been told that we should put away all moral, ethical, and legal consideration and abide by what our conscience dictates, making conscience the final arbiter. (‘Conscience should be the final arbiter on abortion’, March 3.)

It has to be said that the issue of abortion is not one tied to any particular religious denomination. It is against the unnatural act of killing one’s offspring. It is one of civilised man’s basic ethics and instincts: thou shalt not kill. One is against it not because of Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu or any other faith’s morals. It is because it is intrinsically wrong and against nature.

If, to follow the line of thinking of this so-called Catholics for Choice, we acknowledge conscience as the final arbiter, we can do away with prosecution of all types of wrongdoers and crime, because everyone would defend himself by claiming he was following the dictates of his conscience, ‘the final arbiter’.

Speaking on the rights of the unborn, I strongly appeal that in the coming debate on the amendments to the Domestic Violence Bill, presently before Parliament, the definition of “family or domestic unit” (Part 1, Art.2) includes “the child conceived but yet unborn of any of the persons mentioned as forming the family” as is presently in the Domestic Violence Act of 2006, Chapter 481 of the Laws of Malta. The term “an ascendant or descendant”, Part 1, Art 2 (d) as proposed in the Bill before Parliament, is too vague.

In any legal interpretation by our courts of law in the future, any respectable judge would invoke the maxim ubi voluit dixit, meaning that had the legislator wanted to include (the unborn child in this case), he would have made specific mention of it in the legislation.

Not including the unborn child in the definition of “family” conveys the wrong message, and will not be consonant with the Prime Minister’s repeated declarations of his opposition to abortion.

George Vella is a retired specialist in family medicine and  former minister for foreign affairs.

Born to first generation Latvian immigrants in the USA, born, raised and educated in the United States of America, Nils Muiznieks obtained a Ph.D. in political science at the University of California at Berkeley (1993). Prior to that, he graduated as a Bachelor of Arts in politics at Princeton University summa cum laude and obtained a Master of Arts degree in political science from the same university (1988). Prior to his appointment as Commissioner for Human Rights, he held prominent posts such as Programme Director at the Soros Foundation-Latvia, Director of the Advanced Social and Political Research Institute at the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Latvia in Riga (2005-2012); Chairman of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (2010-2012); Latvian minister responsible for social integration, anti-discrimination, minority rights, and civil society development (2002-2004); and Director of the Latvian Centre for Human Rights and Ethnic Studies (now Latvian Centre for Human Rights) (1994-2002). Member of Latvia’s First Party (Incidentally a party of the Right, 2003-2005), its co-chairman and one of its ministers in the government. His academic and political background speaks for itself as does the slip showing under his dress!

I had been a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg for seven years and among my portfolios were membership of the Human Rights Sub-Committee. I know enough from my experience there, that Nils’ sudden urge and enthusiasm to promote abortion in Malta is not one of the requirements of his political office but his own personal agenda. The office of Human Rights Commissioner is there to enforce the letter and spirit of the European Convention of Human Rights and the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (ECHR). Nowhere do any of these instruments of law or judgements mention or attempt to enforce abortion in any country of the Council of Europe member states or even attempt to state that abortion is a fundamental right. I believe that Nil’s remit should be to stick to the written and judgemental decisions of these august bodies rather than try and bring about new abortion rights on his initiative and own agenda.

However, just to remind him about what is written in the European Convention for Human Rights, there is a clause which mentions a right to life – not a right to adult life, nor a right to a child’s life but a right to the life of a human being. As any doctor and embryologist are able to tell him, human life scientifically starts at fertilisation. There is no particular stage of development after that which makes a human life a non-human being. There is not a single judgement of the European Court (ECHR) that purports to enforce the rule that life should only be protected after birth and that the right of a woman to choose is a prima facie right compared to the life of the unborn child. This could only be construed therefore as pushing his personal agenda.

