The Maltese Chamber of Advocates, one of 124 entities to have responded positively to Justice Minister Tonio Borg’s proposal to entrench Malta’s anti-abortion laws in the Constitution, has informed this newspaper that its support for the proposal is, in fact, conditional on the inclusion of a definition of abortion in the same law.

The full text of the Chamber’s reply to the Ministry, dated 30 May 2005 and signed by the Chamber’s secretary, Dr Francesco Depasquale, reads as follows:

“With reference to this proposal may I inform you (gentilment ninfurmak) that the Chamber of Advocates agrees with it because it has the purpose and effect of offering greater protection to the human embryo.

“At the same time the Chamber urges the government to examine other more effective methods of protecting human life from the moment of conception.

“The Chamber is of the opinion that before such a proposal is enacted, it would be useful to insert in the law a clear definition of what constitutes abortion.”

Meanwhile, the Chamber of Advocates has also replied to a number of other questions sent by this newspaper:

Would (the Chamber) be kind enough to send us a copy of the official reply you sent to the Ministry?

Insofar as concerns your request to be given a copy of our letter to the Minister of Justice and Home Affairs, it is not usually our policy to hand out copies of correspondence to the Press.

However, since in this case we circulated a copy to all our members, we see no harm in passing you a copy, on the understanding that, if it is to be reproduced, it is reproduced in full. (Full text, translated from the original Maltese, reproduced above)

Alongside Chile and El Salvador, Malta is the only country in the world to ban abortion without making an allowance in case of any risk to the mother’s life. Effectively, this means that our abortion laws create an automatic dilemma for the doctor whenever a mother’s life is at risk during pregnancy. Could the Chamber of Advocates kindly explain why it is favour of a proposal to entrench these same abortion laws into the Constitution... when entrenchment would result in a two-thirds majority being required to remove the above-mentioned anomality... as well as to recognise and regulate the actual state of fact with regard to therapeutic abortions?

The Chamber of Advocates has requested the Minister to include in the law a clear definition of abortion before entrenching the provisions in the Constitution.

Such a definition would require a thorough discussion in its own right which to date has not taken place. You will certainly note from the text of the letter that the Chamber’s position on this matter is clearly subject to there being a clear definition of abortion, which in the Chamber’s view is crucial before any constitutional entrenchment is even attempted.

Does the Chamber of Advocates agree with Dr Tonio Borg’s comment (The Times,1 June) that “It will be up to the courts to decide when a pregnancy starts”? If so, could you explain what would happen if, in future, a pro-choice person is appointed judge? Wouldn’t this same entrenchment proposal, as put forward by the Justice Minister, perpetuate the empowerment of any future (or present) Maltese judge to introduce abortion legally... by means of a simple ruling which redefines the moment when life starts? (Please note that in the USA, it was a court ruling – Roe vs Wade – and not Parliament that introduced abortion in the first place)

No, the Chamber does not agree with that comment. That is why the Chamber has requested the Deputy Prime Minister to include a clear definition of abortion.

Human life should be protected from the moment it starts and this protection should be clearly reflected and defined in the law. The Chamber agrees with your comment that in the absence of a clear definition of abortion different judges may in future decide that differently as to the relevant moment when human life starts, which significantly impinges on the certainty of the law.

In the course of its discussion, did the Chamber also discuss the possible legal side-effects of transposing a single section of the Criminal Code to the Constitution? (Eg., that a two-thirds majority would suddenly be required even to make small alterations to the law... for instance, to harshen penalties, etc.?)

Yes the matter was discussed. On weighing the pros and cons of these legal implications the Chamber’s favourable opinion is based exclusively on the premise that the proposal has the object and effect of providing future generations with greater protection to human life.

At the same time the Chamber has taken the opportunity to call on the government to examine other more effective ways of protecting human life from the moment of conception. By way of example such measures might include: effective enforcement, increasing assistance to pregnant women at risk of committing an abortion, passing legislation to make it possible for the unborn to be made wards of court, etc.

In its decision to support the constitutional amendment, could the Chamber have in any way been influenced by the fact that the proposal is being pushed forward by the Minister for Justice (who, among others things, also recommends individual members of the legal profession for the judiciary, etc)?

The Chamber’s first reaction to this question was that it would not dignify your mudslinging with a response.

In fact, the frame of mind betrayed by this question almost brought us to the conclusion that we should not respond at all to you, but the importance of the issues you raised when you were not slinging mud outweighed this. If the perceived (by you, that is) threat of non-consideration for judicial office is the price to pay for standing up in defence of the unborn child then it is no price at all. Your clearly short memory has prevented you from recalling that the Chamber had occasion relatively recently to criticise the very same Minister of Justice on the way the Family Court was introduced. Even more recently, on the occasion of the publication of the White Paper by the Minister of Justice, the Chamber made its representations and spelt out clearly which proposals the Chamber is definitely against. So much for your unwarranted innuendos, which in the opinion of the Chamber are an insult to the intelligence of your readers.

The Chamber’s communication concludes as follows: “As you saw fit to inform us that the list of questions you submitted will be published with or without our answers, we in our turn see fit to impose on you the condition that all of the above, without editing, should be now published. If you see fit to add in any further doses of mud-slinging, we shall react appropriately.”

It is to be noted that this was the second set of questions submitted to the Chamber of Advocates on the subject of the entrenchment proposal. The original questions were of a less contentious nature, and dealt mainly with the Chamber’s internal procedures regarding discussions of this nature. These were returned by the Chamber’s secretary, Dr Francesco Depasquale, complete with the following “answer”:

“Thank you for taking the time to study the Chamber’s statutes prior to sending your request. You may wish to note that the Committee of the Chamber of Advocates discussed the Constitutional Amendment proposed by government in detail and, having deliberated upon it at length, communicated our views to the Minister accordingly. While appreciating your request for information, we trust that this should suffice to answer your various queries.”