Category: Malta

We made a difference last week at the United Nations. Thanks in part to thousands of Citizengoers, the anti-family and anti-life agenda did not advance at the Commission on the Status of Women.

I hope you received my note last week regarding CitizenGO’s activities at the United Nations. Six members of the CitizenGO team travelled to New York City to defend our shared values at the 62nd Commission on the Status of Women. Our team travelled from Slovakia, Hungary, Canada, Kenya, and the United States to bring your voice to the UN.

Our goals?

• To delete abortion and comprehensive sexuality education from the commission’s agreed conclusions.
• To encourage the UN to support the family.
• To ask the UN to focus their resources on initiatives that promote the real needs of rural women, including clean water, eradicating hunger and poverty, and maternal health.
• To ensure that gender ideology is not enshrined in another international agreement.

I am happy to report that we were successful on each of these fronts!

The final agreed conclusions:

• Do not enshrine Abortion or LGBT rights.
• Qualify “reproductive rights” to exclude abortion.
• Ensure that “direction and guidance from parents and legal guardians” is included in sex education.
• Do not include the term “Women in all their diversity” (code for transgender rights).
• Do not include the term “Family diversity” (code for homosexual rights).

These are just a few of the ways we saw victory for life, family, and freedom at the 62nd Commission on the Status of Women.

How did CitizenGO help make this possible? 

During our time in New York, we encouraged country delegates to push back against the “abortion rights” and “gender ideology” movement at the UN.

We delivered over 150,000 petition signatures to country delegates. We had nonstop conversations with delegates and NGO representatives in the halls of the UN. We handed out hundreds of pamphlets that discussed the dangers of Comprehensive Sexuality Education. We partnered with Family Watch International to co-sponsor their rally against Comprehensive Sexuality Education. We attended and supported events that discussed the cultural imperialism of the abortion movement, that called out the eugenic movement against down syndrome babies, and that supported other worthy causes.

These are just a few of the ways we acted to encourage the pro-life and pro-family movement at the United Nations.

And our actions made a difference! Just ask the liberal lobby at the UN. In a UN Dispatch, a Program Officer for International Policy at the International Women’s Health Coalition specifically called out CitizenGO for pushing back against “sexual orientation and gender identity” and “sexual and reproductive rights.” Jacobson states:

Unfortunately, we have seen a massive influx of anti-human rights and anti-gender equality organizations occupying the space, blocking progress and spreading misinformation. Last year, for example, a European organization called Citizen Go brought their “hate bus” to the CSW. These groups have brought an intense polarization based on lies to some of the most important topics that the CSW should address, including sexual orientation and gender identity, sexual and reproductive rights, and child, early and forced marriage. This polarization is incredibly damaging at the CSW because it operates through consensus. The result is that on some key issues a small group of anti-human rights countries water down commitments to the lowest common denominator – they’re basically negotiating our human rights away.

We know we are doing something right when we are called out for resisting the anti-life and anti-family ideology at the UN. Congratulations!

We also made a difference in the minds of individual delegates. 

Miriam Kuzarova, CitizenGO’s representative from Slovakia, discussed Comprehensive Sexuality Education with a delegate from the United Kingdom. The delegate confronted Miriam, blaming her for spreading lies about the Comprehensive Sexuality Education curriculum. Miriam told her to check for herself, using the information and links we provided in our handout (links to UN documents!). Later that day, the delegate approached Miriam and apologized, telling Miriam that she was right. The UK delegate could not believe what was included in the Comprehensive Sexuality Curriculum!

Many delegates willfully push for comprehensive sexuality education despite its evils, but many others are simply ignorant of the evils present in the curriculum. We provided information to these delegates and opened their eyes to these evils.

I wish I could tell you more about each of the conversations we had, each of the events we attended, and each of the ways we saw hearts and minds change, but I know you are busy. I hope this message encourages you and shows you that your voice was present at the United Nations last week!

