Category: Gender

A statement about Bill 198: A dangerous bill which undermines the Constitution.

A statement about Bill 198 : A dangerous bill which undermines the Constitution.

Life Research Unit is seriously preoccupied about Bill No 198

It is very worrying that this bill may go against and nullify sentences of the Constitutional Court which have established that in all the stages procedures which may lead to administrative fines amounting to thousands of Euros, citizens have the right to appear in a court of justice, rather than in front of a tribunal, officials or public corporations.

With the amendent proposed to the Interpretation Act, the legislator is trying to change the meaning of the Constitution with a simple majority in Parliament instead of the required two thirds.

Those who labour in the pro-life camp find this a highly disquieting precedent.

If this proposal comes into effect, a nasty precedent will have been created, whereby in the near or distant future any Government enjoying a majority of one may change the meaning and substance of words like “person’’ or “life’’ in Article 33 of the Constitution, and may, for example, exclude unborn children from the definition of “person’’, or introduce euthanasia by changing the meaning of ther word ‘’life’’.

It is also highly preoccupying that, through this Bill, Government will allow the Equality Board in Bill No 97 (Equality) to inflict large administrative fines (20000 Euros fine and penalties of 500 Euro daily) on organisations and/or institutions who are deemed guilty by lay persons nominated by government of “discrimination’’, a term which is defined very vaguely in Bill No 97. This despite decisions by the Constitutional Court that only Courts of law can impose such fines and penalties.

The Constitution should remain the highest protection for the law in our country.

It is very important for people to be aware that this precedent can constitute a threat to the Constitution. Therefore, we call upon all NGOs and others who are conversant with the law to express their concerns as well. We request the highest authorities in the land, including His Excellency the President of Malta to ensure that the Maltese Constitution is not undermined.

Life Research Unit is the Advisory Legal Unit within Life Network Foundation.

22 March, 2021.

Life Network Foundation

www.staging-lifenetwork.stagingcloud.co

Leaving the sex field blank – Tonio Fenech

I am caught between two minds pondering on a proposal announced by the government in Bill 170, clause 22, which allows parents to leave the sex field blank on the birth registration when the gender of the child is unclear.

Presented as an important change, what is unclear to me is whether the “undeclared” classification will be applied when, biologically, the sex of the child is in doubt, as in the case of intersex, or whether parents will be allowed to leave it empty even when the sex of the child is clear.

The intersex case

I am not professionally competent to say if this will help intersex people but I tried to understand the challenges faced by these people before forming an opinion.

Intersex is a biological reality that affects between 0.05 per cent and 0.7 per cent of children, according to the UN Human Rights office. It is when a child is born with variations in sex characteristics, including chromosomes, gonads, sex hormones or genitals that do not fit the typical definitions for male or female bodies.

Mauro Cabral, for Global Action for Trans Equality (GATE), an intersex person himself, during the Intersex Awareness Day of 2016 stated that “intersex people are not a natural third sex, we don’t have a third gender by definition, and leaving a blank sex assignment at birth is not the way to ‘create justice’ for us. We need to stop approaching intersex issues as if they were trans issues.

“Some trans people use intersex as a way of explaining who they are or to make sense of their bodies or identities. By doing this, intersex becomes just another way of saying trans. However, intersex is not about being trans, queer or non-binary: it’s about bodies and what happens to people who are born with them. We need to stop instrumentalising intersex to speak our truth as trans people”.

What Cabral proposed was to dismantle binary ideas about bodies and body shaming.

While I would join an initiative to fight body shaming, I cannot agree that in order to solve the challenges of intersex people we need to also deny human nature and the remaining 99.3 per cent labelled ‘binary’. Male and female are not an offence to intersex people, as people with eyesight are not offensive to the visually impaired. We are simply born different; solutions should focus on inclusion, not elimination of who the rest are.

(Trans) gender ideology

A recent article in Times of Malta, ‘Will children choose their gender now?’ (November 30), defended this amendment as it fosters “a wider acceptance of gender fluidity and/or non-heteronormative sexuality in local culture”, assuring readers that this amendment is harmless since “if a child is assigned a gender at birth they may later choose to change when they become an adult”; consequently, we should not find it difficult to allow parents to leave the sex identification blank.

Frankly, I find this argument twisted because an adult changing his or her gender classification is no justification for leaving a child genderless until adult age.

I do not think anyone’s children should become a social experiment called ‘gender fluidity’

The gender fluidity theory suggests that gender is not fixed and, basically, today I may feel a man, tomorrow a woman and the week after a man again and so we should use neutral pronouns and classifications to allow for this fluidity.

The Times of Malta article tries to support the theory by quoting the American Psychological Association that defines sex as “assigned at birth, one’s biological status as either male or female” while gender as “socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for boys and men or girls and women”.

However, this definition is not about gender fluidity but the distinction between sex and our gender roles within society, for example, the rightful claim of women that sex should not impose some stereotype gender roles, like women are housewives while men are the breadwinners.

So-called research quoted from a Jung Journal article defining gender fluidity as “an alternative to binary (male and female) gender identities” is becoming more common. Seriously? The Jung Journal is not a scientific journal but a website in its own words of “a beautiful international quarterly publication offering feature articles, reviews, interviews, poetry and art”. Not much of science or research.

I wrote this article because I do not think anyone’s children should become a social experiment called ‘gender fluidity’ that can damage those children that society should protect.

