Category: Values

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.

Categories
Values

Nazzjon medjokri?

Żgur Brittania

Għaddew Olimpijadi oħra. Il-Brittanniċċi saħħruna għal darb’oħra bir-rikkezza ta’ pajjiżhom u bil-għana ta’ l-istorja millenarja ta’ gżirithom. Kienu inkwetaw li ma humiex se jkunu “up to standard“. Inkwetaw li wara l-immensita Ċiniza kienu se jidhru ċkejknin u amatorjali. Minflok kull min seta’ jixhed iċ-ċerimonji ta’ ftuħ u għeluq l-Olimpijadi kellu mafkar tajjeb ta’ dak li jissarraf fih il-kunċett ta’ Gran Bretanja. Lejn l-aħħar ta’ l-egħluq kien hemm siparju sabiħ fejn żeffiena Indjani tħalltu ma Morris Dancers f’taħlita kulturali li tiżboq il-preġudizzji u nazzjonaliżmi u li tfakkarna fil-kobor post-imperjali li issawwar fuq pedamenti differenti filwaqt li żamm sod fuq il-wirt storiku.

Il-Brittaniċi għandhom il-lussu li jqiegħdu lil the Queen, Pink Floyd u John Lennon f’nifs wieħed. Għaddieli il-ħsieb li fuq storja millenarja ta’ żvilupp uman aħna kellna x-xorti/żvintura li ngħixu l-biċċa l-kbira mill-ħajja kulturali u soċjali tagħna f’dinja anglo-ċentrika. Jekk tieħu l-popolazzjoni kollha ta’ ġnus li qatt għexu, ftit ħafna ikunu dawk li qatt semgħu b’McCartney u Lennon pero illum dawn l-ismijiet huma simboli ta’ l-era post-nukleari li għadna ngħixu illum avolja ftit li xejn għadna nirreferu għaliha.

Midalji Qoros

Fit-tabella tal-midalji li intrebħu żdiedu xi uċuħ ġodda. F’għajnejja jispikka ċ-Ċipru. M’huwiex xi pajjiż li wisq jispirani f’sens nazzjonalistiku minħabba dak illi jiena nara bħala nuqqas ta’ kburija kull meta jiġru biex jilgħaqu sorm il-Griegi. Qatt ma ħabbejt il-ħsieb li nitkejlu maċ-Ċiprijoti għax dejjem rajthom appendiċi imwarrba ta’ pajjiż ikbar. Aħna mhux hekk, anzi, aħna għandna ħabta naspiraw dejjem biex nikkompetu… jew talanqas nipparteċipaw bi spirtu faux de Coubertjan. Aħna l-innu tagħna u tagħna biss. Aħna l-bandiera tperper u ferħanin għax “Ara, ara… għaddejin il-Maltin fuq it-televixin”. Imma biex nirbħu? Ħożż fl-ilma.

Għandi suspett li l-isport jirrefletti xi ftit jew wisq il-limitazzjonijiet tagħna bħala pajjiz. Pajjiż li ilu kważi nofs ta’ seklu indipendenti iżda li baqa magħluq sewwa bejn l-erba ħitan akkwatiċi li jdawwruna. Pajjiż diffidenti li ma jafx jekk jifraħx bil-barrani (sakemm jibqa sterjotippizzat, ħlejju u preferibbilment mhux Għarbi) jew jinsultah b’xi “jekk ma jogħgbokx itlaq”. Irnexxilu, minkejja kollox isir parti minn klabb ferm ikbar minnu u jpoġġ mal-istess mejda ta’ qawwiet u forzi storiċi. Sabiħa wisq. Kburi li Malti? U mela le.

Imma x’inhuma is-simboli ta’ kobortna? L-isterjotipi hemm qiegħdin.. l-ilsien li tatna ommna, l-wirt storiku ta’ nies li għaddew u għal min għadu nisrani mhux biss ta’ l-isem il-kattoliċiżmu Mediterran. Kważi kważi pero dawn iktar huma karatteristiċi milli monumenti għall-ħila ta’ pajjiż. Hemm hi. Ħarbitli l-kelma. Ħila. Kapaċita. F’hiex u għal xiex aħna tajbin? L-isport storja tal-biki. Ibellħuni il-Magjari… l-Ungeriżi biex niftehmu. Ġejjin minn pajjiż imdawwar biss b’art u ħlief għal kbir Danubju ilma xejn. Imma hemm ikunu… fil-quċċata Olimpika tal-għawm, tal-qbiż mill-għoli u fuq kollox f’dak l-imbierek Waterpolo. Iva il-waterpolo.

