The nature and tone of criticism of some correspondents in your newspaper regarding the anti-abortion constitutional proposal has really baffled me. It has centred around this ministry’s initiative of entrenching the prohibition of abortion in our Constitution. The ferocious tone of opposition of one particular correspondent particularly surprised me. Consequently I would like to allay her fears and explain, as constructively as possible, how this initiative started and its purpose and aim.

Way back in November, the Pro–Life lobby started a campaign for the introduction of a clause in our Constitution prohibiting abortion, and approached all the political parties. Their arguments were sound and convincing. Some-thing as cherished as human life should be protected not only from birth but also from its very beginning. Following a discussion at Cabinet level, the government decided to accede to this request, inform the opposition of its intention to constitutionalise the criminal law provisions against abortion, and communicate this proposal to civil society.

In launching this initiative on 6 May, I made it clear that this should be a national initiative. It is not a proposal spurred by Nationalists or endorsed by Labourites; it should not be tainted with any political tinge or colour. I was heartened to note that on the very day that this proposal was launched, which was met by widespread approval, a prominent opposition politician, immediately signified her approval of it.

Unlike other constitutional amendments, I felt that this particular pro-life initiative should be the result of a ground swell from Maltese society at large. Rather than proposing such an initiative in Parliament as if it were a government proposal and nothing more, this ministry circulated the amending bill to various organisations, societies, clubs and councils. Nothing would have been simpler than merely pushing this proposal through Parliament and dealing with the opposition behind closed doors. Instead we, as a ministry, opted for this lengthier but more meaningful approach.

Criticism to this proposal has centred around the basic argument which runs something as follows: if there is such widespread revulsion against abortion, why introduce it in the Constitution? I was surprised by this argument because I thought that our basic law should include the things about which we are united, not those which stir division and controversy. If neutrality, the prohibition of foreign interference, our republican form of government, our electoral system, the colour of our national flag, are entrenched in the Constitution, why not safeguard the right to life of the unborn as well?

The argument has been put forward that by the same reasoning we should also prohibit murder in our Constitution. Wilful homicide is already forbidden by article 33 of our supreme law which provides that no person shall intentionally be deprived of his life. But this provision exists in most European countries which have introduced abortion nonetheless; so this constitutional amendment will specifically protect the unborn child, whereas today, by a simple majority of one, parliament may introduce – stealthily or directly – any abortion law. With this constitutional amendment this will not be possible.

The argument has also been floated, even if by a few, that this ministry should get its priorities right; that there are more impelling and important issues that the Justice and Home Affairs Ministry should take care of: drug-trafficking, crime in general, immigrants’ detention centres, and so on and so forth.

Now, ever since I was appointed Interior Minister way back in 1995 I have striven to modernise the police force and the law regulating it and have spurred countless initiatives against crime and devious behaviour. In the past five years (1999-2004) the Police Drug Squad conducted 3,500 searches and raids, arrested 4,000 people, arraigned 2,200 people in court (648 on drug trafficking charges) and seized 18kg of heroin, 15kg of cocaine, 23,500 ecstasy tablets and more than 115kg of cannabis grass or resin.

This ministry has never been idle. We reformed the Civil Code, modernised our Criminal Code, built a new prison complex and a new police administrative block, set up special squads on vice and drugs, introduced harsher punishments for drug traffickers, set up the Security Service – whose support was essential in solving some of the more notorious crimes committed in recent years, increased the strength of our police force etc. These things have not suffered because we launched this pro-life initiative. Our human and financial resources have not been sapped just because this ministry has supported a pro-life initiative.

Nor have our coffers been emptied by endorsing this proposal. The global sum spent on this “lavish” campaign has been Lm287, hardly a squandering of public money for so worthy a cause!

There is nothing wrong in having the Justice Ministry sponsoring such an initiative. The Justice Ministry in Malta deals with the general rights of the citizen. It promotes information about such rights; it protects human dignity through legislation and measures. Protecting life before birth is promoting the rights of the most vulnerable, the voiceless human life which is shunned by so many because it is not yet born. I pride myself on being associated with such a campaign, which does not smack of fundamentalism but of fundamental values.

Nor is this some kind of religious crusade. It is true that Christian teaching offers the believer with a sounder set of values and arguments in defence of life before birth. But protecting the unborn child is not limited to any religious creed or sect; indeed it is not necessarily linked to any belief at all. Even by pure reason, without the support of faith, one can deduce that human life before birth deserves protection. Branding as bigoted or fundamentalist any politician who upholds certain values through legislative measures is a sure example of modern relativism and fundamentalism.

It is hypocritical to state that this campaign has been launched to hide any problems facing the country behind a hazy smoke screen. Such a line of reasoning would lead to the absurd conclusion that unless we reduce our deficit, control our public debt and have a flourishing economy, we should put the protection of the unborn on the back-burner.

The country will always have problems, financial or otherwise, to deal with. Proposing that our Constitution protect the unborn will not cause us to stray from the path we have chosen in order to deal with our problems. It will promote, not reverse, the natural order of things. It will also provide a vision to Maltese society based on values which are deemed to be right or wrong depending not on whether they are old or modern, but whether they are inherently worthy or not.

Tonio Borg is Deputy Prime Minister and Justice and

Home Affairs Minister