Author: Jacques René Zammit

Categories
Mediawatch

(Don’t) Kill Bill

Mark Anthony Falzon penned a piece in today’s Times called “Kill the Cohabitation Bill” in which he argues that the best thing to do with the cohabitation bill is to dump it or kill it.  “The Bill proposes to give rights to people who don’t need and/or want them and deny them to those who do. It is quite simply an ass’s ass.” – Mark Mark’s words. I don’t agree with Mark. I don’t agree at all. The fundamental difference between what Mark is advocating and what I have been advocating from this little corner of the punditry universe is that Malta needs a Civil Partnerships Bill.

Thing is that what Malta also seems to be ready for is legislation allowing Same-Sex Marriage. There’s more to it. What happened in Malta is that we trod down the path towards a law regulating Civil Partnerships only as a result of a sort of compromise between the legislators and LGBT lobby groups. That is why we are hearing all this talk of “the Cohabitation Bill is not what we were led to believe that it would be”.

So yeah. Killing the Cohabitation Bill because it fails to take the same-sex marriage issue by the horns is a bit like wanting to shoot down a bill aimed at improving conditions for cyclists because such a bill discriminates against motorists. I’m not a big fan of the cohabitation nomenclature and would have much preferred a Civil Unions Bill or something similar. What’s in a name and all that? More crucially I believe that with some bona fide tweaking the bill that is currently on the table could become a valuable legal instrument that could be useful to quite a few citizens – by filling important lacunae that end up being uselessly discriminatory.

As for “intended” or “promised” bills relating to same-sex marriages. Well the enactment of a Civil Unions Bill should not in any way preclude serious work and progress in a parallel field of legislating same-sex marriages. Free of the contorted compromises and half-baked solutions, a draft bill with clear and concrete position on same-sex marriage and ancillary rights is not only the correct basis for proper decisions but also benefits all parties concerned.

Such a same-sex marriage bill would also oblige the shufflers and equivocators within the traditional party system to stop fence-sitting and get down to concrete action. Joseph Muscat will finally have to bear the decision making responsibility and stop faffing around with rainbow coloured flags while going nowhere. Same goes for any other politician who thought he could pull a smart one with the LGBT community by promising some half-baked bill (the legislative equivalent of promising with fingers crossed behind their back).

Meanwhile the serendipitous package of rights that is developing around what is currently called the Cohabitation Partnerships Bill deserves more respect from all parties. It does not need any killing or euthanasia attempts. It needs the right attention from the right parties.

Don’t Kill the bill.

Categories
Sport

90o Minuto, calciopoli u Moratti

Jekk kien hemm bżonn li jiċċaqlaq xi ħaġa biex forsi (forsi) tibda toħroġ il-verita dwar l-akkaniment strutturali u medjatiku kontra it-trentakampjoni fl-aħħar dik iċ-ċaqliqa waslet. It-tribunal li ta’ raġuni lil Bobo Vieri u ikkonferma l-attivita ta’ spjunaġġ kondotta mill-Inter u TIM ma kienx tmiem ta’ saga iżda l-aħħar ħolqa ta’ xibka ta’ provi li ser juru fiċ-ċar kif fl-2006 l-ikbar tim taljan kien vittma ta’ komplott dirett lejh maħdum fil-kuriduri ta’ Milan u moħmi iktar fil-kmamar baxxi tar-Ruma ta’ Baldini. Quddiem dawn il-fatti l-għama tat-tifo jirrendi ruħu redikolu u għalxejn tixxejjer il-mantra ta’ ħallelin.

Korruzzjoni lampanti, applikazzjoni perversa u selettiva ta’ liġijiet u prinċipji ad hoc u tranżitorji. Dan kollu frott tal-għira u rabja għal tim li deher li kien se jiftaħ epoka sabiħa ta’ rebħiet u li minflok ġie ikkundannat jiġġerra minn Rimini għal Crotone jistenna il-ġustizzja li bħal Godot ma tasal qatt.

Sejjħulha jekk tridu fissazzjoni. Jekk ma jogħġobkomx taqrawx (jgħid hekk anki Franco) u jekk ma tridux taqraw bis-serjeta dwar dik li wara kollox, iva hija logħba imma hi ukoll dixxiplina, allura taqraw xejn – probabbli anki t-tifo tagħkom għall-benjamini tant puri hija frivola. Araw ftit kif qed tinkixef il-borma li ħadmu tant sew dawk il-menegini misħuta lejn il-bidu ta’ dan is-seklu.