Prima facie rights in law and ethics tend to weigh importance and consider the outcome when a number of rights pertaining to different human beings tend to clash. The court or the individual body of rational or legal judgement then weighs which is the more important right for whom. Is it the right to life of a human being at any stage of development or is it the right for a woman to choose. As opposed to American law, no European Higher Court has ever decided this in terms of a preference of the woman right to choose. Reason clearly shows us, as do social studies and Abraham Maslow’s pyramid of needs which puts self-actualization especially, the acceptance of facts (you cannot self-actualize if you are not there), at the pinnacle of his pyramid. What is more important at law and in ethics: the preservation of the very existence of a human being or the right of another individual on the expedient choice on what to do with this other human being due to personal issues on the quality of a particular life? It is obvious to anyone that the right to innocent human life and dignity trumps all other rights. It stands at the top of the pyramid of rights. I need to exist to have any rights at all.

Nils should know this. As the son of a Latvian medical doctor and architectural historian who needed to escape the ravages of Nazi Germany and fly as refugees to the USA, I ask him whether the purported right of the self-actualization and integrity of his immigrant parents were secondary to other people’s rights on how to treat them? There is no doubt that the right to life of innocent human beings at any stage of life is prima facie right and primary to the rights of choice of any other human being, including that of choice. It is prima facie wrong to take the life of innocent human beings be they born, unborn, senior citizens, people with disabilities or refugees!

So rectification of intention and way are called for here as his position in challenging the Maltese right to exercise subsidiarity on the proper enforcement of these Maltese and European rights is being taken to task by a Commissioner who is supposed to be enforcing those rights and the judgements of the ECHR and also respecting our subsidiarity. Since Nils seems to have lost track of his front and derriere I suggest the following. First that he desists in insulting all the Maltese people who cherish the rights and freedoms of innocent human beings and know where their priorities lie and have chosen to put their priorities first in law. Second, to desist from denigrating the principle of subsidiarity of an independent and sovereign proud people who respect their beginnings and ends and choose to respect the beginnings and ends of others. Third, to desist from interfering in the affairs of a member state of the European Union which lists the respect to human dignity as the first point in its Charter of Fundamental Rights and has a clause in its membership treaty against abortion and in favour of the rights of the unborn (and born). Fourth, to stick to the remit to which he was elected and leave personal agendas out of his job.

If I were still a Maltese member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (nothing to do with the European Union – Malta joined in 1965 after independence), of which we have four, two from both sides of the House, I would raise this issue at the quarterly Assembly meetings in Strasbourg and in the multiple committee meetings in Paris. I would kindly but firmly raise the matter that Nils is grossly out of order and point out that he is interfering in the sovereign rights of a people and nation, that it is not within his official remit to enforce abortion and that subsequently he should know where to withdraw, get off his high horse and show us his derriere! Otherwise the government should do this through the proper channels (if it wants to – seriously), as can do other organisations represented on the CoE such as the Church! Men and women should be made of sterner stuff.

Dr Asciak is Senior Lecturer II in the Institute of Applied Science at MCAST

Abortion Has No Business in Malta

Abortion is illegal in Malta and the populace plans to keep it that way. In fact, before the country  joined the European Union (EU), it received assurances that the nation would not be pressured to legalize abortion. Now the Council of Europe is interjecting itself into Maltese affairs.

Now pro-life Maltese are furious, and rightly so. February 27^th Nils Muižnieks, Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner, published an opinion piece in The Times of Malta, pontificating that Maltese should have access to abortion. He then proceeded to list examples of past censures by other bodies on other pro-life nations such as Ireland and Poland, to “justify” his argument. And ironically, he speaks of the mother’s “right to life,” but also states: “It is clear to me that this right does not apply prior to birth.”

Council of Europe Powerless

The Council of Europe has no binding power on Malta or other nations. Human Life International stands with The Gift of Life Foundation in Malta, which quickly responded to the non-native Latvian Commissioner’s comments. Gift of Life’s Paul Vincenti:

“This is the second time this year that Nils Muižnieks, Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner, has attempted to kick start a political debate on legalizing abortion in Malta. Most likely, the new group of radical feminists in Malta that was set up two years ago is attempting to influence our pro-life laws via a coordinated attack on life from various sources internationally. We do expect to see additional attacks on Malta’s pro-life laws from international bodies working in coordination with this radical feminist group.

