The Malta Independent 5 June 2020, Friday

Two sides

Alfred Sant Monday, 8 July 2019, 08:00 Last update: about 12 months ago

It’s not the first time I could note the following: on both sides of the abortion debate, those in favour believe they are defending the basis of human rights, and the same holds for those against. This happens not just in Malta but wherever the controversy about the subject arises in Europe and the US.

Pro-abortionists insist that every individual has the right to control what goes on in his/her body and cannot understand how state laws can impede a woman who has just become pregnant from deciding what happens to her body.


Those against place the value of human life in no matter which form, upfront as the supreme value – a rule that applies to all persons in no matter which circumstance. They claim that if one undermines the significance of this value, one would be destroying the foundations of human rights.

These positions are put forward in such an absolute manner that one cannot be surprised that they lead to a serious extremism in the political and cultural behaviour of citizens – behaviour that frequently leads to physical and moral violence. It does not seem like in the near future, a compromise might emerge that both sides can accept.



I could never understand why time after time, Bugibba is allowed to fester to such a miserable state of dinginess and uncleanliness. True, over the years it has been a mecca for mass tourism, perhaps a bit distant from the high quality tourism that many dream to have in the island.

However, whether it is targeted for the masses or not, Bugibba tourism still works out as profitable and worthwhile. By itself of course as such, it generates greater requirements for maintenance, infrastructural renewal and public cleansing. Which makes it difficult to understand why in effect, instead of taking these needs into account, at Bugibba we rather tend to ignore them.

The place and its neighbourhood still offer value. The relevant authorities should plan to care for them much more than they have done up to now.





Since the end of the European Council which determined who is getting which job in the EU’s institutions, I have registered many contradictions doing the rounds, not least in the European Parliament.

For instance, that when the Council’s decisions did not respect the spitzenkandidat process advocated by the European Parliament, democracy got a hit, given that the EP is the Union’s democratic institution. However, the Union’s heads of state and government are all appointed as the result of democratic elections. They represent their country’s democracies and their election was as democratic as that of MEPs, perhaps more.

Or when for instance the complaint is made that Council decisions are taken by a fistful of people meeting behind closed doors. But one has to admit that in the Parliament itself, many crucial decisions are taken in like manner, as happened again last week. Indeed, there are those who insist that in guiding complex organizations towards sensible decisions, there is no other way.

  • don't miss