Trenta sul campo.

(artiklu deher fuq www.tuttojuve.com)

Dal caso Vieri alla vergognosa pagina di Calciopoli

Sandro Scarpa

Oggi molti sportivi italiani hanno letto della condanna dell’Inter, obbligata in primo grado a risarcire il suo ex-giocatore Christian Vieri con 1 milione di euro, in solido con Telecom Italia, per spionaggio illegale. Bene, visto che Gazzetta, Corriere dello Sport e altri quotidiani non sportivi, così attenti in passato a sviscerare le tardive e ondivaghe confessioni del Non Piu’ Credibile Carobbio, pubblica la notizia sganciandola dal quadro complessivo di quella (ennesima) stagione farsesca della Giustizia Sportiva, ci pensiamo noi a fare un breve riassuntino della vicenda.

E’ acclarato che l’Inter utilizzava Telecom (sponsor col patron consigliere Tronchetti Provera) per pedinare non solo suoi giocatori (Vieri, tra gli altri) violando la loro privacy, ma anche (lo sapremo tra pochi giorni) arbitri come De Santis, e dirigenti avversari comeMoggi e Giraudo. Nel 2007, con le stesse notizie di reato, la FIGC archiviò invece la posizione dell’Inter (rischiava penalizzazioni pesanti..e ci ricordiamo nel 2007 chi allenava l’Inter e quanto ha vinto..). La Procura (sempre Palazzi) si espresse in questo modo:

“Il Procuratore federale, esaminata la relazione dell’ufficio Indagini sugli accertamenti richiesti dalla Procura federale in ordine a numerosi articoli di stampa riguardanti il comportamento di dirigenti della società Internazionale nei confronti dell’arbitro Massimo De Santis, dei calciatori Christian Vieri, Adrian Mutu, Luis Ronaldo Da Lima Nazario, Vladimir Jugovic e del tesserato Mariano Fabiani, ha disposto l’archiviazione del procedimento, non essendo emerse fattispecie di rilievo disciplinare procedibili ovvero non prescritto.

Procedimento archiviato dunque, la Gazzetta, sospetto per chi maneggia bene la nomenclatura giudiziaria, titola “la FIGC assolve l’Inter”. Quanta differenza con i titoli “Salvi Bonucci e Pepe” a fronte dell’assoluzione in 1° e 2° grado dei due giocatori.

Procediamo. Quei pedinamenti e quello spionaggio industriale ai danni di dirigenti di altre squadre, in altri sport (vedi Formula 1) ha indotto altre Federazioni coinvolte, multe di svariate centinaia di milioni. Nel 2007 (coincidenza) alla McLaren viene infatti comminata una multa da 100 milioni di dollari (basterebbe quasi a far fallire l’Inter?) oltre alla perdita di tutti i punti del campionato precedente. E questo perchè alcuni ingegneri McLaren avrebbe sottratto file e mail secretate di colleghi Ferrari. L’Inter invece, da quanto risulta nei processi in corso, intercettava e pedinava direttamente i dirigenti della Juventus, soffiando notizie relative a strategie commerciali e di mercato. Vedremo come andrà a finire in un tribunale ordinario.

Sappiamo cosa è successo invece nell’ampio quadro di Calciopoli. Le telefonate più scottanti e le intercettazioni più “scandalose” (Moggi che si lamenta con designatori..) operate da quella branca occulta della security Telecom che faceva capo a Tavaroli e operava per conto dell’Inter, in qualche modo arrivano al nucleo dei Carabinieri guidati dalColonello Auricchio (un pc di Tavaroli fu rinvenuto negli uffici dello staff di Auricchio). Così Auricchio e i suoi cominciano a loro volta a pedinare Moggi, Giraudo, designatori ed arbitri. Primo alt: ma perchè Auricchio non denunciò innanzitutto le operazioni illegali Telecom? Proseguiamo. Auricchio e i suoi intercettano, ma omettono le intercettazioni traFacchetti, Moratti, Galliani ed arbitri, che verranno fuori molto tempo dopo. Particolare importante: non ci sono chiamate tra Moggi e arbitri, ma solo ai designatori.

