Acceptable discrimination? -- Diskriminazzjoni Aċċettabbli?

This is a continuation of the theme in the last two articles on Perspective,  i.e. same-sex marriage.  I'm doing this due to quick developments in Australia, where the federal government has decided to carry out a national survey on the subject, and if the result is a majority being in favour, will permit a free vote in parliament rather than accepting to legislate in favour.

 

This was a substantial change by the government to its plebiscite policy, as this twice did not pass muster in the Australian Senate and was abandoned (not without much internal resistance in the Liberal-National coalition.

 

The change came about after a group of Liberal members of parliament, bigger than I expected, threatened to present a private members bill and cross the floor to ensure passage, with the support of the Labor opposition and the Greens Party.

 

It's expected that several from those members of parliament who are against marriage equality will vote against no matter the result of the survey.  It's also clear that those in favour are ready to vote in favour at the first opportunity, no matter what.

 

This is the result of the flawed process we're faced with, given that the country is not undertaking a referendum, where parliament is tied to the will of the people.

 

I wanted to comment about the content (reported, as the text is as yet unpublished) of the private members bill prepared by that group of Liberal members that want marriage equality to pass.  This draft is said to protect religious clergy and civil celebrants that refuse to officiate gay marriage from being taken to court accused of discrimination, not because discrimination would not have occurred (it would have) but as this would be explicitly exempted from the criminal code.

 

Normally upon civil progress in equality, discrimination would become against the law.  For example, in Australia, indigenous people who had been living here for at least 40 thousand years were treated brutally by the British colonialists, were dispossessed of their lands for farming, with aboriginal people being considered primitive, even less than human, and treated violently.1  Today, the law of the land prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, skin colour or ethnicity.  Today it seems to me that generally people are agains racial discrimination, although exceptions exist, such as the government intervention in the Northern Territory which is highly controversial.

 

In the case of same-sex marriage, I expect there will be, if not a majority, at least a substantial minority which will be vehemently against this step which for them represents a fundamental change in the social fabric, and one of the main reasons for this position will be their religious beliefs.

 

If the right to marriage were extended to same-sex attracted persons, I think it would be wise for this protection from court proceedings for discrimination to be extended to religious or civil celebrants.

 

It seems that in this draft bill, those other professionals involved in weddings (photographers, musicians, caterers etc.) need to show some link to a religious organisation to have this protection.

 

I do think that this limitation is unnecessary.  It seems to me that those people and organisations to provide wedding services might have a conscientious objection that should be respected, with one condition, that is that they register this objection in an official registry that is publicly available, so that gays and lesbians looking for such services be able to avoid the humiliation of asking for a service that is refused in their face.  I'm convinced there are enough people in the wedding industry that would be ready to provide services for their weddings.

 

I hope that this equality measure transpires in Australia like it just did in Malta, and also that the country tolerate, in practice, the strong views of both sides of the debate.  People don't change overnight, and forcing people to do things against their conscience is just not on.

 

Society changes slowly, and acceptable discrimination today, may become unacceptable tomorrow.  It would be wise for parliament to reflect sentiment of the people who elected it, take note of, and act according to, changes in this sentiment.

 

-------------------

 

Se nkompli fuq it-tema tal-aħħar żewġ artikli ta' Perspettiva, ċioe iż-żwieġ bejn persuni tal-istess sess.  Dan minħabba żviluppi mgħaġġla fl-Awstralja, fejn il-gvern federali ddeċieda li jagħmel stħarriġ nazzjonali fuq dan is-suġġett, bil-ħsieb li jekk juri li l-poplu fil-maġġoranza tiegħu jkun favur, mhux jaċċetta li jilleġisla favur imma jippermetti vot liberu fil-parlament.

 

Din kienet bidla sostanzjali fil-politika tal-gvern li jagħmel plebixxit, għaximma din il-politika m'għaddietx mis-Senat Awstraljan darbtejn u ġiet abbandunata (mhux mingħajr ħafna reżistenza interna fil-koalizzjoni tal-gvern Liberali-Nazzjonali).

 

Din il-bidla ġiet wara li grupp ta' membri parlamentari Liberali, ikbar milli kont qed nistenna, heddew li jressqu privatament abbozz ta' liġi fil-parlament u jaqsmu l-kamra biex din tgħaddi, bil-kunsens tal-Oppożizzjoni Laburista u l-Partit tal-Ħodor.

 

Huwa ċarmistenni li min mill-membri tal-parlament huma kontra l-ugwaljanza fiż-żwieġ, diversi minnhom se jivvotaw kontra ikun x'ikun ir-riżultat ta' dan l-istħarriġ.  Jidher ukoll ċar li min huwa favur huwa lest jivvota favur mal-ewwel ċans li jiġi, ikun x'ikun ir-riżultat tal-istħarriġ.

 

Dan huwa r-riżultat tal-proċess bażwi li qegħdin iffaċċjati bih, ladarba l-pajjiż mhux se jgħaddi minn referendum, fejn jekk il-poplu tkellem il-parlamentari jkunu marbutin bir-riżultat.

