Oh look, we’re back at square zero…

A funny thing seems to happen to opposition parties the moment they become parties in government.

We saw this way back in 1987, when the Nationalist Party rode into power on the strength of its 'Xoghol, Gustizzja, Liberta' battle-cry... only to forget that little bit about 'Gustizzja' immediately upon winning the election.

Looked back on all these years later, I have to admit that it now comes across as a rather spectacular political achievement in its own right. Having first promised a specific reform of police custody procedure (among many other things) on the very eve of the '87 election - the original debate can still be viewed in all its glory on YouTube - it remains remarkable how the same Eddie Fenech Adami would not only fail to ever deliver on that promise; but actually resist the selfsame reform tooth and nail throughout his career as Prime Minister (in fact it had to wait more than 20 years to get itself enacted: which eventually happened in 2008).

Likewise, the root causes of so many other injustices we still associate with the Mintoff/KMB years were retained in full for almost three whole decades under successive PN administrations of government: the most obvious example being our woefully unjust electoral law - which again, the PN first complained about then jealously defended for 25 years - but you can add several other examples to the list, including any number of cases where previously requisitioned properties/businesses were never quite returned to their rightful owners, despite unequivocal promises to the contrary in preceding years.

For let's face it: there is nothing quite like being in government (and no longer in opposition) to immediately put a somewhat slightly different perspective on things. Viewed from this new angle, who knows? A few of the things you yourself might have described as 'unjust' and 'corrupt' only the day before yesterday, may suddenly seem a good deal less intolerable today: i.e., when the net beneficiary of the same unjust situation is no longer someone else, but... YOU.

Small wonder, then, that this selfsame pattern would repeat itself so often and so very predictably: election after election after election. How can it be otherwise, when so many of the people who actually vote for these parties, also share the exact same inability to ever see any wrong done by 'their' side (while howling blue murder at every foul committed by the 'others', no matter how trivial or insignificant)?

So it was then, and - entirely unsurprisingly - so it is now. But with one small difference. For where the Fenech Adami administration had taken some time to conveniently forget so many of its own former promises... the Labour Party's transformation from a 'progressive force' to a 'straight continuation of the archaic conservatism of the Gonzi clan' was all but instantaneous.

In fact, it was so sudden I was forcefully reminded of the classic, Oscar-winning transformation scene from the 1981 movie 'An American Werewolf in London'... only with much slicker special effects.

Allow me to illustrate. Last Friday, Health Minister Godfrey Farrugia unexpectedly announced the dissolution of the 'Embryo Protection Authority' that his immediate predecessor, Joe Cassar, had set up just a few months ago.

For those who missed the original IVF debate last year, this committee is supposed to safeguard the well-being of any human embryos created in the process of in vitro fertility treatment (or any other assisted procreation methods).

In practice, however, the declared aim is actually to screen prospective patients for eligibility for IVF... in the context of a law which limits the treatment to 'heterosexual couples in a stable relationship'.

So yes, I admit that scrapping this horrendous, Gulag-style 'selection committee' sounds like a good thing to do on paper: more so when the Labour Party in opposition had (quite rightly) slammed the idea of an authority with the power to decide who should and should not be permitted to have children with a little help from Uncle Science.

But to no avail. In the end the Labour Party supported the creation of this grotesque aberration, and consented to a situation whereby people would be screened for such heinous conditions as 'homosexuality' or 'promiscuity' before being allowed to propagate their own genes.

Can you just imagine the sort of questions people might be asked by the 'Embryo Protection Committee' during interviews to screen for IVF eligibility? If you can't, I suggest you watch a few of the infamous Joseph McCarthy anti-communist public hearings of the 1950s... and just replace the word 'Communist" with 'Homosexual' (and 'Communist Party' with 'Gay Rights Association/s') in all the questions. 

But of course, they would have to go into considerably more personal detail than just that. I can almost see it all now: "Do you bat for the other team? Have you ever taken it up the rear end? And more importantly... did you enjoy it? Yes? Ah well, in that case you're obviously a raging poof and therefore do not qualify for IVF therapy under Maltese legislation... NEXT!"

Even without the blatant prejudice against gays, the very notion that a group of 'experts' should 'approve' or otherwise the eligibility of grown adults for IVF treatment... for all the world as if they were a bunch of bananas being rubberstamped by the 'Man from Delmonte'... I don't know, but the very idea makes me feel a little ill.

And what sort of questions would this category of prospective patient face from the committee, I wonder? Let's see now: "Are you in a stable relationship?"... "When did you first meet?"... and... "How long after your first kiss did you actually stick it in?" Etc., etc., etc.

But back to the issue at hand. Viewed from this angle, Farrugia's decision last Friday to scrap the same committee did indeed sound like a very good thing at the time. But that impression did not last very long.

