You Call It Liberal, I Call It Humane

In politics, the word liberal has various meanings and is used to tag various groups, some of whose beliefs are nearly opposite each other (for instance some “liberals” in terms of economic policy happen to be very “conservative” in terms of civil rights issues).

I won’t get into the various definitions of the term. For the purposes of this article, by liberal I refer on issue related to civil liberties such as divorce, same-sex marriage, decriminalizing drugs, euthanasia and prostitution – and why I support each one of them.

Yes, one of the reasons is that I’m a “liberal”, in that I believe that people should have every right to choose how they live, unless it involved harming others. That is a fundamental principle, but I go beyond that.

The other reason is that I believe that human suffering should be reduced as much as possible. I believe that by being conservative or illiberal the law is creating unnecessary hardships on people whose actions are either completely harmless or at most, only harmful to themselves.

Decriminalizing drug use: Some people are able to use drugs (especially the soft ones) only for recreational purposes. They may or may not be harming themselves (this mostly depends on the kind of drug, the quantity used and how frequently it is used). These people are also breaking the law, they are criminals. Why? Why should a person be arrested, prosecuted and possibly imprisoned when he didn’t harm anyone else other than himself? Isn’t this an unnecessary cruelty?

Some, unfortunately become drug addicts. A few of these finance their addiction through a regular legal job or just happen to be rich. Others, especially (but not exclusively) women finance their addiction through prostitution which though not illegal in itself is still very likely to send you on the wrong side of the law (read below). Others resort to the crime of theft or drug dealing. Except for the latter, who are drug addicts harming? Why should these people be punished further for their own illness (I strongly believe drug addiction is an illness, I plan to dwell on this in another post) Do you imagine a cigarette smoker prosecuted for smoking and being addicted to tobacco? Why should a heroin addict (unless he commits crimes with victims) be treated any differently? Once again – unnecessary hardship, cruelty.

Prostitution: The simple act of having sex for money is not illegal. They couldn’t make that illegal, such a law would be completely unenforceable. However anything else from loitering to organized prostitution is. In other words a prostitute can – and does – get arrested from lingering in a dark alley with not many clothes on and cannot regularize her job. Which, I should believe should be a job like any other. She couldn’t have the legal protection entitled to other workers resulting in being many times the victim of abuse from either her employers and her clients.

Why? Just because someone decided it’s not immoral to sell shoes or pastizzi but lending your body is. And since they couldn’t make that illegal they made practically everything else that surrounds it. To make it hard, deliberately inducing unnecessary hardship and cruelty.

Same sex marriage: Once again who are the victims of married homosexuals? (That it can affect a happy heterosexual marriage is absurdly beyond imagination). Why is society giving a message to these people that they should be treated as second class citizens and that they should be satisfied with some half baked “civil union” law that gives them some rights but not as much as heterosexual couples? Why the unnecessary cruelty?

Euthanasia and suicide: Working in a home for the elderly I’v seen people in unbelievable pain that no amount of morphine can control or extremely sad situations such as losing all your loved ones, your privacy, your eyesight and both legs who still want to live. People who for various reasons – religion being the most common – believe that still, life is there to be lived until natural death. This is what they wish and this is what they’ll do. So far so fine.

However I’ve also seen people who think different. People who want to die. Including a person who literally pleaded with me to give him something that can make it all end. Yet, in our society, because people with a superior morality decided that “life utill natural death” should not only be a value but also a law, any kind of euthanasia and assisted suicide is strictly prohibited. You have to suffer until the end because we said so. Unnecessary hardship, cruelty. Why?

Is it too “liberal” to believe in a society where reducing unnecessary human suffering is also a fundamental value? Where people are only punished if they harm others, and not get whipped further because they have harmed themselves, or offended the strict moral code of some holier than though?

 

Chris Said, Joseph Muscat and the Rights of Minorities

According to Dr Chris Said, the cohabitation bill which overtly discriminates against same-sex couples and ignores crucial issues such as taxation, is “based on what the government believes is right and is acceptable to society.”