The study ‘Sexuality and Gender, Findings from the Biological, Psychological,and Social Sciences’ by Lawrence S. Mayer and Paul R. McHugh, both senior scholars in the Department of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, which reviewed over 500 scientific articles, concluded that while gender dysphoria can start at the age of two to four, of those that pass through it, 80 to 90 per cent return to their original gender by the time they reach adolescence.

They further claim that the hypothesis that a person might be “a man trapped in a woman’s body” or “a woman trapped in a man’s body” is not supported by scientific evidence.

Transgender people today have the right to change their sex classification with significant ease. Confusing children before they even learn how to walk is wrong. Leaving sex blank for sexually-defined children will only impose confusion where there was none, with possible serious psychological and physical irreparable damage.

While questioning children should be assisted professionally and with sensitivity, too early affirmation is harmful to a child when research shows that 90 per cent of these children return to their original gender by adolescence.

Tonio Fenech is a former Minister

This is a www.timesofmalta.com opinion piece

Ref: https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/leaving-the-sex-field-blank-tonio-fenech.839198?fbclid=IwAR3cSgTMndz82dZlRGtEv-07HRkjGrrPL3kD7tzZI3Emo7XPfeYUekskGGc

Watch out for your rights! – Arthur Muscat

Equality ministry is antagonising many citizens, institutions and organisations

It would be a very condemnable undertaking but you may wake up one morning short of money and decide to stage a bank robbery. Rest assured that if you eventually action your criminal plan and get caught, unless and until your guilt is proven, beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law, your innocence status is protected.

If the ministry responsible for equality has its way, this fundamental human right will be taken away from you. In respect of equality and discrimination offences that you may be accused of allegedly committing, two acts being currently discussed in a parliamentary committee will remove this fundamental human right.

For such alleged offences you will now be a priori considered guilty and you will remain so unless and until you manage to disprove your accuser and prove your innocence.

Furthermore, facing your accuser, you will have to prove your innocence not in our established law courts, with all the guarantees of impartial and experienced magistrates and judges, no, not at all. In respect of such offences you will be tried by a sort of board made up of four lawyers plus a lay person, appointed to judge and sentence you on the basis of a majority vote.

The four lawyers on this board must each have five years’ work experience in issues relating to the right to equal treatment and non-discrimination. Explicitly, the fifth lay member must have at least five years’ experience working in this equality ‘sector’.

Now don’t we all know about the prevalent mindset of most operators in this ‘sector’? Is anyone convinced of the impeccable credentials of such members for impartiality? These people, judges in what will be a court of law, will have the power, if you do not manage to prove your innocence, to slap you with a whopping €10,000 fine, plus a tarnished reputation.

In addition to setting up the board, these acts will endow an existing Equality Commission with further very extraordinary powers. For example, measures for the advancement of gender balance, in public and private institutions, will fall within the remit of this commission with extremely enhanced enforcement powers. The filling of vacancies in the public sector may, or will, through quotas, be made subject to gender balance considerations.

Powerful lobbies of ‘minority groups’ have run away with a preposterous and exaggerated discrimination and equality agenda– Arthur Muscat

Due to such quotas, as imposed, inferior male applicants, to fill quotas, may take precedence over better qualified and meritorious females. Gender balance may, or will be made to, take precedence over meritocracy and this is how these acts will mess up another human right, a right to be considered on your worth and not on your gender. This intrusion into the right to select on merit may extend into the private sector in, for example, appointments to the board of directors of private companies.

It has been established that the proposed ‘equality act 2019’ and the ‘human rights and equality commission act 2019’ go far in excess of EU discrimination and equality legal requirements. It appears that particular ambiguous and experimental clauses of these acts will be scrutinised by EU observers eager to see the outcome of this intrusion into delicate and risky unexplored territory.

Is Maltese society so far advanced and liberal on these issues to become the leader and inspiration to the rest of Europe? I am not at all convinced, more so when I recall that, way back, former minister Helena Dalli flippantly expressed herself in the sense that, to her, a vast section of the Labour electorate was unable to comprehend the outrageous implications of particular proposed pieces of legislation.

Few people are realising how powerful lobbies of ‘minority groups’, seemingly controlled by extremists, facing a ministry engaged in a vote harvesting exercise, have run away with a preposterous and exaggerated discrimination and equality agenda. To be fair, many entities are now reacting as their members will be negatively affected by these acts as drafted. Doctors, pharmacists, conscientious objectors, employers, Church authorities, education professionals, so many focused NGOs, and significantly so many citizens have raised serious objections to these acts and are currently engaged in fighting their cause.

No doubt, we do need some updated legislation to counter persistent unacceptable and shameful treatment of women and minority groups. We do need to make possible clear and timely justice procedures to victims of discrimination and inequality. We need effective rules and more resources that will strengthen the ability of a commission like the NCPE to continue influencing society to change, to make people behave in a fair and non-discriminatory manner.

However, it is one thing to influence and educate towards ethical behaviour but it is completely something else to bully, push and coerce towards arbitrarily defined behaviours and this backed up by an abusive legal framework.

We should be careful before we invent additional tribunals that we do not need, tribunals that do not feature due guarantees of fairness and impartiality to accused citizens.

The positive features of our judicial set-up need to be strengthened, more appointments of, and training for, judges and magistrates, more streamlined and timely judicial proceedings that will make justice more expeditious, less costly, less intimidating and easily accessible to all.

