The Malta Independent leader ‘Of course it’s rushed”, of Friday 18 October, overlooks the facts which show that the Civil Unions Bill has not been rushed at all.
The Consultative Council, made up of civil society organisations and experts in the field of LGBT rights came up with the draft Bill after months of research, analysis and discussion.
The draft Bill was published last Monday and the debate on it may start after seven days, according to Parliament’s standing orders. There can be over eighty hours of debate if all Members of Parliament choose to speak on this Bill.
Nobody can deny these facts. And thus the question: how is this rushing?
On another point, the editor is again mistaken when he states that “the consultative council that drew up the Bill was composed of PL and AD representatives … but no representatives from the Opposition.”
On the Consultative Council sit representatives of LGBT Labour and LGBT AD. These people are on the Council because they work on LGBT issues and not because they are Labour or AD. If we were to go by political hues, one would see all the colours of the rainbow on the Council.
All the members of the Consultative Council accepted to help government work on this cause, regardless of their political preferences, because the remit is to advise on LGBT rights and not on political positions. When the PN decide to have an LGBT branch, they will be offered a place on the council.
It is strange that the PN are now wrongly complaining about not having a seat on the LGBT Council. This is because in fairly recent instances, when the PN had the power to concretely do something for LGBT people, they not only looked the other way, but acted against the interests of these persons.
A case in point is how the PN government left the private member’s Gender Identity Bill to gather dust for years and never brought it up for discussion in Parliament, when it was their duty to do so. There had to be a change in government for this Bill to be put on the agenda.
Another example is how the PN government made Joanne Cassar go through hell until she had no option but to go and seek her rights in the European Court of Human Rights, with all the time, humiliation and expenses this incurs. Although the Maltese courts decided in her favour, the PN government, instead of amending the law to give Ms Cassar her rights, as it had the power and duty to do, appealed from the court decisions.
There had to be a change in government for an out-of-court settlement with the ECHR to be reached and for Joanne Cassar to get what is rightfully hers, in her own country.
Actions speak louder than words.
Jonathan Brimmer
Communications Coordinator
Ministry for Social Dialogue, Consumer Affairs and Civil Liberties
Valletta