Thank you for standing with us to defend life, family, and freedom around the world. We could not do our work without your support.

Sincerely,

Caroline Craddock and the entire CitizenGO team

P.S. I want to leave you with a few photos from our time at the UN. As you can see, we kept ourselves busy! 

 

CitizenGO representatives Eszter Zaymus (far left) and Caroline Craddock (far right) at a rally against Comprehensive Sexuality Education.

 

CitizenGO’s Slovakian representative Miriam Kuzarova delivered signatures to the Slovakian delegation.

 

CitizenGO Canada representative David Cooke (far left) with representatives of other NGOs. David stayed at the UN until 5:00am on Thursday to encourage pro-life and pro-family delegates during heated (all-night!) negotiations. 

 

CitizenGO representatives Eszter Zaymus, Caroline Craddock, Miriam Kuzarova, and Ann Kioko at the St. Patrick’s Day Parade in New York. We took an afternoon to lobby for the pro-life movement in Ireland.

 

CitizenGO representatives Caroline Craddock, Gregory Mertz, Eszter Zaymus, Miriam Kuzarova, and David Cooke delivered over 150,000 signatures for life and family at the UN. 

 

CitizenGO representative Ann Kioko delivered over 150,000 petition signatures to US representatives.

 

The Gender-Based Violence and Domestic Violence Bill purports to incorporate the Istanbul Convention on Domestic Violence into our laws.

In fact, it does more than that. It amends the previous Domestic Violence Act of 2006, piloted by former minister Dolores Cristina, and removes from the definition of household member any previous reference to “the child conceived but yet unborn” of any person living with another in a marriage or extramarital relationship.

The Life Network and other non-governmental organisations have rightly objected to this deletion. Deleting any reference to the unborn child means that the beneficial effects of the new Bill cannot be applied to the unborn. This includes drafting and implementing an action plan, as required by the Bill, to be monitored by a new commission regarding domestic violence.

So, apart from the conceptual objections to the removal of a reference to the unborn child, there are also practical implications, since the deletion would diminish the protection even as regards prevention, which existed under the 2006 Act.

I am not saying that the deletion of any reference to the unborn child renders abortion legal in Malta.

Abortion remains a crime under the Criminal Code; what I am stating is that a protection as regards prevention which applied to the unborn child applies no more under the new Bill.

The government has repeatedly stated that it is against the wilful termination of a pregnancy, so why insist on the removal of any reference to the unborn child in the new Bill?

The Prime Minister and the piloting minister, Helena Dalli, were quoted as saying that the reference is superfluous, since the word ‘descendants’ found in the Bill includes the unborn child.

However, apart from the fact that any first-year law student would soon tell you that under our law, a reference to an unborn child, to be legally effective, has to be specific. The Attorney General told a parliamentary committee he does not know of any law in Malta which includes an unborn child under the definition of ‘descendant’, and he is right and correct at law. 

Consequently, in view of this clear statement, does it make sense to continue to insist that the deletion should stand?

This was no lapsus or mistake, for when the Opposition moved an amendment to reintroduce the reference to the unborn child, it was vehemently resisted, rejected and defeated by the government.

It is therefore natural that pro-life activists and ordinary citizens are questioning the purpose of such a deletion.

Was it the result of pressure from the “liberal and progressive” lobby ensconced in Dalli’s ministry, which also proposes an equality commission which will fine any organisation which does not abide by its dictates on what is morally acceptable?

As stated in the position paper issued by the Church in Malta, the proposal contains a clear risk of subjective interpretation, such as penalising a pamphlet or literature which promotes the Christian concept of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Besides, the proposal inverts the burden of proof so that anyone accused of imaginary discrimination will have to prove that he is innocent rather than the authorities having to prove his guilt.

A recent survey showed that over 85 per cent of Maltese are against any form of abortion. This will should be respected, even though the issue of life or death should not be gauged by popularity in surveys or otherwise.

The sanctity of life is enmeshed in the idea of human dignity irrespective of popular recognition.