Surely from a jurisdictional angle competently tackling issues of discrimination and equality is not an unreachable objective.

The ministry responsible for equality must understand that these acts, with their many aggressive and erroneous clauses and definitions, are antagonising so many citizens, institutions and organisations. Equality and prevention of discrimination, correctly considered, are issues that should have us converge and unite and not cause alienating confrontations.

Short of completely dropping them, the ministry must definitely revisit these two draft acts and erase those passages that threaten the rights and perturb the peace of mind of the vast majority of citizens.

This is a timesofmalta.com opinion piece

Ref: https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/watch-out-for-your-rights-arthur-muscat.835799

Equality Bill is not Radical Enough

By Fr Carlo Calleja -November 13, 2020 9:26 AM

I am in full agreement with the thinking behind the proposed Equality Bill. Every human being is created with equal dignity. My only issue with it is that it is not radical enough.

What I mean is that by focusing simply on equality, the Bill is—for want of a better word—ineffective. In his most recent social encyclical issued last October, Fratelli Tutti Pope Francis, impels us to go much further than mere equality, and to embrace fraternity instead.

Five take-aways

Here are five take-aways from Fratelli Tutti applied to the proposed Equality Bill.

First, with the pretext of promoting equality and preventing discrimination, the proposed Bill silences voices that might be interpreted in some way or other as discriminatory. As a result, the only voice that is heard is that which pleases those in power, or as is interpreted by them (206).

Second, the Bill takes on the bold mission of promoting equality. This, however, can never be reached if there is no serious effort to address the removal of economic inequalities (168). This is not done only by providing social services but by creating just structures, a project which leaves much to be desired. A practical example is the increasing number of people who have to depend on different forms of charity to receive their daily bread, a situation that was already existent but which was further aggravated by the pandemic.

Third, equality will remain a nothing but “an abstract proclamation” unless it is supported and encouraged by structures that engender fraternity (104). This can also be brought about through reciprocity and mutual enrichment (103). As the pope himself insists, “the future is not monochrome” (100).

Fourth, history has shown us that when a group is silenced, it emerges with much greater voracity. This is perhaps the greatest threat that must be avoided. The risk is not from the mainstream church, but from vociferous fringe groups who defend a certain worldview and feel that they are being persecuted. If such groups rise to power in some way or another, the resulting inequality would be even more pronounced (191).

Fifth, the Bill does nothing to change a mentality. Instead it simply enforces a law. As a result, people act out of fear of not being charged and taken to court. They will circumvent rules and misinterpret laws rather than act out of the conviction that every human being has equal dignity (104).

Post-Enlightenment Europe has sought to engrain liberty and equality in its citizens with poor results. What is really needed is social friendship, a recognition that we all belong to the same family and that I must treat you equally not because the law says so but because I recognise that you are endowed with equal dignity despite our differences.

Fr Carlo Calleja is a member of the Justice and Peace Commission of the Archdiocese of Malta and a lecturer in Moral Theology at the Faculty of Theology, University of Malta.

This is a newsbook.com opinion piece

Ref: https://newsbook.com.mt/en/blog/equality-bill-is-not-radical-enough/

53 years of abortion: 9,563,907 lives lost since 1967

53 years of abortion:

9,563,907 lives lost since 1967 — one unborn baby every 3 minutes

Today marks the 53rd anniversary of the Abortion Act receiving Royal Assent.

Since then, a staggering 9,563,907* unborn babies have lost their lives to abortion across England, Wales and Scotland — more than one death every three minutes; 20 lives ended every hour.

Almost 1 in 4 (24%) pregnancies in England and Wales now ends in abortion, according to the most recent Government statistics.

Despite conception rates falling for the eleventh year in a row, this is the highest figure since records began and represents a significant increase from 2012 when approximately 1 in 5 (20.7%) pregnancies ended in abortion.

The number of abortions in England & Wales reached an all-time high in 2019 at 209,519, while the number of terminations performed in Scotland was the third-highest on record at 13,583.

Record abortion figures will likely increase

Unfortunately, those record figures are likely to increase following the introduction of an extreme abortion regime in Northern Ireland and policy changes allowing for ‘DIY’ home abortions across England, Scotland and Wales.

New and radical abortion legislation in Northern Ireland, imposed upon them by the Government in Westminster, allows abortion-on-demand up to 24 weeks and disability-selective abortion right up to birth – including for Down’s syndrome, cleft lip and club foot.

Earlier this month, it was revealed 664 terminations have already taken place under the new regime despite the fact the Northern Ireland Department of Health has not officially commissioned abortion ‘services’.

Meanwhile, the introduction of ‘DIY’ home abortion schemes across Great Britain has coincided with record-high abortion numbers in England and Wales.

Abortion statistics released by the Department of Health and Social Care show that 109,836 abortions were performed for English and Welsh residents in the 6 months between 1 January and 30 June 2020.

This is 4,296 higher than a six-month average of 105,540 in 2019. While a month-by-month breakdown is unavailable, 2019 saw the highest number of abortions ever recorded for English and Welsh residents over a full year, at 207,384.

An unsafe industry

The increase in abortion numbers has coincided with a rise in the number of safety abuses and other significant scandals, placing women at risk, with UK abortion providers.

Earlier this year, it was revealed that over 60% of England’s abortion clinics are rated inadequate or requiring improvement when it comes to safety.