Al tempo stesso, stralci di quelle intercettazioni arrivano “casualmente” alla stampa romana(Il Romanista, Panorama). Ci arrivano precedute da due particolari: il colonello Auricchio è grande amico del dirigente della Roma, Baldini; lo stesso Baldini, intercettato a sua volta al telefono con alcuni esponenti FIGC diceva in quei giorni:” vedrai che farò il ribaltone nel calcio italiano”.

A seguito di queste pubblicazioni illegali, frammentarie e parziali di intercettazioni iniziate in modo illegale (anche se non si ha ancora la certezza), iniziò quindi nell’estate del 2006 il processo sportivo, Calciopoli, definito con ammissione di colpa non indifferente “sommario” dallo stesso Abete solo qualche mese fa.

Nel processo vengono coinvolte, tra le altre, la Juve, la Fiorentina, la Lazio, la Regginae in seconda battuta il Milan, per alcune intercettazioni riguardanti l'”addetto alle relazioni arbitrali” Leonardo Meani. Ma in quel processo non ci fu traccia del coinvolgimento dell‘Inter. Come commissario straordinario della FIGC, chiamato a governare il caos e fare “piazza pulita” venne nominato Guido Rossi, ex-consigliere d’amministrazione ed ex e futuro Presidente Telecom. La storia delle sentenze e della condanne sportive è cosa ampiamente nota. Rossi e gli altri “massacrano” la Juve, inventandosi il reato di illecito strutturato e appellandosi non già alle prove ma al sentimento popolare. La Juve non ricorre al TAR dopo i tempi minimi del processo sportivo per non rischiare radiazioni e per supina accettazione.

Nel frattempo parte il processo ordinario, in cui si scoprono clamorosi errori nelle accuse basate su articoli sportivi errati, calcoli su somme di ammonizioni illogici e altre chicche del genere. Il PM Narducci (assoldato in seguito dal Sindaco De Magistris come Assessore, e dimessosi poche settimane fa) col valido aiuto del Colonello Auricchio (anch’egli assoldato da De Magistris con alti incarichi pubblici, anch’egli carriera fulminante) per anni proclamato il celeberrimo “piaccia o non piaccia, non ci sono telefonate dell’Inter”.

Poi, a spese non dello Stato e delle autorità preposte, ma del cittadino Moggi, negli anni vengono acquisite e sbobinate tutte o quasi le centinaia di migliaia di intercettazioni del gruppo di carabinieri di Auricchio e saltarono fuori clamorose chiamate di Facchetti ad arbitri e designatori, con interventi diretti di Moratti, oltre ad altre inedite chiamate che riguardavano Milan ed altre squadre. A quel punto si disse che le telefonate non avevano rilievi penali –anche se poi Moggi viene condannato in primo grado per “potenziale rete di contatti atta ad alterare il campionato” soprattutto per quelle intercettazioni per delle SIM svizzere attribuite in modo artigianale ad alcuni arbitri e mai intercettate (anche se era possibile farlo) mentre la difesa di Moggi dichiara che erano SIM usate come anti-spionaggio (quanta verità!). In ogni caso, Narducci e i suoi non scoprono, in mesi di pedinamenti e intercettazioni dirette, prove di qualsivoglia alterazione e anzi tentano di ricusare il giudice (strano da parte del PM!).

Tuttavia quelle telefonate interiste (e milaniste) avevano ed hanno valore sportivo pesante e avrebbero portato, se uscite nello stesso periodo di quelle di Moggi, ad una pesante penalizzazione dell’Inter e ad un appesantimento della penalizzazione al Milan che, ricordiamolo, riuscì a beccare una penalizzazioni di punti idonea a non perdere la qualificazione in Champions, poi vinta quell’anno. Lo stesso PM Palazzi, sollecitato dalla Juve (e non dalla FIGC!) a fare chiarezza, nel 2011 sente Moratti, non convocandolo in Procura FIGC, ma incredibilmente andando a trovarlo a domicilio, nel suo ufficio nerazzurro.