But when a government insists that it is right on an issue where all legal pundits say that it is wrong, then indeed everyone has the right to come to their own conclusions as to whether there is some hidden agenda in the government’s mind.

Nor should the government, in trying to justify its errors, attack others, falsely accusing them of an ambivalent attitude on the right to life when the only ambivalence is that of the government on this issue.

When the Prime Minister, a fortnight ago, accused me of stating, during the hearing for my approval as a European Commissioner in November 2012, that there was one law in Malta and I apply another law within the EU, he knew that this was not true.

What I said during the hearing was that while I affirmed my belief that human life starts at conception, under EU law, the Commission had no right to interfere on the issue, which was governed exclusively by the separate laws of Member States.

Now is the time for a government which boasts of its pro-life credentials to eliminate any ambivalent or equivocal impression and reintroduce the protection of the unborn child in the Bill.

If it does not, everyone is entitled to draw their own conclusion about the commitment of the government to protect life from conception.

Indeed, this Bill, like so many other things done in recent years, could be truly the thin end of the wedge, diluting the law on protection of unborn human life.

Tonio Borg is a former deputy prime minister and European commissioner.

Ref: https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180328/opinion/the-thin-end-of-the-wedge-tonio-borg.674697

Nicole  Borg  –  26/03/18 05:12 PM

Jeanesse Abela, mara b’diżabbiltà li kontinwament tissielet sabiex turi lis-soċjetà li ħadd m’għandu jwarrab persuni bħalha, temmen li allaħares ommha għamlet abort.

Ma’ Newsbook.com.mt, Jeanesse spjegat li kieku ħafna servizzi għall-persuni b’diżabbiltà ma jeżistux għax hi kompliet dak li bdew għadd ta’ ġenituri f’NGO favur id-diżabbiltà.

Fissret li meta twieldet hi, lil ommha qalulha li mhix se titkellem u li se tgħix ħajjitha fi stat veġetali. Madanakollu, id-determinazzjoni ta’ Jeanesse li tgħix ħajja normali ssorprendiet lil kulħadd.

Sostniet li qatt ma tista’ taqbel mal-abort, għax temmen li kulħadd għandu kapaċitajiet li jista’ jiżviluppa.

Jeanesse insisitiet li t-tobba qegħdin hemmhekk biex jagħtu l-pariri u mhux joqtlu, u għalhekk, jekk jagħtu l-parir lil xi omm biex tagħmel abort, ikunu ħatja ta’ qtil huma wkoll.

Hi għamlet ukoll l-appell tagħha lil dawk il-ġenituri li qed jistennew tarbija u li jsiru jafu li se tkun diżabbli, sabiex jirrifjutaw li jagħmlu abort u jirrealizzaw li llum il-ġurnata hawn is-sapport kollu meħtieġ sabiex persuni b’diżabbilità jgħixu ħajja kemm jista’ jkun normali.

Il-ġurnata ta’ Jeanesse hija waħda tipika. Taħdem bħal kull persuna oħra, toħroġ ma’ sħabha, u tgawdi l-ħajja. Hija wkoll iżżomm ruħha attiva fis-soċjetà u sabiex tagħti sapport lin-nies bħala, flimkien ma’ persuni oħra, kienet waqqfet l-għaqda L.A.N.D. li toffri post lil persuni b’diżabilità fiżika biex jiltaqgħu u jissoċjalizzaw.

Filwaqt li taf li għandha l-limitazzjonijiet tagħha u li għandha bżonn ammont ta’ għajnuna minn persuni oħra sabiex tkun tista’ tkompli b’ħajjitha, Jeanesse tidher determinata li qatt mhi se taqta’ qalbha milli tkompli turi lil kulħadd kemm persuni b’diżabbiltà kapaċi jaslu fil-ħajja.