Over the past year, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) has released alarming reports detailing health and safety abuses at two of the largest abortion clinics in the UK. Inspectors found an abortion clinic in London which specialises in late-term terminations was putting the lives of women at risk and, in November, the CQC handed BPAS Merseyside the worst rating of any private abortion provider so far.

The situation may be significantly worse too. Despite the damning reports, the CQC announced in March that it would be suspending safety inspections during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In their absence, an undercover investigation found evidence of abortion providers putting women at significant risk by not carrying out basic checks before sending them ‘DIY’ home abortion pills.

The study also discovered ‘DIY’ home abortion pills can easily be obtained and administered to others, potentially in a coercive manner.

In May, it was revealed UK police were investigating the death of an unborn baby after its mother took ‘DIY’ home abortion pills while 28 weeks’ pregnant.

In addition, abortion provider BPAS said they were investigating a further eight cases of women taking ‘DIY’ home abortion pills beyond the 10-week limit, raising questions over what checks are being conducted to ensure the law isn’t being broken and dangerous late-term abortions aren’t happening.

More recently, a nurse in the UK has shared how she was left fearing for her life and needing emergency surgery after Marie Stopes International denied her counselling and pressured her to take abortion pills at home, rather than under the supervision of a doctor in a clinic.

Just two weeks ago, a pregnant woman similarly disclosed that she’d had an abortion after being denied face-to-face counselling services from the UK’s largest abortion provider, BPAS, which boasts that it can offer same-day abortions in its ‘considering abortion’ booklet.

A lucrative industry

Despite the significant rise in safety abuses and other scandals, abortion providers and their bosses continue to be well compensated by the UK taxpayer through Government contributions.

Since the passing of the Act, what was once a crime has become a lucrative industry.

Abortion provider Marie Stopes International’s chief executive earned between £340,000 and £350,000 in 2019 and £434,500 in 2018, according to accounts submitted to Companies House.

The accounts also show the abortion provider had a record income of £308 million from operations here in the UK and overseas, receiving over £46 million in 2019 from the Department for International Development (DfID), who remain the single largest donor.

42 of MSI’s employees were paid more than £100,000 in 2019, an increase of four in the previous year. BPAS, the UK’s largest abortion provider, paid 10 of its staff over £100,000 in 2019, an increase of three on the previous year.

A discriminatory industry

The abortion industry continues to unjustly and disproportionately target unborn babies diagnosed with a disability.

Earlier this year, it was revealed the number of abortions performed on unborn babies with cleft lip and palate in England & Wales has increased 150% since 2011.

Meanwhile, the latest available figures show that 90% of children diagnosed with Down’s syndrome before birth are aborted. There were 3,183 disability selective abortions across England & Wales in 2019, with 656 of those occurring following a prenatal diagnosis of Down’s syndrome.

The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’ has made a key recommendation that the UK change its abortion law on disability so that it does not single out babies with disabilities for abortion, right up to the point of birth.

An industry on limited time?

Last week it was announced that the High Court in London will hear a landmark case against the UK Government over the country’s discriminatory abortion legislation.

Currently in England, Scotland and Wales, the law singles out babies with disabilities such as cleft lip,club foot and Down’s syndrome, and allows terminations right up to the point of birth. However, there is a 24-week time limit for most abortions that are carried out when a baby does not have a disability.

Heidi Carter, a 25-year-old woman with Down’s syndrome, and Máire Lea-Wilson, whose sixteen-month-old son Aidan also has the condition, both believe this is “deeply offensive” and have joined forces to challenge the law.

Heidi’s legal challenge has generated widespread support from those with first-hand experience of Down’s syndrome, disability advocates and more, with over 5,000,000 people watching Heidi tell Channel 5 the current law is “deeply offensive”.

Analysis of the 2019 General Election, conducted by pro-life charity Right To Life UK, revealed the number of pro-life MPs has increased while the pro-abortion lobby has lost a large number of MPs.

This played a part in the failure of an attempt to hijack the UK Government’s flagship Domestic Abuse Bill with two extreme abortion proposals, in July.

Majority want safeguards for unborn babies

Opinion polls repeatedly show that the public wants increased protections for unborn babies and the number of abortions reduced – rather than the wholesale removal of legal safeguards around abortion.

Only 1% of the UK population want abortion to be available up to birth and over 70% of women want the abortion limit to be reduced to 20 weeks or lower.

Polling from last year revealed that over 41% of Londoners believe abortion should be illegal in almost all circumstances.

Polling also revealed that two-thirds of women and 70% of 18-34-year-olds in Northern Ireland did not want Europe’s most extreme abortion law imposed on the province by Westminster.

Commemorative event outside parliament

At 12:00pm today, members from pro-life organisations across the country will take part in a live display in Parliament Square to commemorate the Abortion Act receiving Royal Assent.

The event, organised by March for Life UK, will involve people ranging in age from 1 to 53, all dressed in black, standing around the edge of the square holding placards. Each placard will state the exact number of abortions which occurred during the year in which the holder was born.

‘National Tragedy’

A spokesperson for Right to Life UK, Catherine Robinson said:

“The UK’s abortion law is failing both women and unborn babies. It is a national tragedy that 9,563,907 lives have been lost since the passing of the 1967 Abortion Act, each one a valuable human being who was denied the right to life.

