Church: proposed Equality Bill encroaches upon Catholics’ religious freedom

The Equality Act, which has been tabled in parliament for its first reading, is "too vague" and goes beyond the scope of European Union directives promoting equality, according to the Church in Malta.

In a meeting with Civil Liberties Helena Dalli, Archbishop Charles J Scicluna said that while the Church was against any form of discrimination, it felt hat the Bill being proposed was too vague and subjective.  

During the meeting, Scicluna presented the minister with a copy of the Church’s position paper on the Equality Bill.

Scicluna said that changes should be made to the bill so that the right to religious expression and to freely carry out the activities in accordance with the tenets of one’s faith, would be respected.

The position paper, the Curia said, was prepared by a group of experts in law, human rights, theology, ethics and education, and focuses on the positions in the Bill that would compromise the Church’s mission. The Church’s experts maintain that the vague and broad definitions of ‘harassment’ and ‘victim’ in the Bill could result in subjective interpretation, that they say could have a negative impact on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

The 18-page position paper was authored by Rev Professor Emmanuel Agius (Chairperson), Stephanie Abood, Professor Kevin Aquilina, Dr Austin Bencini, Judge Giovanni Bonello, Ms Roseanne Cuschieri, Dr Nadia Delicata, Rev Professor George Grima, Rev Dr Charles Mallia and Dr Ivan Sammut.

“A display of a notice, billboard or flyer promoting marriage between a man and a woman could be prohibited, because it can be subjectively perceived as harmful to some groups. People may feel inhibited from making a statement if they fear a person might claim vaguely defined elements such as the ‘violation of their dignity’ or the ‘creation of an offensive environment’,” said the church.

The church also drew attention to the fact that the proposed Bill is completely silent on conscientious objection.

“Any legislation on non-discrimination should give due attention to the question of exercising the right to conscientious objection. This right is commonly associated with a form of legally permitted exemption from certain obligations or prohibitions with which one may disagree on religious, ethical, humanitarian, or allied grounds,” read a statement by the Curia.

The authors of the position paper argued that there was a significant difference between the EU Directive and the Bill being proposed by the government, adding that the EU Directive includes a specific provision regarding Churches and other public or private religious organisations.

The omission of a similar provision in the proposed Equality Bill, they said, is of particular concern, since the Church offers a broad range of education services.

“Catholic schools are bound to nourish and promote a Christian spirit in the mind and conduct of their students. They can do this especially by creating and maintaining a Christian ethos within their environment. Without this provision, the Church, for example, can be forced to employ educators who conduct public campaigns against some aspects of its teaching.”

The Church argued that religious freedom, as a universal human right, should not be unduly restrained as a result of an inadequate understanding of the principle of equality.

"The purpose of the present position paper has been to explain that, rightly understood, equality is perfectly reconcilable with freedom, including religious freedom. As has been noted, the Bill itself assumes that a number of qualifications need to be made in relation to the implementation of equality in the different spheres of social life. The inadequacies of the Bill with respect to equality within the religious domain lie precisely in not taking sufficient account of the qualified way in which it has to be implemented in this domain without prejudice to religious freedom."

The paper also states that the proposed Bill puts the burden of proof on the accused rather that the victim.

“Whoever is accused of ‘discrimination’ must prove his or her innocence, whereas the person claiming to be the victim of discrimination would be exonerated from bringing objective evidence. The Bill is not in line with standard procedural rights. The alleged victim’s own subjective perception is the only standard for assessing the grounds of discrimination,” reads the paper.