Xejn. Lanqas nifs. Nistgħu indumu inżeggu bid-derby Sliema – Neptunes u nsarrfu għall-elf darba il-kampaniliżmu tagħna f-munita oħra ta’ għira u ġlied… imma Malta magħquda? Malta żobb. U mhux waterpolo biss. Ara il-karajbi – xi gżejjer żgħar qishom nofs ħarja ta’ ħamiema imtektin madwar Kuba u l-kbar. Imbagħad joħorġulek ġganti li jiġru b’impenn. U mhux impenn tal-billboards. “Imma dawk għandhom il-flus… jinvestu fl-isport mhux bħalna”. Appuntu baħnan. Aħna fejn investejnihom il-flus?

U imbagħad semmi l-flus lil Stephen Kiprotich. Min? Iva Kiprotich. Rebaħ l-ikbar midalja fl-Olimpijadi… deheb fil-maratona. Kiprotich jiġi mill-Uganda. Iva l-Uganda fejn il-Maltin intbagħtu eżilju mill-Ingliżi. Familtu bdiewa u mhux li kellu ħafna flus biex jikkompeti. Imma Kiprotich kellu bżonn biss par saqajn jiġru u rieda u impenn. Rebaħ il-maratona… tellieqa dominata mill-ġganti tad-distanza – dawk l-Emiri u Xejikki tal-Kenja u l-Etjopja. Taf int. Dawk jgħumu fil-flus.

Medjokrita

Forsi mhux ġust li nippretendi pajjiż li jirbaħ midalji. Forsi mhux ġust li nippretendi pajjiż li mhux biss jipparteċipa imma li huwa ukoll konxju tal-impenn neċessarju sabiex tasal u tirnexxi. Mhux ġust għax forsi fil-ħamsin sena li ilna naqdfu waħedna flok tgħallimna nikkompetu b’mod san li jippremja lil min ħaqqu ħloqna biss illużjoni ta’ kompetizzjoni. F’din l-illużjoni jiġi ippremjat il-medjokri. Bqajna nitkejlu biss bejnietna u allura l-ġganti u personalitajiet tal-pajjiż nofs ħarja fil-Mediterran komplew jiċkienu u jonqsu fl-istatura.

Iż-zgħażagħ Brittaniċi inħolqilhom panteon ta’ eroj oħra li jistgħu jaspiraw ikunu bħalhom. Għaż-żgħażagħ tagħna x’qed jissawwar? Il-ħolma tal-Middle Class? Aspira biex tkun medjokri. Il-ħolma li jekk tgħid iva u taċċetta bla ma taħseb u jekk tippappagalja allura taf tasal u tilħaq. Aspira għall-medjokrita. Kisser l-ideal.

F’dan il-pajjiż ma nsolvux problemi. Nindukrawhom.

Categories
Transport Values

Taxi Taxi

How many more times will we see taxis speed through the streets of Paceville as though their life depended on rounding the next corner like a crazy Le Mans driver? I  went out for dinner with the family in our home urban conglomerate yesterday and walking back home past Burger King in the direction of Wembley (Saint George’s Road) at least three white taxis sped past us without any concern for pedestrians.

In every case, without fail, the taxi driver would have one hand on the wheel and another on his phone – deeply engaged in conversation. Hands free? Why? All the talk about the PN’s strong fist with all things transport and yet the Taxi Drivers Inc (the white taxis) still rule the land in Paceville. The area opposite Burger King is their territory. Double, triple, parking and the walls of the former Enemalta building used as a latrine.

Cowboys of the road and harassers of tourists. That is all they are. Will someone -administration, police or whatever – be strong enough to get some order with these energumens? I doubt it. Venture in any city abroad and taxis stick to their designated places. If you need a taxi, you walk to the taxi stand. The taxi does not plonk itself in the middle of the most vibrant part of the area only to zoom away at turbo speed in what should be a maximum 15 km/h zone.

Hope? My guess is that the taxi drivers are probably mostly part time canvassers for some politician or other. Given the trend in that department it would hardly be surprising.

In this country we don’t solve problems. We nurture them.

Categories
Values

The IVF conundrum

I have been meaning to blog about the controversy that is the new IVF bill and reactions thereto. Setting aside the position taken by the church – a position to which it is entitled but which should obviously not be taken as the universal truth in a secular society – there is also the position of the LGBT lobby that begs consideration.