Jekk tixtieq tagħmel kuntatt ma’ Jeanesse u tisma’ u tara l-esperjenzi tagħha tista’ tingħaqad mal-grupp li ħolqot fuq Facebook bl-isem ta’ Janna’s Club.

Ref: http://www.newsbook.com.mt/artikli/2018/3/26/%22allahares-ommi-ghamlet-abort%22—mara-b%27dizabilita.73106/

An anti-abortion rally held in Dublin earlier this month to campaign for the Eighth Amendment to be retained. Picture by Caroline Quinn/PA Wire

 

22 March, 2018 01:00

WHILE the Constitution celebrates the equality of the mother and the unborn child in its Eighth Amendment, we have an obligation to be at our most compassionate, our most merciful, if and when the expectant mother and father and their unborn child require support during a crisis pregnancy.

This support must be more than words. Public resources should be applied in a practical and in a creative way.

Supporting and sustaining a culture of life is in the interests of every generation and it defines us as a society.

We believe that human life is sacred from conception until natural death and that Article 40.3.3, sometimes referred to as the Eighth Amendment, reflects the appropriate balance of rights.

Some people argue that the right to life of the unborn should be a matter of personal choice on the part of the mother.

Others argue that, while they are opposed to abortion as a general principle, they believe that there are some children to whom the right to life does not apply either because they have been diagnosed with a serious medical condition or because they have been conceived as a result of rape.

We wish to state our firmly held belief, based on reason as well as faith, that there is no such thing as a human life without value.

We accept, of course, that death is part of our human condition. What we reject is the suggestion that any person can decide when it is time for another person to die.

The deletion or amendment of Article 40.3.3 would serve no purpose other than to withdraw the right to life from some categories of unborn children.

To do so would radically change the principle, for all unborn children and indeed for all of us, that the right to life is a fundamental human right.

There is no logical or scientific basis for considering, on the one hand, a born child to be a person with all the rights that this involves and, on the other hand, an unborn child to be a non-person.

The distinct identity of a human individual is already present once fertilisation has taken place.

We question why, in public discourse, healthy unborn children are always referred to as ‘the baby’ while those who, in the opinion of some, do not measure up to expectations are routinely defined as the ‘foetus’ or the ’embryo’.

We are concerned that language is being used with the intention of depersonalising certain categories of unborn children in a way which seeks to normalise abortion.

We are concerned that some elements of the Catholic Church’s teaching on the right to life tend to be presented inaccurately.

The Catholic Church has never taught that the life of a child in the womb should be preferred to that of a mother. By virtue of their common humanity a mother and her unborn baby have an equal right to life.

Where a seriously ill pregnant woman needs medical treatment which may, as a secondary effect, put the life of her baby at risk, such treatments are always ethically permissible provided every effort has been made to save the life of both the mother and her baby.

Abortion, by contrast, is the direct and intentional destruction of an unborn baby and is gravely immoral in all circumstances. It is not a medical treatment.

When, sadly, a baby dies naturally in the womb before birth, there is no question of the mother being obliged to proceed with the pregnancy.

There is now only one ‘patient’, the mother. The mother becomes the sole focus of any medical care that is required.

Along with the father, the mother is entitled to the best pastoral care that we can offer, as they grieve the loss of their child.

It is very distressing for a mother to discover that the baby in her womb is seriously ill and, in all probability will not live.

The use of words like ‘fatal’ or ‘lethal’ to describe these conditions implies that there is something definite about the outcome and that death is imminent and inevitable.

The reality is that every case is different and that, while some babies will die before birth, and some will live for just a few hours, others will live for significantly longer.

We believe a lot more needs to be done to provide appropriate perinatal hospice services, which offer warmth, tenderness, nutrition and hydration and, in that way, support parents in caring for their sick children until natural death.

This, rather than the repeal of Article 40.3.3, should be the focus of government policy and it is something towards which we can and should all work.

Rape is an act of violence and a crime. A woman who has been raped needs compassionate care and support.