“Every one of these abortions represents a failure of our society to protect the lives of babies in the womb and a failure to offer full support to women with unplanned pregnancies.

“We are always looking at how we can save more lives by ensuring that protections for unborn babies are introduced and safeguards are strengthened to protect both mothers and babies.”

*This figure is a projection for England, Wales and Scotland through to midnight on 27/10/20 and has been calculated based on the following assumptions:

The number of abortions per day in England & Wales will remain the same in 2020 as in 2019.
The number of abortions per day in Scotland will remain the same in 2020 as in 2019.
The rate of abortions throughout the year is evenly distributed.
Please note, figures have been released for the number of abortions through to June 2020. We have not used this published data in our modelling as it only provides data for the first half of the year, which is unreliable for making a prediction due to possible seasonal variation. We have not included data for abortions that have occurred in Northern Ireland in 2020 because it has not been made clear on which day abortions began being performed in Northern Ireland and it is therefore unreliable to model a projection for the remainder of the year using this

This is a Righttolife.org.uk opinion piece

Ref: https://righttolife.org.uk/news/53-years-of-abortion-9563907-lives-lost-since-1967-one-unborn-baby-every-3-minutes/

A right diminished – Tonio Borg

The government has proposed a law which reduces our constitutional rights

The human rights chapter in the Maltese Constitution is the bedrock and shield of our rights as citizens. Any attempt at changing the contents of such a chapter needs to be scrupulously examined and vetted. Since 1964 every time the chapter was amended, this was to increase rather than reduce the rights enshrined in it.

The first Fenech Adami administration introduced gender as a prohibited ground of discrimination, and the immunity hitherto enjoyed by certain pre-1964 codes of law from the human rights chapter came to an end. Sexual orientation was added as a prohibited ground of discrimination in 2013.

This is set to change.

The government has proposed a law that will diminish rather than embellish our rights set forth in the constitution. The right to a court of law in criminal proceedings was laid down in a 1983 landmark case where a law allowing a price control tribunal to decide criminal cases was declared null and void. Along the years this guarantee of access to a court of law in criminal cases, and nothing else, was extended to cover cases where hefty and punitive so-called “administrative penalties” could be imposed.

Since 2016, by a ruling of the Constitutional Court these cannot be imposed except by a court of law. In 2018 the same court decided that such cases had to be made available both at first and second instance i.e. at all stages of the proceedings.

This bill deserves to be dumped in the bin of legislative history– Tonio Borg

The government is proposing to bury this jurisprudence and rulings and allow administrative tribunals, rather than courts of law, to impose administrative penalties which are in effect criminal in nature.

There is no doubt in my mind that this is being done to save a provision in the equality bills which allows the equality board – not a court of law – to impose hefty fines on private individuals and organisations. A Church school or organisation may be hauled before such administrative tribunal and be given a hefty fine. The opposition, during the second reading of the bills through Clyde Puli and Therese Comodini Cachia rightly criticised this provision as being unconstitutional. What does the government intend to do? Rather than amend the draft law it wants to amend the constitution to regularise the ‘unconstitutional’ provisions!

Thankfully, this bill needs a two-thirds majority of all MPs in its final voting to be approved. I have no doubt in my mind that the opposition will oppose tooth and nail this nefarious draft law. I am saying this for the simple reason that in 2018 the party in opposition, following the institution of a constitutional human rights action, managed to have a law declared as unconstitutional which allowed the Electoral Commission to impose hefty fines against any political party found to have breached the Party Financing Act.

Besides, I am reliably informed that this provision, which needs a two-thirds majority to be approved, was launched by the government without any form of consultation with the opposition whose support it needs to enact this constitutional amendment. Even for such an act of arrogance this bill deserves to be dumped in the bin of legislative history!

To add insult to injury, this bill is being justified on the grounds that it aligns the Maltese Constitution with the European Convention on Human Rights and eliminates a ‘discrepancy’ with the latter. This is pure legal nonsense, and a deceitful assertion; for the Convention allows, indeed encourages, member states of the Council of Europe to provide for rights and guarantees in addition to, or more generous than, the Convention. It does not allow member states to provide lesser guarantees not more.

A solution to this problem would be to set up a special administrative court presided over by a sole member of the judiciary to decide questions relating to administrative penalties.

Changing the Constitution to allow lay tribunals to decide criminal cases would be a first in constitutional history. A first to be ashamed of.

This is a timesofmalta.com opinion piece

Ref: https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/a-right-diminished-tonio-borg.825019

Il-Ministru lest jemenda l-Liġi tal-Ugwaljanza

Il-Ministru Edward Zammit Lewis qal li huwa lest jemenda ż-żewġ abbozzi tal-Liġi tal-Ugwaljanza li hemm fil-Parlament. Il-Ministru tal-Ġustizzja semma li huwa lest jemenda l-artikli li jagħtu lil dawn l-abbozzi supremazija fuq kull ligi oħra barra l-Kostituzzjoni u anke l-partijiet li jolqtu ħażin lill-iskejjel tal-Knisja. Iżda kompla jgħid li mhux lest li jdaħħal fl-abbozz klawsola li tintroduċi d-dritt tal-oġġezzjoni tal-kuxjenza.

Il-Ministru Zammit Lewis kien qed jieħdu sehem f’diskussjoni fuq Newsbook.com.mt l-Ħamis wara nofsinnhar. Fid-diskussjoni li tmexxiet mill Fr Joe Borg ħa sehem il-Membru Parlamentari tal-PN Karl Gouder.