Poi, con estrema lentezza (ca. 18 mesi) per sentire il solo Moratti ed analizzare una decina di intercettazioni (quanta differenza rispetto ai processi sbrigativi e fallaci di questa estate con 2 gradi per decine e decine di tesserati in poche settimane!) Palazzi arriva ad una relazione in cui accusa Inter (e ancora Milan, oltre ad altre squadre) di aver evidentemente messo in atto comportamenti atti ad alterare il torneo, attivando di fatti un illecito sportivo (accuse peggiori o quantomeno simili a quelle a Moggi, per la quale era stato “inventato” ex-novo il reato di illecito strutturato..).
A quel punto quindi l’Inter, per quei reati per i quali dovrebbe comunque difendersi in un processo sportivo (abbiamo visto quali armi spuntate hanno gli accusati) meriterebbe la retrocessione, oltre ovviamente alla revoca dello Scudetto tolto alla Juve e magari la revoca di qualche altro scudetto.

Ma, come tutti già sapevano, i reati sono prescritti, per pochi mesi. Palazzi avrebbe potuto fare in tempo -lo sapeva- eppure lascia trascorrere i termini e, non solo, invece di deferire l’Inter e Moratti, i quali a quel punto avrebbero potuto appellarsi alla prescrizione ( o rinunciarci andando a processo per chiedere l’assoluzione, anche in nome del compianto Facchetti), Palazzi indica i reati come “prescritti” già nella sua relazione. E Moratti tace e acconsente, dichiarando però ai giornali: “Le parole di Palazzi sono infondate, pericolose e stupide“. Non si ricordano interventi di Petrucci a difesa del Procuratori.

Ciliegina sulla torta: la prescrizione per questi reati sportivi è cambiata subito dopo Calciopoli, accorciandosi ovviamente.

Non ricordiamo poi cosa è accaduto in FIGC quando Andrea Agnelli ha in sintesi rivendicato, vista i reati prescritti all’Inter, quantomeno la revoca del famoso Scudetto di Cartone (o assegnato in Segreteria, che dir si voglia): la FIGC si reputa incompetente nel decidere cosa fare e comunque scopre che non c’è alcun atto di delibera di assegnazione dello Scudetto all’Inter, ma solo un comunicato all’UEFA con la nuova classifica, al netto delle squadre squalificate.

Ieri la giustizia ha condannato l’Inter per Vieri, una piccola piccolissima notizia, una faccenda quasi insignificante. Eppure il destino della Juve dai 91 punti e dagli 8 finalisti di Berlino (più Ibra e Nedved), l’epopea dell‘Inter del triplete, del Milan vincitore di Champions, e in definitiva la storia recente del calcio italiano germoglia da lì, da quelle piccole faccende.

Ma ci si interroga più volentieri se ad essere epulso doveva essere Danilo piuttosto cheBrkic.

Categories
Campaign 2013 Mediawatch Politics

The PM & the Black Knight

Appreciators of that fine vein of British humour that is the Monty Python collection will surely be familiar with the persona of the Black Knight that makes a fleeting (and diminishing) appearance in the movie “Monty Python and the Holy Grail“.  For the unfortunate few who are sadly unaware of the existence of such sublime sketches let me just say that the ridiculous Black Knight appears in a short sketch (see video below) in which he duels with other knights in order to fulfil his destiny ensuring that “None shall pass”.  While battling the hero of this epic (Arthur) he ends up losing limb after limb but insists on continuing to fight (“’tis but a scratch). Hopping on one leg, armless he still manages to yell “I’m invincible” – a state of absolute comic denial as to the reality of his hopeless situation.

I was reminded of this sketch this weekend when I heard the PM insist that there was no problem of governability in one of his meetings with the people. Crisis? What crisis? The government has survived all assaults on its position (read: votes of confidence in parliament) and therefore after 4 and a half years it will not accept any talk of crisis. The government, you see, is invincible. Now a   great philosopher had once mentioned something about not being able to fool all of the people all of the time and this quote has been doing the rounds in some Labour quarters for quite some time.

PM Gonzi need not bother with the weekly maquillage any longer. If anything, last nights summary termination of all things Franco within the PN should have (as if it was necessary) given the game away to any doubters. The government lost its position of being able to horsetrade away any possibility of surviving votes of confidence towards the end of the last parliamentary session. At that point, Dr Gonzi and his staff knew full well that the business of government was to be punched in on borrowed time. Come October (if we are to wait till then) there will not be much stretching and pulling left – and no amount of distractions such as half-baked civil union bills, sudden illuminations on the censorship issue that never was or even IVF roundabouts will be able to pull off any reprieve of governance.