It quickly became apparent that his actual concern was NOT (as one would expect from a 'progressive' government) with the intrusive, invasive and just plain old ghastly aspect of the entire sordid arrangement. On the contrary: the only official reason given for the committee's lightning dissolution was a rather nebulous 'conflict of interest', in the sense that one (1) of the former five-man committee happened to also be a practising gynaecologist, who may or may not have been providing IVF at his or her private clinic.

OK, a couple of small points before proceeding to the truly worrying aspect of this entire business. First off: let us simply assume that the Labour government's newfound concern with 'conflicts of interest' - which hasn't been quite as conspicuous when it comes to similar conflicts involving Cabinet ministers... but let's just pretend we didn't notice that one, either - is, in fact, genuine.

In that case, the very first obvious step to take would have been to offer that committee member the opportunity to either divest himself of the suspicious business interest... or voluntarily resign from the committee.

But that is not what Farrugia did. Instead, he simply sacked the entire committee, lock stock and two smokin' barrels... thus making all five of its members 'guilty' by association of a shortcoming that strictly speaking only concerned one of them in the first place (and which many would argue was not even much of a conflict to begin with).

I don't know about you, but that looks like a rather serious case of collective unfair dismissal to me. But let's give Farrugia the benefit of the doubt here, too. He may well have had other reasons to dismiss all five of Jose Cassar's hand-picked appointees; but seeing as he omitted to actually mention them... well, your guess is as good as mine for the present.

In any case: having duly fired the original committee less than three months after it was first constituted, the new Health Minister went on to just as suddenly announce a whole new committee, replacing all five members with his own hand-picked appointees within the space of a few hours. (And of course, we can all safely rule out any political motivation in what would otherwise look quite a lot like a rather brutal 'night of the long knives', because... hey, this is Labour we're talking about here... OK?)

Still, we are left with a couple of uncomfortable interrogatives.

One: as things stood before the committee was so hurriedly reconstituted last Friday, only one out of five members of the Embryo Protection Committee actually possessed any real professional experience in providing IVF treatment. So what sense does it make to object to the only committee member who actually knows enough about the topic to take an informed decision when faced with actual (as opposed to hypothetical) cases... and replace all previous members with five new ones who have no direct experience between the lot of them?

By the same reasoning, I suppose we may as well appoint someone without a single cultural qualification or credential to his name to head (say) the Valletta Capital of Culture 2018 committee... but wait, what on earth am I saying? We all agree that this would be utterly (but UTTERLY) unthinkable under a Labour government. Meritocracy, remember?

Nonetheless, there is a second, much more serious problem staring us all in the face. Last I looked, the Labour Party had just won an election on the promise of a more 'progressive' way of doing politics. Personally I would understand the volte-face, had the same Labour Party also warned us before the last election that... "Hey! Being 'progressive' doesn't extend to faggots, OK? We're very 'progressive' when it comes to... erm... 'other stuff'... but on the subject of gays, lesbians and other such unnatural freaks... well, just don't come expecting anything fancy from us, all right?

"Oh, and the same goes for single mothers, by the way. Yeah, that's right: those sluts who can't just keep their legs together long enough not to need social assistance for the ever-growing army of bastards they keep unleashing onto the unsuspecting world... well, they're not welcome here, either..."

Yes, well, I could more or less bring myself to understand that kind of attitude; though I do not agree with it and certainly wouldn't vote for it (to put it mildly). But as I recall, the Labour Party didn't talk like that at all. On the contrary, it talked (and still talks) of itself as a truly progressive force; and it even criticised the former government precisely over its apparent homophobia and social arch-conservatism when drawing up this particular law.

More astonishingly still: it was only a few months ago that the same Labour Party had objected quite vociferously to the original idea of setting up an 'Embryo Protection Committee' in the first place.

That's right, folks: the same Embryo Protection Committee that the Labour government has now re-appointed in full, with the same brief (just like Fenech Adami had done with the police custody procedure, remember?)... well, just last November the same PL was busy arguing that the same idea... how can I put this?... kind of sucked, actually.

Ah, but they were in opposition then. And like I said earlier, nothing like a stint in government to completely change your outlook on absolutely everything.

So here's a small reminder of the very different perspective the Labour Party had on this selfsame issue just six (6) months ago. Here is how the views of its former shadow minister for health, Michael Farrugia, were reported only last November:

"[Michael] Farrugia lambasted the law's proposal that the authority would decide whether a couple should be allowed to undergo fertility treatments or not.... Moreover, Farrugia said he couldn't believe with what authority five strangers should tell a couple who want children whether they can or not.

'Why should a couple be forced to appear [in front of] this board, begging on its knees asking them for a licence to have children? It's like I need an operation and have to ask permission for it. It's already difficult enough for the couple to accept they cannot have children. But forcing them to ask the permission of others is unacceptable...'"

"Unacceptable", huh? Well, that's an interesting new definition of the word...