Gouder qal li l-PN jaqbel li titneħħa kull diskriminazzjoni u li jkun hemm ugwaljanza veru. Kompla jgħid li iżda trid li titneħħa l-klawsola li tagħti lil din il-liġi supremazija fuq liġijiet oħra. Huwa ddeskriva din il-klawsola bħala perikoluża u bħala klawsola li qed iġġib ħafna reazzjoni negattiva mill-għaqdiet professjonali.

Il-Klawsola tas-supremazjija: problema

Il-Ministru qal li huwa qed jisma’ lil kullħadd u lest li jemenda l-klawsola tas-supremazija waqt li ċaħad bil-qawwa li din il-liġi qed issir biex tħejji t-triq għall-introduzzjoni tal-abort u l-ewtanasna. Huwa qal li mill-banda l-oħra jħoss li f’liġi dwar l-ugwaljanza ma hemmx post għall-klawsola li tagħti dritt għall-oġġezzjoni tal-kuxjenza.

Meta, waqt il-programm il-Ministru kien preżentat bil-kritika li saret minn diversi gruppi professjonali u kritika li saret fuq Newsbook Q&A mill-Prim Imħallef Emeritu Vincent DeGaetano, l-Ministru qal li ma jaqbilx mal-kritika tagħħhom.

Tul il-programm kien hemm intervent minn Fr Jimmy Bartolo SJ li qal li l-abbozzi jħeddu lill-iskejjel tal-Knisja u jġibu fix xejn id-dritt tal-ġenituri li jibgħatu lil uliedhom fl-iskola tal-għażla tagħhom. Fr Bartolo qal li l-iskola tifforma lill-istudenti mhux waqt il-lezzjonijiet tar-reliġjon biss. Huma riedu li jkollhom id-dritt jagħżlu għall-iskejjel amministraturi u għalliema li jkunu jistgħu iġibu ‘l quddiem l-ethos kattoliku tal-iskejjel tal-Knisja u ma jħadħlux amministaturi u għalliema li jmorru kontra dan l-ethos.

Il-MP tal-PN Karl Gouder qal li jaqbel dwar dan.

Zammit Lewis qal li għalkemm se jinsisti li l-liġi tkun approvata huwa lest li jkompli jitkellem mal-iskejjel tal-Knisja biex tinstab soluzzjoni għad-diffikultajiet li qedgħin isemmu.

This is a Newsbook Online opinion piece

Ref: https://newsbook.com.mt/il-ministru-lest-jemenda-l-ligi-tal-ugwaljanza/

Persecuted by Equality – Miriam Sciberras

A number of medical associations, the Episcopal Conference, lay Catholic groups, Catholic Voices Malta, representatives of Church schools, the Independent School Association, the Malta Employers’ Association, Life Network Foundation and Christian groups have all sounded warnings and presented their objections in the discussions on the new equality bills, but to no avail.

The red light is on. It is an appeal to our authorities to take note and intervene in the best interest of our country, in the name of freedom.

It has been said ad nauseam that “the equality bills will not make anything that is illegal in Malta legal, so there is no need to worry”. This is at best naïve and concrete amendments need to take place in order for us to be reassured.

The two bills numbered 96 and 97 contain a supremacy clause that prevails over any other ordinary law that runs counter to them. Resistance to the removal of the supremacy clause logically leads one to think that there may be existing laws or others in the future that may be stealthily amended through such a clause.

In our legal system there are two ordinary laws, the European Convention Act (ch. 319) and the European Union Act, which are considered as supreme vis-à-vis any other ordinary law. The equality bill legislation as proposed will have supremacy over them, as well as over the Embryo Protection Act and the Criminal Code. This is another cause for legitimate worry.

It was stated that: “This government will not compromise on the principle of equality for all. It is the backbone of our belief system and the equality bill will further strengthen the legal framework in this regard.” Commendable words indeed, had this not really been a case of doublespeak at its best.

Catholics will have their religious freedom in the public square taken away

The bills will clamp down on anyone who as much as touches upon the ‘protected characteristics’ in a way deemed offensive by anyone, be it in journalism, media and or day to day living. This, in practice, will mean that Christians and Catholics will have their religious freedom in the public square taken away, the right of Church school administration in choosing employees representing their ethos in the senior management teams is no longer guaranteed, the fundamental right of parents to educate their children in their philosophical belief is threatened and the right to conscientious objection is excluded. This is not strengthening of our backbone but reducing the country to a cripple.

In January 2020, Prime Minister Robert Abela, when meeting the Archbishop at the Dar tal-Kleru, stated in a televised interview that he did not see a need for a change to Article II of the Malta Constitution, regarding religion, more so because Malta is a tolerant nation. The prime minister is right – we are a tolerant people. Love your enemy is at the heart of the gospel!

Equality as a principle based on human dignity and the intrinsic value of every person from conception to natural death is a principle easily understood by all people. Tolerance is a virtue we all need to learn and to live in a pluralistic society. We are obliged to accept, love and tolerate each other to live in peace.

However, the equality bills go too far when they include endorsement and promotion within the law. One cannot be forced to endorse and promote lifestyles that run contrary to one’s faith. Freedom of expression, religious freedom in day to day life and conscientious objection are seriously threatened.