A recent poll carried out by a local newspaper showed clearly that the Maltese are in their vast majority against the legalization of abortion. A link to this research is available.

We remain confident that this will have no immediate effect on Maltese law. However, we are proactive in thwarting the devastating effects that will come about if we ignore the resolve of pro-abortion movement in Malta.”

HLI Director for International Outreach and Expansion, Dr. Joseph Meaney, just returned from Malta. In the soon-to-be-issued Mission Report for March, he writes:

“After I gave several radio interviews and a public lecture on “pro-life answers to pro-abortion questions”, the prime minister’s office felt compelled to put out a statement that there are no plans to legalize abortion. It further added Maltese public opinion does not favor abortion, nor was there an electoral mandate to change abortion.”

This article is available at https://www.hli.org/2018/02/malta-furious-council-europe/

Human Life International (HLI) is the world’s largest pro-life organization. Founded by Fr. Paul Marx nearly fifty years ago and currently led by Fr. Shenan J. Bouquet, HLI is actively in 100 nations around the globe. Faithful to the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, it works in collaboration with Vatican curial offices and Catholic dioceses around the world. Recently the Holy See’s Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life listed HLI as one of thirteen pro-life websites. For more information see www.hli.org.

Is it possible that we re­main so utterly uninformed as to automatically accuse anyone opposing a new Bill of supporting domestic violence? It should be obvious to all that the least one should do is to have first read and fully understood the proposed law and its implications before indulging in violent retaliation against any opposition to it.

It is a paramount duty to act against domestic violence at national and international level and it is laudable that the punishment for rape be raised. However, it is no more than cheap political showmanship when members of Parliament choose to slang each other off over a Bill that even the Hungarian Parliament has declared a Trojan Horse.

Maltese citizens must not be duped into believing that this Bill is intended simply to protect victims of domestic violence when it is designed to repeal the present Domestic Violence Act while stripping away the rights of parents as primary educators.

This is an appeal to all Maltese parents and educators to look more closely at what is being proposed, there being no greater evidence that this Bill is fundamentally flawed than when members of Parliament resort exclusively to direct attack on all voices of dissent, having found no other way of defending it.

We demand genuine discussion on the true content of this Bill. At its most basic level, it makes no legislative sense to repeal a law that has already transposed the Istanbul Convention.

Despite its name, this Bill is less concerned with the protection of victims of domestic violence than it is with the creation of universally gender-neutral language. It is intended to create the illusion of Parliament enforcing the Istanbul Convention when the reality is that the Convention is already part of our law, specifically chapter 532 of the laws of Malta.

What does it say of our Parliament when it shamelessly resorts to cheap attempts to trick and make a mockery of the Maltese people in its efforts to push through laws that purport to be something other than what they really are?

This Bill is not about protecting victims of domestic violence. They are already protected under the current local laws. It is about redefining the defined and sabotaging the rights of the Maltese people to leave them at the mercy of an ideological agenda.

While the Istanbul Convention contains many useful provisions that could effectively help victims of domestic violence (shelters, legal aid, restraining orders) the vast majority of these positive provisions are already regulated by the national legislation.

This Bill, as it stands, defeats the purpose of the Istanbul Convention, which is that of increasing protection of women specifically because they are women. Instead, it renders women gender-neutral, robbing them of the exclusive characteristic that the Istanbul Convention sets out to protect.

How can we claim that this Bill is intended to introduce a more robust protection for victims of domestic violence when it strikes the unborn child off the list of household members?

The current Domestic Violence Act, Chapter 481 of the laws of Malta, includes and refers to the “child conceived but yet unborn”.  The Bill will repeal this law and, in so doing, omits the unborn child from the list. This is no mere oversight and the fact that no proviso has been made for it can only mean that the carefully-camouflaged pro­cess of stripping away every form of protection for the unborn child has advanced another step.