I beg to differ on the generalization about what is acceptable to society but for the sake of the argument, let’s say he’s right.

So? Does that make discrimination justifiable?

One of the very basics in human rights law and ethics is that minority rights should be respected irrespective of what the majority thinks, as long as fulfilling those rights doesn’t involve denying the rights to others.

It is definitely not the case here. Not-liking-gays-getting-married is NOT a human right. It’s bigotry.

If you’re afraid that same-sex couples getting married is going to affect your own marriage because “it weakens the institution of marriage” is such a twisted way of thinking that maybe you weren’t really suited for marriage in the first place. What the heck are you thinking, that your wife will leave you because Olga and Priscilla next door are going to tie the knot?

Same-sex marriage is about treating equals as equal. It doesn’t interfere on the rights of the majority in any way and those who oppose it are motivated by either bigotry or irrationality.

Needless to say, the PL were quick to point fingers at Chris Said accusing him of “homophobia”. Ironically, Joseph Muscat has already stated clearly he believes marriage is for people of the opposite sex only. In other words he doesn’t consider gay couples as equal either.

Introducing same-sex marriage isn’t just about LGBT rights. It’s also a reflection on whether our government (and opposition) really believe in equality in diversity or whether they consider it as just a slogan.

 

Your Religion Is Not Under Threat. Get Over It

When Poland was under the Soviets, Trade Unionist Lech Walesa used to greet his fellow Solidarity members with rosary beads in his hands. It wasn’t simply a religious act. It was an act of rebellion. The Soviets had taken all freedoms from the people of this vastly Catholic country including freedom of worship. The Poles were up in arms and the Catholic church was by their side. Rightly so.

Freedom of worship is a fundamental human right and a society that tramples upon it can never claim it’s a democracy.

Unlike the “forced atheism” of the Soviets, Malta is today witnessing a wave of secularism. Believers and non-believers are coming to the rational agreement that freedom of worship should be accompanied by the freedom not to worship. That, within the remit of the law, everyone is free to practice his religion but not to impose it on others.

This change was particularly marked by the divorce referendum, where 53% of the voters, a substantial amount of whom must be Catholics, agreed that if a marriage is over, one should call a spade a spade and declare it over. Whether the former spouse decides to have a new relationship and even get married again or not, is up to him. If he considers that a sin because his Catholic beliefs, he has every right to remain single.

Like always, this created a backlash from fundamentalist Catholics who consider imposing their beliefs a human right. They are even uniting on Facebook in a group they call “The Catholic Vote”. Discussing the usual issues: Divorce, same-sex marriage, abortion, euthanasia, IVF and occasionally even drug legalization. Needless to say, compassion, forgiveness or, horror of horrors, turning the other cheek don’t feature anywhere in the discussions.

I won’t enter the merits of the issues but rather the tactics used to achieve their goals. One of them is lumping all issues together and threatening that if say, a legislation regulating same-sex relations is passed this will pave way for the much more frowned upon abortion. When truth is that there is absolutely nothing in common with these issues except for the fact that the Catholic church opposes them both.

Another tactic is implying that everyone who disagrees with them is a sleazy hedonist, who wants to cheat on his wife and most probably takes drugs!

Then there is the ultimate tactic: Playing the victims. The terms “harassing Christians” and “Christianophobia” are regularly used. Yes, for these fundamentalists, daring to disagree with them is considered as harassment, even hatred.

There will be no mincing of words on this. Unlike Lech Valesa, you don’t have a case. No one is going to take away your religion. Stop playing the victim, grow up and get over it.

Christianophobia may be a reality in Nigeria and Egypt where attending mass might get you bombed but not in Catholic majority Malta. The “secularists” and “humanists” you hate so much, would be the first to defend you if someone tries to forcibly take religion from you.

But it’s not the case. And you know it.