The difference between the situation today and the situation, say, in May, is that while it is true that for a long time the main trouble with the system of government was that “provoked” by backbenchers, the government had found a way of compromising with the troublemakers : right up to the entente pas trop cordiale reached in the Cohabitation Pact with JPO. Such compromises allowed Gonzi’s government to try to promote a business as usual attitude against all odds. That possibility has now all but waned away.

The inclement weather of the past few days allowed for more of the gemgem and placing of blame at the government’s doorstep. We even had the Msida mayor calling for more funds from government to maintain two resrvoirs at the end of valley road and to clear the tappieri. We wonder why the country gets flooded every year around the same time with uncanny regularity that Arriva can only dream of when the real culprit is the national mentality of “I’m alright so f-you Jack” that leads to clogged arteries and escape routes for the water that will still come down from the sky no matter who is in government.

Here is your check list before the election becomes the here and now: 8th September festivities with accompanying press releases and exchanges of witticisms. 21st September celebrations with similar exchanges followed by 22nd September mass meeting by Labour on Il-Fosos. A short session of “my mass meeting was bigger than yours” chivalric beatings followed by the results of (a) Labour’s Congress about the Future and (b) PN’s budget projections/electoral document.

Then Bob’s your uncle. We’ve gone on record stating that “In this country we don’t solve problems, we nurture them”.

Either that… or we deny they exist.

ADDENDUM :

I had only just posted this on J’accuse when I checked the latest news on the papers. Here is the Times reporting that “PN sources” seem to believe that Gonzi is still eyeing an early 2013 election (do note that it is not an official position – just “sources” – another way of putting out feelers?). Meanwhile MaltaToday tells us that Debono is toying with the idea of a motion of no confidence against health minister Joe Cassar. As we could put it so succinctly in the vernacular: aħdimha! (Work it out!).

 

Categories
Rubriques

I.M. Jack – It never rains

Blogging being the very private enterprise that it is (and the one-man exercise too) there are times when the frequency and immediacy of posts is not exactly up to scratch. That this week has been one of those times is the result of a combination of circumstances that are best not delved into (especially since they involve exposing the lazier side of me). Having said that much has been happening that deserves the J’accuse once over and it would be a shame not to at least give the past ten days or so the I.M. Jack treatment.

1. What’s so gay about marriage?

We have to begin with the number one pet peeve that J’accuse has had all this week. If I was to pick it up from its backside then I’d say the whole issue is about gay marriage – or to give it the politically correct moniker: same-sex marriage. We have seen the protests, the rock stars (!) gone political, the pressure groups getting miffed, the supposed civil rights groups getting hoity toity and the inevitable bandwagon politicians yelling “What-ho” and all that. Why? Well apparently Minister Chris Said, is guilty of not having introduced same-sex marriage or a legally decent equivalent when he produced the Civil Partnerships Cohabitation bill (or whatever its name may be) out of the Nationalist government’s pre-electoral hat.

Really MGRM? Say what Aditus? No same-sex marriage eh? How horrible. Devastating. The only problem is that the bill intended on putting civil unions within a more sound legal framework was never intended to introduce gay marriage. What various pressure groups were “given to understand” is legally, constitutionally and politically irrelevant. A cohabitation bill is a cohabitation bill is a cohabitation bill. Across Europe one can witness a variety of do-it-yourself models of civil partnership laws. They are all intended to be a sort of package of rights for people who live together but who DO NOT WANT TO or CAN NOT get married. Siblings living together is the least controversial of examples.

Not gay marriage though. It has absolutely nothing to do with it. Of course you can site examples of countries where short of obtaining the ultimate (and most obvious) solution of legally sanctioned same-sex marriages, the nation has settled for a similar package of rights that does not go by the name of marriage but gets rather close to it. This was never the case in Malta. At least not from a legislative point of view. Civil unions, cohabiting persons or what have you – the idea is to get this set of persons a bundle of rights under Maltese law.

Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with this. Neither does the concept of family which the Minister was drawn into commenting upon. All the ruckus about discrimination within the context of “marriage” is a false alarm. Now if we were talking about a bill to introduce same-sex marriage in Malta. Now that would be another thing altogether – and J’accuse would be right behind the inevitable process where persons of the same sex are allowed to tie the knot and have that union recognised as a marriage under civil law.

2. So what is the bill about?

Sadly for the nationalist party it is beginning to be a bit of an enigma what the bill should really be about. This blog still sticks by its theory that the bill is being forced through because of a pre-electoral pact struck hurriedly around 2008. As has rightly been pointed out in other quarters (MaltaToday methinks), the inability of the conservative elements of the party to come to terms with the liberal content of this kind of legislation has led to a half-baked law that manages to insult sectors of society by treating them as second class citizens. Even without the useless conflagration about what constitutes family, the nationalist government could not really believe to get away with a law that blatantly discriminates between classes of citizens when defining the same right.

It should have been so simple really. A clearly defined framework of rights that would be available to any two persons entering a civil union. Property rights, fiscal rights and social service rights to begin with. Issues of gender would have been cleanly skirted and most controversy would have been set aside barring the few nitpicking details. That we are where we are – and that controversy has not only not been skirted but is dancing naked on the tables of Said’s ministry – is a clear indication of the Faustian pact entered into before last election. The gay sector is very obviously (and rightly, in an opportunistic sense) up in arms. On the one hand it has every reason to do so given the bumbled manner in which the law discriminates between types of partnerships and on the other it is taking advantage of the sudden outburst of public sympathy to drive same-sex marriage into the agenda even though it was evidently not the original aim of the bill.

Just what the doctor ordered innit?

3. Joseph and the Rainbow Coloured Fence

Muscat is having a hard time disguising his glee at the PN’s latest faux pas in the world of gays, lesbians and other happy people. He should be careful. The MGRM community is thankfully not headed by a bunch of gullible sods who will drool at every ambiguous word thrown at them by politicians. I am sure that by now they can tell a bandwagon riding politician (and party) when they see one – even if it flies the rainbow flag on party HQ on gay pride days. What the MGRM could do is try to take advantage of the apparent openness of someone like Joseph Muscat – and boy would they be courting trouble.

Take his declaration yesterday when he stated that politicians have no right to decide who is a family. Would you really yell bingo? Is this really as liberal as it sounds? Let me spell it out for you: it is about as liberal as the pope’s underwear. What this is, in fact, is a declaration of yet another open season of fence-sitting by dear Joseph. Just like in the divorce debate, Joseph plans not to lead but to fence-sit and declare “free vote” season again. Joseph is correct when he says that it is not a politician’s right to determine who forms a family.

Joseph forgets a second, more important, and responsible corollary though : that it is a politician’s duty to listen to the needs of society – the interest of the common good and the rights of minorities – and ensure that these needs are properly safeguarded by participating in the enacting of laws to that effect. A same-sex marriage law will not write itself while Joseph, Owen and Varist are busy waving rainbow flags in some protest walk. A same-sex marriage law will be drafted, presented and voted in by responsible politicians who responsibly read the signs of times and legislate the obviously inevitable. Something tells me it won’t be Inhobbkom Joseph.

4. Franco rebutted

Before I start the usual rant about Malta’s unpreparedness come the first storms let me just point out that this evening’s rebuttal by the PN executive of any Franco attempt to get reinstated onto their list of candidates is just par for the course according to J’accuse’s pre-estival predictions. The time-table has long been set and parliament does not have a very long life beyond the opening session once summer recess is over. Trust you me… the PN is not counting on Franco voting for any bill and Franco knows this only too well hence his latest private members’ bill regarding fuel oil – a bid to get voters for his inevitable splinter “party” come next elections.

5. It never rains…

Xita happens. Nuff said.

 

 

Categories
Uncategorized

The State of Our Unions

Chris Said must not be too happy with the reception that has been afforded the Civil Cohabitation Partnerships Bill. The MGRM and AD as well as the Civil Rights group Aditus have all slammed one aspect or another of the bill. It must be said that the greatest hype has been around the expectations that had been instilled among the gay community with regards to a move that would finally constitute the adoption of a gay marriage law in Malta. Not being an infallible sentient being I am not sure whether I am getting all the signs right but I do have more than a modicum of suspicion that there is more than a strong tinge of confusion in the matter from all parties concerned – either wilfully and in line with particular agendas or unwittingly and underlined by a particular level of ignorance of what the law is about.