Parliament approved the bill decriminalising porn and repealing religious vilification in 2016 in a bid to remove censorship. In 2020, we want to introduce a new censorship, this time a gag order on anyone who will not endorse or promote gender ideology. How can this even start to make sense?

As we pitch gender ideology versus religious freedom, we will see indoctrination attempts rammed down our throats. The targets will be innocent children (who in the name of a false equality will be bombarded by WHO-endorsed early sexualisation programmes in school curricula), ordinary families and individuals. People who just want to go on living their faith as they have always lived it in the last century will be labelled homophobic and ridiculed.

The stage is being set for the persecution of believers.

Miriam Sciberras, Chairman, Life Network Foundation Malta

This is a Times of Malta print opinion piece

Ref: https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/persecuted-by-equality-miriam-sciberras.822289

This equality bill that will destroy diversity – Alan Deidun

There are those who will resort to every trick in the book to silence the Church

The term ‘diversity’ is normally a byword for abundance, choice, alternatives and a plethora of other positive connotations. The positive timbre of the term extends to different contexts and domains, from the biological sciences (the safeguard of ‘biodiversity’ has become a global conservation priority) to philosophy (having a ‘diversity of views’ in society is seen as the best antidote to an authoritarian view) as well as to human rights (which advocate against discriminating towards the diverse minorities within society on the basis of sexual orientation, religion or creed, race, etc).

It is against this backdrop that the current equality bill 96/97 is being peddled by Parliamentary Secretary for Equality Rosianne Cutajar, with such a bill being bandied about as the champion of diversity, when in actual fact it’s anything but.

In fact, some of the clauses within the bill have an inherently homogenising effect, by promoting the watering down of any differences in ethos between Church and non-Church schools on these islands, thus effectively doing away with the supposedly cherished diversity in schooling, reeking of a communist, one-size-fits-all philosophy.

Perhaps two of the most maligned provisions of the equality bill concern the recruitment of educators and the relegation of their Catholic ethos to the religion class only, in Church schools.

Concerning the first issue, I heard a very fitting anecdote from a friend of mine within a similar mindset on the proposed bill. According to him, removing the discretion of Church schools to screen applicants for a post at their premises on the basis of their ethical/moral constitution is tantamount to a casino running the risk of recruiting applicants who are vehemently against gambling or to a wildlife sanctuary management organisation running the risk of recruiting a convicted arsonist.

Swinging the pendulum back from such extreme scenarios, Church schools have not shied away from employing individuals who might not be viewed as complying with the tenets of Catholic ethos, embracing diversity in views and lifestyles in a practical way. Thus, the trepidation within the movement behind the proposed equality bill is hard to fathom, especially when considering the inclusive human resources recruitment track record of Church schools. The relegation of any moral/ethical teaching to the prescribed religion class can be couched within the decades-long debate in this country concerning the role in society that the Church should take.

While the secular nature of our republic and the distinct separation between Church and state matters are cast in stone and recognised by all and sundry, the attempt at rendering the Church ever more redundant in today’s society by relegating its teachings to religious buildings and activities only betrays a lack of understanding of the Church’s mission as a key societal stakeholder, that of promoting its ethos and lifestyle model in everyday life.

“Parliamentary secretary Rosianne Cutajar would do her portfolio justice if she endeavoured to make the Equality Bill less discriminatory and more inclusive”

Given the Church’s advocacy role in contemporary society, on issues related to environmental degradation, human rights and dignity (being evident in debates on abortion, migration, drug legalisation), there are those who will resort to every trick in the book to silence it as they are uncomfortable with the message it is conveying. Church schools are just the latest battleground in such a struggle.

The merits of the argument are even easier to grasp if we limit ourselves to Church schools only. Presumably, most, if not all, parents of students attending Church schools do so since they specifically wish their offspring to be instilled in a Catholic ethos and not just on academic grounds. It’s a conscious decision and choice, and the parental faculty to decide on their children’s education will be eradicated if the equality bill gets the green light. The same proposals also avoid giving any quarter to an educator’s right to conscientious objection on the premise that this is discriminatory, paving the ground for witch-hunts of staff members deemed as incompliant and despite the fact that such a right is entrenched within the legal books of many countries and institutions.

Proponents of the ‘equality bill’ repeatedly refer to the agreement between the Holy See and the Maltese Republic on Church Schools (1991) which supposedly gave successive Maltese administrations an implicit foothold in the running of Church schools on the premise that teachers employed within such schools are being paid for by the state. In doing so, the same proponents are implicitly or explicitly oblivious to the fact that, within the same agreement, the Maltese state recognises the right of the Church to establish and direct its own schools according to their specific nature and autonomy of the organisation and that the Church was true to its end of the bargain by passing over vast tracts of land to the state.

This agreement obliges Maltese Church schools to follow the National Minimum Curriculum submitted by the education division but not to shy away from promoting the Catholic ethos. From a more mundane perspective, the state’s subvention of Church schools is limited to just the core/regular teaching staff and an additional 10 per cent payment, with parents having to financially support the engagement of assets such as counsellors, lay chaplains and inclusion coordinators among others, besides regular maintenance and upgrading works within Church school buildings.

It is inherently hypocritical to witness those who profess to be firm believers in a diversity of views, sexual orientations, religious creeds and races to concomitantly be so against a diversity in schooling on these islands. It is perhaps more sinister to witness the same paladins of human rights being so openly discriminatory against those (who are definitely not the ‘privileged few’) who consciously opt for an inclusive Catholic education for their children.