 

Xtaqt nikkummenta fuq il-kontenut (irrappurtat, għax it-test ma ġiex ippubblikat) tal-abbozz privat ta' liġi ppreparat mill-grupp ta' membri Liberali li jridu li l-miżura ta' ugwaljanza fiż-żwieġ tgħaddi.  Dan l-abbozz jingħad li jipproteġi lill-qassisin reliġjużi u ċelebranti ċivili li jirrifjutaw li jiċċelebraw iż-żwieġ ta' persuni tal-istess sess abbażi.  Dawn tal-ewwel ma jkunux jistgħu jitressqu l-qorti akkużati b'diskriminazzjoni, mhux għax ma tkunx saret diskriminazzjoni (li fil-fatt tkun saret) imma li din tkun speċifikatament eżenta mill-kodiċi kriminali.2

 

Normalment, meta jkun hemm żvilupp ċivili ta' ugwaljanza, id-diskriminazzjoni issir kontra l-liġi.  Per eżempju, fl-Awstralja, in-nies indiġeni li kienu ilhom jgħixu hawn għal mill-inqas erbgħin elf sena, ġew ittrattati brutalment mill-kolonjalisti Brittanniċi, bl-art meħuda bil-forza għall-biedja, bin-nies aboriġeni meqjusin primittivi, anke inqas minn umani, u ittrattati bi vjolenza.3  Illum il-liġi tal-pajjiż tipprojbixxi d-diskriminazzjoni fuq bażi ta' razza, kulur tal-ġilda jew dixxendenza.4  Illum jidhirli li ġeneralment n-nies huma kontra d-diskriminazzjoni razzjali, għalkemm eċċezzjonijiet jeżistu, bħall-intervent tal-gvern fin-Northern Territory li huwa kontroversjali għall-aħħar.

 

Fil-każ taż-żwieġ ta' persuni tal-istess sess, jien nistenna li se jkun hemm, jekk mhux maġġoranza, talinqas minoranza sostanzjali li se jkunu deċiżament kontra dan il-pass li għalihom jirrappreżenta bidla fundamentali fil-qafas soċjali, u waħda mir-raġunijiet ewlenin għal din il-pożizzjoni tkun it-twemmin reliġjuż tagħhom.

 

Jekk id-dritt taż-żwieġ fil-fatt jiġi estiż għal nies tal-istess sess, naħseb li jkun għaqli li din il-protezzjoni, għal ċelebranti kemm reliġjużi u kemm ċivili, minn proċeduri fil-qorti ta' diskriminazzjoni tingħata.

 

Jidher li f'dan l-abbozz ta' liġi, dawk il-professjonisti l-oħra involuti fit-tiġijiet (bħall-fotografi, mużiċisti, tal-ħelu eċċ) iridu juru xi rabta ma' organizzazzjoni reliġjuża biex ikollhom din il-protezzjoni.

 

Jien naħseb li din il-limitazzjoni hija żejda.  Jidhirli li dawn in-nies u organizzazzjoni li jipproduċu servizzi fit-tiġijiet jista' jkollhom oġġezzjoni tal-kuxjenza li għandha tkun irrispettata, b'kundizzjoni waħda, jiġifieri li jirreġistraw din l-oġġezzjoni f'reġistru uffiċjali li jkun ppubblikat, ħalli koppji gay li qiegħin ifittxu dawn is-servizzi jkunu jistgħu jevitaw l-umiljazzjoni li jitolbu għal servizz li jiġi rrifjutat f'wiċċhom.  Jien persważ li jkun hemm biżżejjed nies fl-industrija tat-tiġijiet li jkunu lesti li jipprovdu servizzi għat-tiġijiet tagħhom.

 

Jien nawgura li din il-miżura ta' ugwaljanza tgħaddi fl-Awstralja bħal m'għaddiet f'Malta, u wkoll li l-pajjiż jittollera, fil-prattika, il-veduti qawwija taż-żewġ naħat.  In-nies mhux se jinbidlu mil-lum għal għada, u li tisforza persuna tagħmel ħaġa kontra l-kuxjenza tagħha mhix sew lanqas.  

 

Is-soċjetà bil-mod il-mod tinbidel, u diskriminazzjoni aċċettabbli llum, issir mhux aċċettabbli għada.  Ikun għaqli li l-parlament jirrifletti l-ħsieb tal-poplu li qiegħed jirrrappreżenta, u li jieħu nota ta', u jaġixxi skont, bidliet fis-sentiment tiegħu.

1Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Laws; Australian Law Reform Commission Report 31; para 22

2http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/celebrants-and-ministers-protected-under-samesex-marriage-bill-proposal/news-story/7c50844bfb9715a901de414b8368c5d0, retrieved 21/8/2017

3Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Laws; Australian Law Reform Commission Report 31; para 22

4Racial Discrimination Act 1975; Australian Commonwealth