In mid-July last year, Helena Dalli, then Minister for European Affairs and Equality, tabled two draft laws in Parliament: the Equality Bill (number 96) and the Human Rights and Equality Commission Bill (number 97). Dalli presented these bills as the be all and end all for human rights in Malta. Yet while finding the support of some stakeholders, she faced objections from many others.

The first reading of a bill in Parliament is, essentially, an announcement that the Government is putting that bill on the Parliament’s agenda for discussion. Of course, when a first reading takes place in the middle of the sweltering summer, just before recess, the debate fizzles away in the heat. And that is exactly what happened with these two bills.

Four months later, the new Minister for Justice, Equality and Governance, Edward Zammit Lewis, presented the second reading of both bills. The second reading is, basically, when the law is discussed in detail. This time there was a sense of urgency to hurry up the process and pass these bills through Parliament in no time.

As Shadow Minister for Equality, it was my duty to keep a formal and informal line of contact with the minister about issues related to both bills. Zammit Lewis was very forthcoming. I could tell that he was taking the lead on these bills.

On the other hand, the Parliamentary Secretary for Equality Rosianne Cutajar did not seem to be as involved. She gave a short speech on the Equality Bill but refrained from addressing Parliament during the debate on the Human Rights and Equality Commission Bill. Four months later in March 2020, during the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic, Cutajar was present for the Committee session when we started debating the Equality Bill... but she seemed very distracted by other matters.

I was therefore very surprised to read Cutajar’s latest contributions over the last couple of weeks on the need for equality. Her lack of presence and minimal contribution in the process of legislating on both bills, to date, hardly legitimises her arguments on the matter. It is rich for the junior minister to talk about “championing these bills” when throughout this long process she was not exactly a reference point.

In one of her contributions, Cutajar wrote about “the few, privileged opponents of this legislation”. How very misleading.

There are, indeed, few people who have opposed the law and the value of equality. But there are many more who have problems with specific aspects of the wording, which could have consequences that damage equality for entire groups of people.

It is pure propaganda to characterize these people as “opponents” of the law. They have explicitly welcomed the law, but they object to what the law leaves out, given some of its wording.

As for the insult that these people are trying to protect “privilege”, I can tell you from the hundreds of emails I’ve received that they are ordinary people: parents with children at church schools, doctors who want to serve their patients without being forced to do anything that goes against their conscience, etc.

Is Cutajar suggesting that it’s an unacceptable privilege to enjoy freedom of conscience? Or the right to send your child to a school with a religious ethos?
 
The main objections to the original draft are stemming from an underlying fault of drafting, not principle, which we find in this bill. There is no clear distinction between equality, uniformity and diversity.

I am all for the best possible legislation on equality, but I worry when such legislation moves more towards uniformity. To protect “minorities,” be they big or small in number, we cannot create a uniform society. We must give room and space to all diversities with respect and dignity.

Unless Cutajar has blocked her email address, she must have received the same flood of emails I have received on this issue. I assume that, like me, she has also met with the different stakeholders from different religious backgrounds, sexual orientation and race. I am sure that she has. But has she listened?

Equality is there to make sure people from all walks of life have fair and equal opportunities in the same community. Diversity is about celebrating these differences and working towards a more respectful and appropriate way of dealing with each other. Unfortunately, the uniformity which I feel comes to the fore in different parts of this law imposes a wrong picture of what society is really like.

Equality, true and meaningful, does not imply that we are one and the same. We are different. The Constitution says so and so does the European Convention of Human Rights.

So how do we balance the need for protection of the religious ethos of schools with the assurance that this will not be used to discriminate against other members of society? How do we cater for the conscientious objection of some professionals while making sure this is not abused? How do we cater for everyone’s beliefs and their right to practise their religion, without imposing on others?

The easy way out is to remove all that makes us different. But that does not make us equal. It may make us all the same but that is uniformity not equality.

Our society is rich in diversity and we should strive harder to legislate more meaningful and overarching laws which regulate but do not impose on any member of our society. That is true equality and diversity.