A child conceived following rape is also a person. He or she has rights, including that most fundamental of all rights, the right to life. Society must similarly extend its support to the unborn baby.

Our hope is for a Church and a society which, while rejecting abortion, reaches out to women who have had an abortion, with a listening ear and an understanding heart.

Most of all, we believe that the common good is best served by a Church and a civil society which, while rejecting abortion, continues to offer women real alternatives and real support.

:: The full 4,000 word text of ‘Two Lives, One Love’ can be read at www.catholicbishops.ie

https://www.irishnews.com/lifestyle/faithmatters/2018/03/22/news/common-good-best-served-by-rejecting-abortion—and-offering-women-real-support-1280972/

 

Brussels March 22, 2018.- On March 20, 2018, the European One of Us Federation has celebrated the Ordinary General Assembly in the European Parliament, in Brussels and has participated in the Week for Life Session.

Once again, representatives of the civil organizations from the  One of Us Federation have gathered at the headquarters of the sovereignty of European citizens. In this same Parliament, the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI)  One od Us presented 2 million signatures demanding the European institutions the protection of the human embryo from its conception recognizing it as One of Us

Participants from 20 countries, including Germany, Belgium, Bulgaria, Holland, Italy, Spain, Slovakia, Portugal, Poland, France, Luxembourg and other EU countries took the floor during this act demanding precisely this protection of life and denouncing the current threats against it as well as the need for greater attention to women in their motherhood and to the elderly and people in the final stage of life.

In this same act the project of the One of Us Cultural Platform was presented. The Cultural Platform aims to give voice to the thinkers and intellectuals of the European countries who defend the values ​​that inspired the founding fathers of the European Union. Their intellectual activities and productions affirm the values ​​that constitute the essence of the European Federation One of Us.

Following the General Assembly, the members of the different national organizations participated in the session of the Week for Life that each year celebrates the Group of Bioethics of the EPP Group and in which One of Us participates actively.

The session of the Week for Life raised the perspectives that should be taken into account in the ethical application of new technologies. The debate centered around the possible representation of robots as juridical persons, the contemplation of a Universal Code of Conduct for them and the adaptation of artificial intelligence in the human body. As conclusions of this session, the speakers denounced “The deployment of scientific and technical advances in areas such as genetic engineering and biotechnology has broadened the scope of our goals. But it has also increased the magnitude of side effects that could even displace human nature to irrelevance. ” In this same sense it was concluded that “in the current scenario of technology, which allows the humanization of the artificial, it is convenient to claim that anthropological reflection and ethics inform praxis, and that praxis does not determine a new anthropology and new ethics The sciences can not be required to impose ethical limitations on themselves or to ask themselves about the meaning of human life. What man is, and what he is allowed to do, is not the result of a reflection of a scientific nature, but a matter of ethical and anthropological order. “

I have read with incredulity the article ‘Need to reform abortion law’ by Nils Muiznieks. I would like to remind people that when we joined the EU a special provision was made that our pro-life laws would not be interfered with. That was in 2003, long enough for people to forget about it. 

We have an Embryo Protection Act too, which protects life from conception to natural death.

I have worked in the pro-life industry since 1991 – that is 26 years. I was the administrator of Life Save the Unborn Child in Central London and I would like to share a few experiences. 

We had counselling rooms where women could share their problems about being pregnant and get the support they needed to make their own decisions whether to keep the baby or not. 

It was highly confidential and I never heard a counsellor divulge a single story about the women they were looking after. 

The counsellors were all voluntary. 

We used to get women who had had an abortion come to us to train as counsellors be able to advise people not to make the same mistake they did. 

One of them had said that she had recurring nightmares where she was on top of a high building and her baby was falling off the edge and, try as she might, she could not save the child.

What does that say about abortion?

A woman lives with deep regret after having had an abortion and needs very tender care and counselling to help her recover from such an unnatural procedure.

Another common post-abortion complication includes depression, which could manifest much later. 

