IVF: let the people decide
The amendments to the IVF law are being discussed in Parliament.
The debate on such sensitive and delicate issues as surrogacy and embryo donation is being conducted in an unacceptable way. In his now typical way, Prime Minister Muscat mixed different issues together and set the agenda for the debate and vote to be rushed through in a few days.
In his typical way, he bound his 37 political hostages to a forced collective ‘yes’ vote.
And his 37 are all obeying like faithful poodles, despite the fact that some of them are faced with real dilemma and would possibly vote against certain articles of the law, had they been given a free vote.
It has only been those Labour ex-parliamentarians now free from parliamentary shackles, like George Vella and Deborah Schembri, who had the courage to own up and speak their mind, against the diktat imposed by the party leader.
On the other hand, we have the PN Leader supposedly giving a free vote to his MPs, but in reality he, the Party machinery and NET TV are all hell bent on giving just one option, that of voting ‘No’.
What is even sadder is the religious fundamentalism which is being whipped up as a reaction to the lack of debate on such delicate issue.
In reality, it is normal for such types of laws to be divisive. It is natural that people within the same party, whether PL, PN or AD, have differing opinions because when it comes to ethics or conscience we all have our own way of seeing things.
The discussion on the amendments to the IVF law should have been tolerant of these contrasting views. When issues discussed provoke a clash of ethical values, it is essential that the proposed law is respectful of such contrasts.
In reality, the way the limited debate is being held is not respectful at all of these contrasts.
Acknowledging the delicacy of the issues discussed, Alternattiva Demokratika had suggested that the public debate should not be rushed. It would have been wise for parliament to enter into the fine detail of the solutions proposed and their implications. Parliament should have asked for the direct assistance of experts to help it address any defects that the government proposals might have had.
Even our President of the Republic, though constitutionally prevented from interfering in the political debate, called for a “calm and longer period of reflection to enable voices to be heard” on the proposed changes to the IVF law. Her appeal, like AD’s, fell on totally deaf ears.
At this stage, the law is being forced through. Personally, I am not satisfied at all as to how it is being bulldozed upon us, whether we are substantially in favour or against.
At this stage, I would prefer to have the majority of Maltese to sanction the law or refute it for a better text.
How can the cross party divided electorate (on this issue) make its voice heard? One solution could be the collection of 40,000 signatures for an abrogative referendum during the August-September-October period.
If the signatures were collected by October, this would allow for a referendum to be held on 25th May 2019, together with the Local Council elections and the European Parliament elections.
The referendum campaign would bring together people and politicians of different parties on a same “Yes” or “No” platform.
Come 25th May, the people would decide.
If the vote were to maintain the amendments to the law as they would have been passed through parliament, that would be it. The people would have spoken.
If, however, the amendments were to be rejected in the referendum, then parliament would be forced to prepare and discuss a new law.
And, this time, the debate and public discussion would have to be a real and fully fledged one. As it should have been in the first place.
At the end, in a real democracy, it is better to have such sensitive issue sanctioned and decided by the people rather than by 67 MPs, some of whom Konrad Mizzi, in primis- are more concerned about pleasing their leader for personal gain than working for the common good.