According to both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights, parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. The Istanbul Convention departs from this understanding, resulting in severe infringement of the rights of parents to ensure their children receive education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.

If parents oppose controversial sex education classes and correlated books where children are encouraged to explore different sexual orientations, they will henceforth be accused of violence.

Eradicating customs that are based on the inferiority of women is praiseworthy but the Istanbul Convention also seeks to change “social and cultural patterns of behaviour of women and men with a view to eradicating prejudices, customs, traditions and all other practices which are based on… stereotyped roles of women and men”.

Culture, custom, religion, tradition or so-called ‘honour’ shall not be considered as justification for any acts of violence covered by the scope of this Convention. Does this mean criminalising institutions that base their teaching on all the psychological and biological evidence that there do exist differences between men and women?

In Germany, families who wish to opt for home schooling are facing tremendous pressure to conform. In the case of the Wunderlichs family, the German government violently removed children from their home. Such behaviour is not acceptable under Germany’s international obligations to the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

This sort of Marxist aggression should provide a deterrent to European countries from using such in terrorem tactics against families. When the State sabotages the “prior rights of parents to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children”, it justifiably lays itself open to accusations of domestic and even national violence.

Sara Portelli is a lawyer.

The fact that Edwin Vassallo chose to vote against the Domestic Violence Bill should have been a wake-up call for our MPs.

Nationalist Party MP Vassallo has made a name for himself by risking his political career when he defied the imposition of the then party leader Simon Busuttil, to disallow MPs to vote according to their conscience on the issue of ‘gay marriage’.

The proposed Domestic Violence Bill sounds nice and the government propaganda machine presented it in the most glowing of terms. Obviously, tighter and harsher laws against domestic violence are welcome and underscore that society should fight violence, domestic or otherwise.

Yet, embedded in this fine-sounding Bill lies a sinister agenda that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with domestic violence. After all, the current laws in Malta are more than adequate to address this issue. So, one should ask, why the proposed change, and why the urgency?

The very least the people can expect from their representatives in Parliament is that before voting on a Bill, parliamentarians take their responsibility seriously enough, to read the proposed legislation, understand it and study its implications most carefully.

It is mind-boggling if not outright scandalous that time and time again, laws that impact the core values of society are rushed through without time for reflection and debate. By now, it should be blindingly obvious that the government is infiltrated with activists who have a well-defined malevolent agenda.

Under the guise of the smokescreen of positive slogans championing equality, freedom, inclusion and what have you, lies a deliberate strategy to undermine values that have underpinned our society for centuries. 

The Domestic Violence Bill intentionally excludes clear protection of the unborn child, fortifies further the gender ideology and for good measure usurps the right of parents to raise their children according to their religious and ethical convictions.

Various people writing in the press tell us that these changes might have been inadvertently included and it is just a matter of proposing a few amendments to correcting the shortcomings to make the Bill acceptable. Following what has happened with previous legislation, this is very doubtful.

For instance, it is shocking that the Istanbul Convention will now accuse and punish parents who refuse to have their children indoctrinated with controversial sex education and teachings that bring into question and deny the biological reality of male and female.

A previous attempt to peddle books promoting homosexuality in schools were aborted mainly thanks to Ivan Grech Mintoff who alerted parents to what was afoot and marshalled a vigorous public reaction.

The Domestic Violence Bill, as it stands, goes a step further. It even adds changes to the Istanbul Convention itself, making matters even worse. To pretend that such changes to the Istanbul Convention in this drafted Bill were made inadvertently beggars belief. By now, only an ostrich could fail to see the well-crafted programme that is steadily trying to further whittle away legal safeguards of life and the traditional family.

It is most disheartening that only Vassallo bothered to do his homework and expose the rot. Now that he has done so, one expects all our MPs to follow suit, examine the Bill with a magnifying glass and go through it with a toothcomb.

In turn, it is the responsibility of all people of goodwill to be acutely vigilant. It is of crucial importance that the public is enlightened by being informed of what is actually going on.

Klaus Vella Bardon is deputy chairman of Life Network Foundation Malta.