It was only a matter of time. When one considers the vehemence colouring Daphne Caruana Galizia’s piece on the Crucifix controversy plus her vicious attack on all those, including the undersigned, who pointed out the illegality of exposing minors to pornography without due warning, one could easily predict that, sooner or later, it would come to this.

As a matter of fact, the same journalist did not keep us waiting too long. She summed up the Irish women’s abortion-related protest before the ECHR thus: “The European Court of Human Rights’ ruling on crucifixes in state-school classrooms in Italy will pale into insignificance next to the anticipated ruling in the abortion case brought by three women from Ireland. They are challenging their country’s highly restrictive abortion law, which leads to 6,000 women crossing from Ireland to England every year to have an abortion there.”

Rather than offer Malta’s position to balance this attitude, she presented this purportedly neutral stance: “Whichever way the ruling goes, it is going to have an impact on Maltese law. It will either reinforce Malta’s position, or undermine it completely. There cannot be any middle ground. Maltese women are in exactly the same position as Irish women: They cross over to the neighbouring island (or take a flight to Heathrow or Gatwick) to have their abortions. There is no difference. Thousands of Maltese women have done this over the years, since abortion became legal in Britain and Italy.”

What she laments about is not the anti-Christian attitude of the women in question but the different reaction among Maltese women she is expecting: “But perhaps yes, there is a difference: You would never find even one Maltese woman prepared to bring a case like this before the European Court of Human Rights. Those Irish women are pregnant. By the time the case is concluded, they will have had their abortion in England or had their baby in Ireland. They could have reasoned that there is no need for them to stick their head above the parapet and fight this case, with all the attendant costs and stress, and all the unwanted publicity. They will almost certainly become targets for those on the opposite mission.”

In other words, she is ready to give the Irishwomen kudos and slam Maltese women who keep their heads below the parapet. “When they have an abortion, they conceal the fact from even their nearest and dearest. Their main concern is that nobody should think ill of them. When they travel to London or Catania to get it done, they say they’re going over for a few days of shopping. Then they come back, pretend it never happened, blank it out and never mention it again.”

There you are. Her logical conclusion: “It is all just so much self-preservation and hypocrisy.”

Our conclusion is somewhat different. There are Maltese women who are courageous and brave, and intrepid and fearless. Particularly if they enjoy police protection. Not very different from conditions prevailing in totalitarian countries, where journalists working for the regime enjoy similar protection whereas in democratic countries journalists who criticise the government are placed in that position.

Vincent Agius

Honorary Secretary

Istitut Socjo-Kulturali San Pawl