We had Life houses where pregnant women used to live until they had their child. Each house was looked after by a volunteer who was a Life mother. She looked after their needs and made sure they were well cared for. We used to prepare a layette for their babies, provide cots, prams, etc and help them apply for government accommodation. There were five such houses around London.

My job was to raise funds, send speakers into schools and hold Life Sundays when we gave a short pro-life talk in churches and gathered supporters for our cause.

The counsellors looked after the women and babies for the first two years of the baby’s life, providing fresh baby clothes every three months, subsidising nappies and milk and accompanying them to hospital for ultra sounds and subsequently to have their babies. In reality we became temporary members of their family. 

It was beautiful work and very much appreciated by the clients.

I am now a board member of Life Network Foundation Malta and we are doing very similar work. Our recently launched Life Line for women is a 24/7 support chatline.

There is a phone line with allocated times and we offer help for women in crisis pregnancy and negative prenatal diagnosis. We also offer Save One courses for post-abortion healing.

This work takes a lot of love and understanding and clients are invited to call. The service offered is strictly confidential.

Our girls and women deserve help and support not abortion. 

Muiznieks speaks from a cold legal standpoint and finishes his article by saying: Women have the human right to a safe reproductive life, free from coercion. 

He also says: “Malta’s total ban on abortion contradicts the norms of international human rights law, because it denies women a range of fundamental human rights.”

We must remind him that Malta joined the EU with the proviso that anything to do with life would not be interfered with by the EU. 

It is the human right of a woman to have the child she conceived while being given the care and support of a loving family, or failing that the support of a caring counsellor who will stand in for the missing family.

Muiznieks should kindly note that Malta does not need his advice.

We want to be teaching the next generation on the beauty of sex in the right context and not trivialising sex as though it were a toy you could take up and put down. 

Sexual education needs to be taught in context of relationships and commitment.

The direct link between sex and life including early life needs to be clear to our young adults. Restraint, love and respect are values that can enrich relationships and are character building traits as is training to athletes and studying to passing exams.

Abortion will not solve the problem.

It cannot make a girl and boy unpregnant. You cannot erase a new life. It will only make the girl and boy involved the parents of a lost child. Try as you will, Muiznieks, in psychiatric terminology, the body knows and will keep the score. 

The trauma caused by an abortion manifests sooner or later, so I think it is grossly unfair to peddle abortion as a concocted ‘human right’. We need to educate our youths to choose life not abortion. 

Children, wanted or unwanted, planned or not planned, are gifts.

They need protection, especially in their pre-born vulnerable state.

Mary Hilda Camilleri is a retired music teacher who worked in pro-life organisations in London and now with Life Network Foundation.

It seems that the lobby group ‘Catholics for Choice’ are neither Catholic nor really interested in allowing a Catholic the free choice of his or her conscience. What they are really interested in is ultimately bringing in abortion into the country, at whatever cost, which will wreak havoc with human rights. If we are not able to defend the right to life of the weakest of human beings in the uterus or in the laboratory test-tube, the whole edifice of human rights will crumble. We would have dismantled a basic rational tenet of the whole body of our human rights which is the right to life, especially the right to innocent life which is an absolute right. Catholics for Choice is financed by millionaire George Soros, whose sole intent is to bring in unfettered abortion around the world. This brings to mind what the role of the state should be in this case. If the state cannot protect the life of innocent human beings then the reason for its very existence is being usurped and unfulfilled by the very same state and its political masters and their underlings. Therefore, it would ultimately have failed in one of its most fundamental obligations – to protect the weak and the helpless in the face of unjust aggression.