The premise of the LGBT lobby’s assertion is that IVF should be accessible to same-sex couples and single parents. I have serious problems getting my head around this one for the reason that I see IVF as a scientific aid to couples who are finding trouble having children. IVF in that context assists these couples. What the new bill is proposing to do is to regulate the matter in such a way that such couples no longer find themselves in an illegal situation when having recourse to the benefits of scientific advances.

I find that the qualms expressed by Andrew Borg Cardona in today’s column are very much the ones that I have – in particular with regard to the fish and bicycle argument. It is hard to envisage a fundamental right for LGBT couples to IVF though, like Andrew I would not be one to set up barricades should such a law eventually come to pass. The incongruence is between the idea of what is accepted in current society (and what has been transformed into law) and the possibility of a fundamental change in that very level of mores.

Without entering into the issue of whether same-sex couples having offspring (obviously with donors involved) is moral or immoral – I do feel confident in asserting that this kind of development would warrant a wider platform than a back-door entry via an enabling clause in a bill in parliament.

Here is the relevant part from Borg Cardona’s article (by the way Andrew … convoluted moi?)

The question is: Is it really the case that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to raise a family, a right that shouldn’t be denied by the law itself?

Speaking for myself, and a philosopher or ethicist I ain’t, I have this nagging doubt worrying my logical bone like a slightly lethargic puppy. It’s not something that exercises me to the max, far from it, and if the law were to be changed to accommodate same-sex couples, I’m not about to take to the barricades. In the case of two males, obviously, legislation concerning IVF is pretty much a fish and bicycle proposition, while, equally obviously, for two females, it is very relevant that the law is limiting the facility to male-female couple. Thankfully, no one has tried to square the circle that would be a lesbian and gay couple, who would appear to have no bar to getting married or resorting to IVF, somewhat paradoxically.

The real question to be getting back to is, then, can you extend the definition of a fundamental right to embrace people who don’t have the wherewithal to achieve what they’re trying to achieve? I really don’t know but my perhaps less liberal side tends towards the “not really” side of the argument.

Categories
Politics Values

I.M. Jack – Sunday’s Legal

The law has become a dominant part of the news over the past year or so and not only because of the supposed reforms that are being carried out (thanks to/in spite of/to comfort/with or without) Franco Debono. Ubi societas, ibi ius or so the latins teach us – wherever there is society there is the law. A legal system is at the core and backbone of our society and it allows us to survive each other and our naked ambition and instinct. Respect for the law and its principles are probably much more crucial for the survival (and creation and promotion) of a just society than economic prosperity. We are witnessing however a complete dilution and dumbing down of our legal framework.

What we have is a combination of a full frontal assault and denigration of all things legal. We have seen columnists who assume that their appreciation of the law with all its underpinnings and implications is superior to that of any legal practitioner. We have witnessed  lawyer politicians who opt to prostitute their profession in favour of political mileage. We have seen the gradual erosion of public confidence on the law and the legal system based on urban appreciation of legal events, shoddy and sensational law reporting and opportunist political mileage. The law faculty continues to gaze at its toes as its graduates increasingly seem to be unable to engage in logic and analysis due to serious shortcomings in the linguistic department.

The judicial branch is still under fire from many quarters and is still reeling from the reputation-killer events of recent memory. The Chamber of Advocates seems to be more intent on either playing second fiddle to political interests or in getting a piece of the power cake by pushing for more control over warranted lawyers – a push that smells of control of competition as much as anything else in this country of fishpondism.

Court Detectors: The Gozo law courts now have new detectors following the appalling stabbing attack that involved among others my childhood friend Kevin Mompalao. It is ridiculous that this kind of event has to happen before the obvious – such as the installation of a metal detector is put into place. Having said that, once the detectors WERE put into place it is rather useless to complain that they were formerly used at the courts in Malta as though this makes them bad metal detectors. It seems they were only removed since they could not cope with the flow of persons at the courts in Malta. Unless I am mistaken the courts in Gozo do not exactly deal with the same number of “clients” daily. Also, much of the agitation by the lawyers in Gozo stank of political manipulation. Justyne Caruana would do better to call for better ethical screening of some lawyers who practice regularly in Gozo and run on the Labour ticket. Who knows maybe she should start asking questions how a lawyer ends up owning property that used to belong to clients he “represented” or for example how he might decide to ignore the legal institute of curatorship. They are legitimate questions – based on the respect of the law that we are all trumpeting about. Go ahead Justyne… start that kind of campaign and I’ll back you on that one.

