That’s some ‘moral code’ you’ve got there, Godfrey...

For years now I have been trying to understand why a political establishment that never pays the slightest attention to any other ethical issue, always seems to get all mushy and sentimental about the unborn child. Even in a country where the unborn child actually enjoys more legal protection than anywhere else in the world... and considerably more than various other categories that face active and very real threats every day. 

Like those 33 immigrants who were summarily rounded up and carted off back into detention this week, possibly to be deported. There are multiple human rights violations staring us in the face right there; oddly, however, I don’t see the likes of Godfrey Farrugia weeping salt tears over those particular human beings in parliament. In fact, I don’t see their fate being discussed anywhere at all, other than in the media.

Is it because they are black, I hear you ask? No. It’s because they were born.

Being born is a tremendous disadvantage, if you happen to do it in a country that only ever values human life during the first few hours after conception. For that brief space of time between fertilisation and implantation – when there isn’t even a pregnancy to speak of, let alone a foetus to protect – the newly-formed cell-cluster enjoys more than just both its parents’ DNA. It also enjoys more rights and protection in Malta than anyone or anything else. 

It is almost as though the act of actually passing through the birth canal automatically nullifies any interest our members of parliament may previously have had in your welfare. From that point on... you’re on your own, kiddo. And if it becomes necessary to pretend you don’t exist at all... as in the case of the above-mentioned detainees... the same ‘moral politicians’ who speak tremulously about ‘the value of human life’ will not even issue a press release, when their own government orders the arrests and signs all the deportation orders.

In brief, they will act and behave as if human life is completely worthless... which it is, by the way. Unlike a newly fertilised human egg, there is no political advantage to be gained from protecting a living, breathing human under those circumstances. And let’s face it: political advantage is the only thing that adds ‘value’ to anything in Malta.

In any case: Godfrey Farrugia is not the only, nor even the best example of this brazen hypocrisy in action. He is however the most recent; and his contribution is in many ways more interesting than most.

“We are forgetting the moral code we have always cherished, that moral conduct that has always distinguished us,” he said in parliament this week: going on to argue that, by permitting the sale of emergency contraception over the counter, the Medicines Authority was “conveniently assuming” that pregnancy starts between five and 15 days after conception... the moment the embryo is implanted. 

He even added that by consenting to this position, the United Nations was ‘agreeing with abortion’.

OK, let’s break this down into stages. For starters, Dr Farrugia must have overlooked the small detail that the UN does, in fact, have a policy to promote female reproductive rights – including the right to safe abortion – all over the world: which also means that... yes, it does agree with abortion in certain cases. Most of the world does, too... Malta is in fact one of only a handful of countries where abortion is illegal (and arguably the only one where it is illegal in all circumstances, with no exceptions whatsoever).

That’s the reality, high time we all accept. The UN is pro-abortion, Malta is a UN member. Follow Dr Farrugia’s argument to its natural conclusion, and you’d expect him to do one of two things. A) advocate taking Malta out of the UN in protest at its pro-abortion stance. B) Try and convince the UN to change to a pro-life stance.

As things stand, Dr Farrugia has done neither. I’ll come back to this point later,

Meanwhile, Dr Farrugia – a medical doctor by profession – is also clearly arguing that pregnancy starts before implantation: i.e., that from the moment of conception  (when there is still an enormous chance that the fertilised ovum might not implant at all, and will be flushed out of the system at the next menstrual cycle) those fertilised eggs all have to be accorded the full gamut of human rights protection.

Even here, we must qualify further. Dr Farrugia isn’t interested in saving every single fertilised ovum that has yet to even be implanted in the womb; otherwise, he would have to attempt to make menstruation a crime, too. No, the only ones he intends ‘saving’ are the ones where the mother might resort to emergency contraception to stop the implantation from taking place. And this changes the argument in dangerous ways.

Clearly, we are on the level of ‘thought crime’ here: if a mother suspects she might be running the risk of an imminent pregnancy, and tries to stop it from taking place – that’s what contraception generally does, you know – according to Godfrey Farrugia, she should be treated exactly as though she were already pregnant... and denied the medical means to do anything about it.

Interesting logic, I must say. The only part I don’t understand is... why stop at the morning-after pill? There are other contraceptive devices that also work by preventing implantation of a fertilised ovum. They are also legal in Malta, and available over the counter. Does Dr Farrugia want to ban those, too? We don’t know, because – as with the UN example – he didn’t make any actual commitment either way.  

Nor is this the only example of words without action. Farrugia is now arguing that emergency contraception is by its own nature abortive, and therefore should be banned. Yet curiously, he himself was part of a parliamentary committee that recently recommended the legal distribution of emergency contraception in Malta. There was only one difference between parliament’s recommendations, and the decision actually taken by the Medicines Authority... and it concerned the need for a doctor’s prescription.

Other than that, Parliament has agreed that the morning-after pill should be made accessible to Maltese women. Dr Farrugia argues that it is immoral, and represents a crime against the unborn.  So if he feels so strongly that parliament is losing its moral compass as a result... why doesn’t he put his morality where his mouth is, and resign from it altogether? 

Ah, but that question only brings us to the very crux of this entire argument. What sort of ‘moral values’ are we talking about here, exactly? This is not exactly the first time Dr Farrugia – and many others, on both sides of the House – has made loud public remonstrations about the collapse of morality... without ever accompanying them with any form of corresponding action. 

I was reminded of Tonio Fenech’s impassioned warning that Our Lady ‘cried’ at the prospect of the divorce referendum, for instance. I wonder what Our Lady might make of Fenech’s involvement in a company currently under investigation for defrauding thousands of Swedish pensioners out of their hard-earned life-savings. Our Lady wouldn’t ‘cry’ about something like that, would she?

Then there was Tonio Borg, that other indefatigable defender of the unborn child: who saw no conflict in accepting the role of EU health commissioner... thereby directly agreeing to finance abortions all over the developing world.

As for Godfrey Farrugia, he seems to have made a career out of shedding crocodile tears over our nation’s moral decline – not always about un-implanted ova, either – while complacently accepting to be part of the very thing he complains about. I seem to remember him weeping on another recent occasion: when trying to justify his imminent vote in favour of beleaguered Cabinet colleague Konrad Mizzi, after revelations of his Panama connections.

Remember? First he publicly urged to Mizzi to resign; when that didn’t happen, he made an impassioned speech (pausing periodically to dab at his eyes with a handkerchief) about how tortuously divided he felt, when called to vote Mizzi out himself... and then, inevitably, after all that public chest-thumping and lamentation... he went on to vote in favour of Mizzi in spite of everything. 

Well, that just about delineates the extent of a Maltese politician’s moral scruples.  It shows us how far Malta’s traditional ‘moral code’ actually allows politicians to go with their private misgivings: they can weep, they can gnash their teeth, they can make great public displays of personal anguish... but don’t even think of betraying the party. That comes before everything... yes, even the unborn child itself.

That’s some ‘moral code’ you’ve got there, Dr Farrugia. And you’re worried about losing it? Flush it down the toilet immediately, I say. The sooner that wretched thing is history, the better.