Catholics for Choice purports to allow a woman, or any other Catholic because spouses have a say in this too, to have recourse to their conscience when deciding whether to have an abortion or not. There may be other extenuating factors surrounding the parents’ or the mothers’ lives which could lead one to conscientiously conclude that having an abortion would be the lesser evil in the circumstances. Our conscience is the inner sanctum where we weigh our moral and ethical options and obligations as to what is right or wrong. It is the highest authority guiding our moral actions, for Catholics it is the place where in the quietness of our soul, we meet God. Therefore, it is also for others who are not Catholic! Catholics for Choice are purporting that if a woman had to conscientiously conclude that abortion for her is the lesser evil, they would be morally placated in choosing to have an abortion and absolved from their inner guilt. Now there are several pitfalls here that would render a person choosing this option, to be not only not Catholic, but also manifestly not humane. For Catholics, the Church makes it clear that conscience is the highest form of binding moral authority for a person on condition that it is properly instructed or formed. Proper formation in this respect for the Church means that the individual has to consider the official teaching of the Church on the issue. The official teaching of the Church rests on three parameters. First is sacred scripture, second is teaching tradition and third is the teaching of the Magisterium, which is that of the Pope in unison with the bishops.

There is no doubt that in all three aspects of the above, the teaching is that under any circumstances, abortion is an evil that contradicts both sacred scripture in its old or new covenant and any tradition and teaching of the Magisterium. To ignore this and proceed on emotional feelings alone, would mean that one is not considering a formed conscience but one that is unformed, not through ignorance mind you because that is excusable, but through neglect or carelessness. One cannot claim to be a Catholic and ignore clear Catholic teaching on the matter. Nor can one declare to be a Christian and ignore clear scriptural teaching on the matter. To be an existentialist, putting our existence before our essence or nature, tends to be a fashionable trend today with many who say they are Christian, but can one call himself/ herself a Christian while jettisoning sacred scripture? Also, can one call himself/herself human at the same time rejecting human reason and the rationality regarding our nature? One ought to keep in mind what sacred scripture teaches in John’s Revelation. “I know your works; you are neither hot nor cold. Would that you were cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spit you out of my mouth”. Scripture is clear; one may be a good Catholic, obey God’s law, and be hot, one might, unintentionally, fail through human weakness to acknowledge God and his eternal law not from want of sincerely trying, and be cold, but one cannot claim to be a Catholic and ignore God’s law, because one would be lukewarm. Being lukewarm means that one is spat out by God from being part of his people! In short, one cannot claim to be a Catholic when one ignores all Catholic precepts. One cannot be a Christian when one ignores all Christian precepts. One can claim to be, but objectively one is not!

The bottom line is that while Catholics should use their own consciences to make decisions, prudential judgements of individuals on their own situation do not set aside the objective moral order. There is an objective moral order so elusive to many in today’s world who make moral subjectivity one of their new gods together with fake news to boot. Other gods in today’s society which impede the proper formation of a person’s conscience are individualism, secularism and materialism. Catholics for Choice is one such organisation which espouses all these vices and as such cannot claim to speak for Catholics nor well-intentioned people for that matter. They only speak for themselves and their ill-conceived intentions to kill innocent human lives.

It is important that the Church must not only proclaim the objective moral truths, but also attend to how people can experience and be formed by these truths. There has to be a pastoral encounter between the Church and those who are struggling to live the Christian life, finding ways to meet people where they are, help them grow in faith and get closer to God. Part of the mercy of God is helping people slowly learn the truth of their situation in the sight of God and with his grace, take steps to reconcile wrong action or thinking! This is the so-called ‘law of graduality’, meaning that with the support and help of others we can slowly and gradually come to understand the objective truth and what God wants from us even when our lives are nowhere close to this requirement. Then we can slowly start to change our lives around to fall in line with the obligations laid out by the truth. The Church needs to have concrete plans in place to encounter, assist, accompany and form people through a process of discernment to achieve an understanding of the objective truth and to grow in faith even in the midst of their own failures, challenges and hopes.

Meanwhile, the so called ‘Catholics for Choice’ and its political and social lackeys, may continue to subvert the objective truth and lay traps for condescending knaves with the sure knowledge that their game is exposed and that in the final analysis, their efforts will not stand up to right judgement, even if it may seem that they have succeeded!

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

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