On PACS and othe civil partnerships

Let us begin with the abstract – away from the hustle and bustle of what is the current line of thought in Malta. The first point that must be clearly established is that a law on civil partnerships and a law on gay marriage are two very different pieces of legislation. The fact that the former (a civil union law) could facilitate the life of gay couples (and that is an understatement) does not in any way make the two any less different. The clearest and most straightforward example is France and French law where thankfully the confusion that may be brought about by the religion inspired forms of marriage is virtually non-existent.

Since the 15th November 1999 France has what is called a PACS -translated in English as a civil solidarity pact. By definition it is an agreement between two adults (see: no mention of gender or blood relation) who enter such an agreement with the purpose of jointly organising and administering their lives. It changes their situation in the eyes of the law: couples are said to be pacsé on their status description and they stand to be considered as a unit in different situations such as fiscal calculations and entitlements as well as presumptions in the case of inheritance. PACS was introduced in France when marriage was on the downturn and was definitely not exclusively considered as a marriage solution for gay couples (in 2012, 94% of PACS were between opposite sex couples). It goesd without saying though that the concept of a civil union or a recognised cohabitation includes the possibility of same-sex couples.

PACS was never intended to replace or come close to the concept of marriage – the civil concept mind you. Most civil unions are intended in this manner.

Same-sex Marriage

Very different from PACS is the legislation of gay marriages. If we look at our Wikipedia fact machine we will see the following verbal venn diagram:

Currently 22 of the 51 countries in Europe recognize some type of same-sex unions, among them a majority of members of the European Union. Eight European countries legally recognize same-sex marriage, namely Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. An additional fourteen have a form of civil union or unregistered cohabitation. San Marino only allows immigration and cohabitation of a citizen’s partner. Several countries are currently considering same-sex union recognition.

Do note the difference. 22 countries recognise some type of same-sex unions. Of these eight recognise same-sex marriage. The additional fourteen have a form of civil union or unregistered cohabitation. Malta’s Bill would add it to the latter fourteen. It has nothing to do with the formal recognition of gay marriages. Even after the Cohabitation Bill is passed we would still be aeons away from any form of legal sanction of marriage between same-sex couples.

So what’s happening in Malta?

I have it on quite a reliable source that on the eve of last election a deal was struck between a panicking Nationalist party and the MGRM. The deal was simple: MGRM would block vote for PN and PN would enact a cohabitation law. That got some uber necessary votes away from the PL (the hopeful vote) and the AD (the protest vote). Let’s call this the Xarabank deal for want of a better description. Now we know how the PN legislative agenda has been disrupted ever since the divorce surprise but the Bill had to be shoved through as promised otherwise the next election would find the PN with its pants down… and we don’t want any of that do we?

So we have a cohabitation bill being drafted at gunpoint so to speak and whatsmore – as Raphael Vassallo pointed out – being piloted by a former head honcho of the anti-divorce movement. What we end up with is a bill that seems to be blatantly discriminatory and fails to produce the goods insofar as the goal of a solid civil unions law is concerned. It’s the second (non-couple) part of the law that has drawn much attrition – mainly for what are being described as discriminatory conditions.

The bill fails to take into consideration the situation of siblings sharing the same household – failing to factor in recent ECJ case law in this regard. It also ignores completely the tax issues relating to the civil union – practically neutering one of the most important aspects of the law. These criticisms – and, if they are proven to be true, the criticisms aimed at the different time-frame for the recognition of civil unions depending on the type of union – are not only founded but very important if any bearing is to be had on the final version of the law.

There is though the issue of “family” and “gay marriage” that has been thrown into the discussion by most of the groups reacting to the bill. Such talk is highly misplaced. Fine tuning the Cohabitation Bill is not only good but imperative. The criticism and constructive suggestions should be confined to the declared aims and intentions of the bill. Same-sex marriages is definitely not one of them. Don’t get me wrong –  it will never be too soon for a discussion and process to be opened in order to have a same-sex marriage law in Malta. It is important to recognise the difference though and not to be drawn into facile conclusions.