Reforms: I was asked to take a look at the Draft Administrative Code that is presently before out committee for legal reform in Parliament chaired by the Hon. Franco Debono. This Draft symbolises all that is wrong with the current wave of ambitious reforms. This is not the forum to even begin to discuss what is wrong with the “code”. The weakness of the legal drafting is only the tip of the iceberg. The administrative code nibbles away at crucial principles of our legal system while purporting to replace them. Are we really contemplating this kind of shoddy legislation simply because one MP decided to make much noise? While we can understand how the man in the street can be appeased with talk about efficient legislation right after a bitching session about the state of the courts, length of court cases and cost of lawyers bills surely the legal minds of this nation have not been flummoxed into submission to accept anything that has been thrown into the playground of toys for ambitious reformists?

That Constitutional: I followed with interest the tennis match between Giovanni Bonello and Giuseppe Mifsud Bonnici with regards to the issue of declarations of unconstitutionality by the courts of Malta. In a very small nutshell this is what they were saying: Judge Bonello implies that whenever a court decides that applying a law to the facts before it would be unconstitutional then that law should automatically be null and void. He adds that such a law should not require a parliamentary intervention for it to be rendered void thenceforth – the law would become null and void erga omnes. Judge Mifsud Bonnici on the other hand has argued that the nullity is only with regards to the facts before the court and that the law is not automatically rendered void. For what it matters J’accuse is in full agreement with the GMB version – particularly because the wording of our constitution is quite clear using the terms “to the extent of the inconsistency”.

Having said that what is truly worrying is that this kind of debate is played out on a newspaper. We do not have any serious fora for non-partisan discussion on legal developments. It is definitely a shortcoming of the faculty of laws. It is also the result of the lack of continuing education among us lawyers who prefer to concentrate on the more profitable sides of the profession. A direct consequence of this is that the biggest “academic” interests in the laws are usually intrinsically linked to professional interests. Drafting of laws – even special (especially special) laws – will inevitably end up in the hands of those lawyers who have a direct interest in the outcome. Do not confuse specialist with direct interest. The reason that the rules relating to parliamentary representation, interpretation of parliamentary procedure and the issues of separation of powers have taken on a downward spiral is because the “lawyers” busy dabbling with these laws are those who have a direct interest in the results: polticians.

Discussing this kind of legal issues and reforms on the Times and Xarabank is not exactly encouraging for the future. Kudos, by the way, to Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri for his clear unconditional explanation to the Times as to why he will not abet their efforts at sensationalising the courts and their work by replying to their queries.

 

That’s all for legal sunday.

Categories
Values

Qabel ma konna xejn

Tismagħom jitlewmu dwar festi nazzjonali u tibda taħseb u tehwden int ukoll bla ma trid.

Jgħidulek li qabel ma sirna indipendenti konna dejjem niddependu mill-barrani. Biex ksibna l-kostituzzjoni tas-64 konna xbajna telgħin u neżlin Londra nittalbu bis-sassla. U l-kolonjalist jitnejjek bina bejn bid-‘divide and rule’, bejn bil-‘language question’ bil-Malti lingwa tal-kċina u bejn bil-poteri tal-‘gvern’ Malti jingħataw u jittieħdu skond il-bżonn.

Meħud minn Facebook illum. Isem mistur.

Jgħidulek li sakemm ħadna r-repubblika fis-74 konna għadna Monarkija. Indipendenti iva imma b-wiċċ ir-Reġina tifkira ta’ passat servili ta’ ‘l fuq min 260 sena kolonjaliżmu.

Meħud minn Facebook illum. Isem mistur.

Jgħidulek li sakemm ma konniex aħna li ma ġeddidniex il-kuntratt mal-qawwa Ingliża (jew forsi ma ġeddewx huma), il-barrani kien għadu parti intrinsika fil-ħajja tagħna. Konna għadna niddependu fuqu u fuq l-infiq tiegħu. Għadna imwaħħlin maż-żejża. Jgħidulna li dakinhar ħadna rajjna f’idejna meta ħlisna mill-barrani. Dakinhar, jekk temminhom, il-Malti seta’ jibda jgħix u jkun hu biss responsabbli (u ħati) tan-nisġa tad-destin tiegħu.

Jgħidulek li mingħajr l-indipendenza, mingħajr ir-repubblika, mingħajr il-ħelsien ma konniex inkunu n-nazzjon jew ‘ġens’ li aħna. Kważi kważi iridu jiddefinixxu lil pajjiżna b’dawn it-tlett avvenimenti.

Jgħidulek dan kollu… imma allura qabel… ma konna xejn?

Meħud ukoll minn Facebook. Tiegħi.