Labour candidate Dr Deborah Schembri has said that while Malta has made significant strides in civil rights over the past 15 years, there are clear limits to how far such rights should extend, arguing that abortion should remain illegal as "the right to life wins" in any clash of rights, while also expressing support for voluntary euthanasia under specific conditions.

A lawyer by profession and a household name in Malta's 2011 divorce campaign, Schembri first rose to national prominence as one of the leading voices pushing for the introduction of divorce ahead of the landmark referendum.

She was later elected to Parliament on the Labour ticket, serving as an MP between 2013 and 2017, as well as Parliamentary Secretary for Planning and Simplification of Administrative Processes under former Prime Minister Joseph Muscat for a year and a half, before stepping away from frontline politics.

Schembri is now seeking a return, as she is contesting the next general election under Prime Minister Robert Abela.

Speaking to The Malta Independent on Sunday, Schembri said that today's Malta is a markedly different society from what it was 15 years ago, particularly in terms of civil rights.

However, she said that this progress should not be interpreted as meaning that every demand can or should be translated into law, insisting that while reforms have been necessary and positive, boundaries must remain grounded in what she considers to be fundamental principles.

"I think today we have a society which has a lot more civil rights than it did back then,  we have people who were given rights to love who they want without any problem," she said, pointing to developments including same-sex unions, adoption rights, and gender recognition, while adding that in the past, individuals could be legally recognised in a certain way but still face obstacles in exercising those rights in practice.

"Rights are rights when you can enforce them, not on paper only," she said, referring to earlier situations in which individuals, including transgender persons, could not fully exercise rights that had been nominally granted to them.

At the same time, Schembri made clear that, in her view, the expansion of civil rights does not automatically justify further changes across all areas, cautioning that there are limits to what should be considered a right.

"You cannot stop there, but not everything that somebody desires is necessarily morally right to be given as a legal right," she said, adding that while rights relating to personal identity and family life are central, not every claim can be framed in the same way.

Abortion stance

Schembri said she remains firmly opposed to abortion, describing her position as consistent with her understanding of human rights.

"I am pro-life and I most definitely do not believe that anybody has the right to take life away, even after conception, from the beginning," she said, adding that she views the protection of life as starting at conception.

She rejected suggestions that her involvement in the divorce campaign or broader civil rights reforms implied support for abortion, saying that such assumptions lack logic.

"Everybody used to think that since I am pro-divorce, I must be pro-abortion. I do not know what the logic is in that, because there is no logic in that," she said.

Schembri acknowledged that there are situations in which medical intervention may lead to the loss of a foetus, particularly where the life of the mother is at risk, but distinguished these cases from abortion as a deliberate act.

"The abortion is not wished for, it is not wanted, it is not directly done to kill the foetus, it is inevitable," she said, referring to what she described as cases falling under the ethical concept of the "double effect," where a life-saving procedure may have unintended consequences for the foetus.

However, she said she does not support abortion outside such circumstances.

"No other form of abortion for any other reason should be acceptable. I do not think that that is ethical," she said, reiterating her opposition to broader legalisation.

"Right to life wins" when rights collide

Schembri said that when different rights come into conflict, the right to life should take precedence over others, arguing that it is the most fundamental of all rights.

"When you have clash of human rights, the right to life wins," she said, explaining that while rights are often considered equal, there are situations in which one must take priority.

"Unless you are given the right to life, none of the rest can be exercised," she added.

She illustrated her argument with a hypothetical scenario, which she described as a "thought experiment."

"If everybody exercised their "right" to terminate a pregnancy, in a maximum of 100 years, this whole world will be exterminated," she said, adding that while the example is extreme, it serves to underline what she sees as the implications of recognising abortion as a fundamental right.

A different perception on euthanasia

Schembri said she supports voluntary euthanasia, drawing a distinction between that and abortion based on individual autonomy.

"When it comes to euthanasia, I am in favour, as long as it is voluntary," she said, noting that discussions are ongoing at government level, although no bill has yet been presented in Parliament, as the legislature's mandate is to discuss.

She rejected the idea that her support for euthanasia contradicts her opposition to abortion, arguing that the two issues are fundamentally different.

"I do not think it is illogical, as long as you're a human being with rights, then you have to be the master of those rights," she said, adding that a person who has lived and developed should be able to make decisions about their own body, as long as it is not imposed on another person.

"What I do not like about abortion is that a human being is not given the chance to live, to be educated, to grow, to make its own decisions," she said, contrasting this with situations in which a person is making a voluntary decision about their own life, such as euthanasia.

Schembri said she supports open discussion on controversial issues, including abortion, particularly where people may not have been exposed to detailed ethical arguments.

"I am all for a healthy debate, even on abortion," she said, adding that it is important for people to be informed before forming opinions.

However, she made clear that her position remains unchanged.

"I still have my position, and I do not think the position should change," she said.

Gender, politics, and structural imbalance

Schembri also addressed the gender corrective mechanism, saying that while she supports greater participation of women in politics, she does not believe the mechanism should be permanent.

"I believe that women have the intelligence, the drive, to do politics as much as men on an equal footing," she said, while noting that political life has not always treated women equally.

She referred to experiences of being the only woman in meetings or media panels, and to the impact of negative political discourse.

"Women are a little bit more sensitive to negative politics, and the brutal attacks that can come with the political scene," she said, adding that such factors discourage participation.

Schembri said the mechanism was intended to increase representation over time.

"This mechanism was meant to push women a little bit more to the forefront, so that eventually people start voting for women," she said.

However, she said reliance on the mechanism should be reduced.

"We should not rely on this mechanism for very long, in fact we should start working towards removing it," she said.

Asked whether she would accept entering Parliament through the mechanism, Schembri said she would, while expressing a preference to be elected through votes.

"These are the laws of the land. I am not going to say I will not do politics because I was elected by the mechanism, so I would accept, however, I hope I am not elected through the mechanism," Schembri said.

Rule of law and reform as a continuous process

Schembri said Malta has a functioning justice system and defended institutional independence, while acknowledging that no system is perfect.

"I believe that we have a just system where the police independently can prosecute, there is separation of powers, and politicians cannot intervene," she said.

At the same time, she said legislation should be improved where necessary.

"No legislation is ever perfect," she said, adding that if laws are not effective, they should be amended.

"If it needs changing, then let us change it," Schembri said.

Schembri said that legislation and governance are inherently imperfect and must remain open to revision, even when introduced with the best of intentions.

She advocated for a more pragmatic and less partisan approach to policymaking.

This perspective extends beyond individual laws to the broader functioning of the political system, including the role of Opposition and the nature of public debate, Schembri said.

"What I would love to see is an Opposition that does its job, not to agree with government, but to criticise constructively," she says, suggesting that effective governance depends as much on the quality of scrutiny as it does on decision-making.