The Cohabitation Partnerships Bill does seem to need more than a bit of fine tuning. It would be unfair and very underhand of all parties concerned should the remit of such a bill be extended to the introduction of same-sex unions. Such an introduction does not deserve to be made surreptitiously. Rather. It should be made openly, consciously and following an open national consultation – possibly including a vote (unless all our parties include the proposal in their next manifesto – in which case we will just be voting in the government that would turn the proposal to legislation).

If the country was deemed mature enough to debate, vote upon and ultimately enact a divorce law then there should be no reason why the same should not hold true of same-sex marriages. I for one believe it’s inevitable.

Change. You want it? Vote for it.

 

Categories
Mediawatch Values

Strasbourg on embryo screening

In what is set to be a landmark judgement, the Strasbourg based European Court of Human Rights held that an Italian ban that prevented a couple of healthy carriers of a genetic disease (cystic fibrosis) from screening embryos for in vitro fertilisation was in violation of their right to respect for their private and family life. (Costa and Pavan vs Italy, application 54270/10 – Judgement of 28th August 2012 not yet final).

The couple in question had already had one child. It was through this child that they found out that they were both healthy carriers of the disease cystic fibrosis .  Italian law prohibits “PID” (preimplantation diagnosis) and therefore the couple would be unable to go through a pregnancy without first ensuring that the new child would not suffer from the dangerous and fatal disease of cystic fibrosis.

From the ECHR press release:

Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicants complained that the only course open to them to have a baby that did not have cystic fibrosis was to start a pregnancy by natural means and medically terminate it every time the foetus tested positive for the disease. Under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), they claimed that they were victims of discrimination compared with sterile couples or those where the man had a sexually transmissible disease.

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 20 September 2010. At the applicants’ request, on 4 May 2011 it was decided to give the case priority (Rule 41 of the Rules of Court).  The European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ), the “Movimento per la vita” association and 52 Italian MPs, as one third party intervener, and the “Luca Coscioni”, “Amica Cicogna Onlus”, “Cerco un bimbo” and “L’altra cicogna” associations, together with 60 Italian and European MPs, as another third party intervener, were authorised to submit  written observations (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3 of the Rules of
Court).

The Court considered that the applicants’ desire to resort to medically-assisted procreation and PID in order to have a baby that did not suffer from cystic fibrosis was a form of expression of their private and family life that fell within the scope of Article 8. The fact that the law did not allow them to proceed in this manner therefore amounted to an interference with their right to respect for their private and family life which was “in accordance with the law”5 and pursued the legitimate aims of protecting morals and the rights and freedoms of others.

The Italian Government justified this interference by the need to protect the health of the mother and child and the dignity and freedom of conscience of the medical professions, and to avoid the risk of eugenic abuses. The Court observed first of all that the notions of “embryo” and “child” must not be confused. It could not see how, in the event that the foetus proved to have the disease, a medically-assisted abortion could be reconciled with the Government’s justifications, considering, among other things, the consequences of such a procedure for both the foetus and the parents, particularly the mother.

The Court stressed the difference between this case, which concerned PID and homologous insemination, and that of S.H. v. Austria, which concerned access to donor insemination. Furthermore, although the question of access to PID raised delicate issues of a moral and ethical nature, the legislative choices made by Parliament in the matter did not elude the Court’s supervision. The Court noted that of the 32 Council of Europe member States whose legislation it examined, PID was only prohibited in Italy, Austria and Switzerland (regulated access to PID was currently being examined in Switzerland).

The Court observed that the inconsistency in Italian law – prohibiting the implantation of only those embryos which were healthy, but authorising the abortion of foetuses which showed symptoms of the disease – left the applicants only one choice, which brought anxiety and suffering: starting a pregnancy by natural means and terminating it if prenatal tests showed the foetus to have the disease. The Court accordingly considered that the interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life was disproportionate, in breach of Article 8.

Article 14
Discrimination, within the meaning of Article 14, meant treating persons in similar situations differently without an objective and reasonable justification. Here the Court noted that, where access to PID was concerned, couples in which the man was infected with a sexually transmissible disease were not treated differently to the applicants, as the prohibition applied to all categories of people. This part of the application was therefore rejected as being manifestly ill-founded.

Just satisfaction (Article 41)
The court held that Italy was to pay the applicants 15,000 euros (EUR) in respect of nonpecuniary
damage and EUR 2,500 in respect of costs and expenses.