Parliamentary secretary Cutajar would do her portfolio justice if she endeavoured to make the equality bill less discriminatory and more inclusive.

Prof. Alan Deidun is Director of the International Ocean Institute – Malta Training Centre and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Biology (London)

This is a Times of Malta print opinion piece

Ref: https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/this-equality-bill-that-will-destroy-diversity-alan-deidun.819829

Gender Ideology Harms Children

March 21, 2016 – a temporary statement with references. A full statement will be published in summer 2016.

The American College of Pediatricians urges educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts – not ideology – determine reality.

1. Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: “XY” and “XX” are genetic markers of health – not genetic markers of a disorder. The norm for human design is to be conceived either male or female. Human sexuality is binary by design with the obvious purpose being the reproduction and flourishing of our species. This principle is self-evident. The exceedingly rare disorders of sex development (DSDs), including but not limited to testicular feminization and congenital adrenal hyperplasia, are all medically identifiable deviations from the sexual binary norm, and are rightly recognized as disorders of human design. Individuals with DSDs do not constitute a third sex.¹

2. No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one. No one is born with an awareness of themselves as male or female; this awareness develops over time and, like all developmental processes, may be derailed by a child’s subjective perceptions, relationships, and adverse experiences from infancy forward. People who identify as “feeling like the opposite sex” or “somewhere in between” do not comprise a third sex. They remain biological men or biological women.^2,3,4

3. A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking. When an otherwise healthy biological boy believes he is a girl, or an otherwise healthy biological girl believes she is a boy, an objective psychological problem exists that lies in the mind not the body, and it should be treated as such. These children suffer from gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria (GD), formerly listed as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), is a recognized mental disorder in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-V).⁵ The psychodynamic and social learning theories of GD/GID have never been disproved.^2,4,5

4. Puberty is not a disease and puberty-blocking hormones can be dangerous. Reversible or not, puberty- blocking hormones induce a state of disease – the absence of puberty – and inhibit growth and fertility in a previously biologically healthy child.⁶

5. According to the DSM-V, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.⁵

6. Children who use puberty blockers to impersonate the opposite sex will require cross-sex hormones in late adolescence. Cross-sex hormones (testosterone and estrogen) are associated with dangerous health risks including but not limited to high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke and cancer.^7,8,9,10

7. Rates of suicide are twenty times greater among adults who use cross-sex hormones and undergo sex reassignment surgery, even in Sweden which is among the most LGBQT – affirming countries.¹¹ What compassionate and reasonable person would condemn young children to this fate knowing that after puberty as many as 88% of girls and 98% of boys will eventually accept reality and achieve a state of mental and physical health?

8. Conditioning children into believing a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse. Endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and parents, leading more children to present to “gender clinics” where they will be given puberty-blocking drugs. This, in turn, virtually ensures that they will “choose” a lifetime of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic cross-sex hormones, and likely consider unnecessary surgical mutilation of their healthy body parts as young adults.

Michelle A. Cretella, M.D.
President of the American College of Pediatricians

Quentin Van Meter, M.D.
Vice President of the American College of Pediatricians
Pediatric Endocrinologist

Paul McHugh, M.D.
University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School and the former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital

References:

1. Consortium on the Management of Disorders of Sex Development, “Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Disorders of Sex Development in Childhood.” Intersex Society of North America, March 25, 2006. Accessed 3/20/16 from http://www.dsdguidelines.org/files/clinical.pdf.

2. Zucker, Kenneth J. and Bradley Susan J. “Gender Identity and Psychosexual Disorders.”FOCUS: The Journal of Lifelong Learning in Psychiatry. Vol. III, No. 4, Fall 2005 (598-617).

3. Whitehead, Neil W. “Is Transsexuality biologically determined?” Triple Helix (UK), Autumn 2000, p6-8. accessed 3/20/16 from http://www.mygenes.co.nz/transsexuality.htm; see also Whitehead, Neil W. “Twin Studies of Transsexuals [Reveals Discordance]” accessed 3/20/16 from http://www.mygenes.co.nz/transs_stats.htm.

4. Jeffreys, Sheila. Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism. Routledge, New York, 2014 (pp.1-35).

5. American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Arlington, VA, American Psychiatric Association, 2013 (451-459). See page 455 re: rates of persistence of gender dysphoria.

6. Hembree, WC, et al. Endocrine treatment of transsexual persons: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009;94:3132-3154.

7. Olson-Kennedy, J and Forcier, M. “Overview of the management of gender nonconformity in children and adolescents.” UpToDate November 4, 2015. Accessed 3.20.16 from www.uptodate.com.

8. Moore, E., Wisniewski, & Dobs, A. “Endocrine treatment of transsexual people: A review of treatment regimens, outcomes, and adverse effects.” The Journal of Endocrinology & Metabolism, 2003; 88(9), pp3467-3473.

9. FDA Drug Safety Communication issued for Testosterone products accessed 3.20.16: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ucm161874.htm.

10. World Health Organization Classification of Estrogen as a Class I Carcinogen: http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/ageing/cocs_hrt_statement.pdf.

11. Dhejne, C, et.al. “Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden.” PLoS ONE, 2011; 6(2). Affiliation: Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Psychiatry, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. Accessed 3.20.16 from http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885.

source : American College of Pediatricians