The highlight of the week seems to come from Msida this week. The University Students’ Council (Kunsill Studenti Universitarji, also known as ‘KSU’) made the rounds on news portals for allegedly clearning the Moviment Graffitti student wing’s stand at Freshers’ Week on campus because they were distributing material promoting a discussion on abortion. The KSU’s reasoning for this was conveyed in a now heavily criticised public statement, claiming that the Council felt it would be better for abortion to be left off the agenda for the entirety of Freshers’ Week. 

This, according to the Council, did not apply just to pro-choice organisations but pro-life organisations as well. The problem with this is that the literature distributed amongst students by Graffitti was not a call to proselytise the student body’s beliefs. Rather, it was a leaflet with a support line number offering anyone who might be facing an unplanned pregnancy with counselling and guidance. Harmful misinterpretation? Possibly. Especially when one considers that for years, the pro-life affiliated group Life Network Foundation has marketed their services on campus, not to mention that this foundation has no youth society in the University of Malta or representatives that are active on campus. 

But put that issue to one side. This commentary is not about KSU’s actions – not entirely at least. The issue here is much more profound. Malta’s abortion laws, which are constricted to the provisions of the Criminal Code, criminalise abortion in every circumstance and effectively translate into criminal liability for a woman who undergoes an abortion or the medical practitioner who performs the procedure. Put simply, these people would be imposed with a very hefty prison sentence. This has changed recently in light of the Andrea Prudente case and a limited exception to the rule, where a woman’s life is at severe risk. 

In the past decade, abortion has reappeared in the public forum time and time again. But what do our elected politicians think of this clearly important issue? In the 2022 general election, some political candidates took to a Facebook pro-life group to declare that they are fully against abortion in every respect.  More recently, Equality Parliamentary Secretary Rebecca Buttigieg said in an interview that a national discussion on abortion needs to happen sooner rather than later. On the day of the annual pro-choice rally held in Valletta, Opposition Leader Bernard Grech said in a radio interview that there must be a ‘respectful’ dialogue on abortion in the public forum. 

The problem with this is that these calls for discussion have been repeated over time by politicians, both past and incumbent. The running theme in this country we hold dear to heart is that because of our socio-cultural roots, any mention of abortion often takes an inflammatory turn and one might be sympathetic as to why there is a general scepticism of remotely considering this topic. However, when our elected representatives shoot down any possibility of considering the topic with a simple ‘there should one day be a discussion’, it can be argued that this is counterproductive to the very same conveyed need for a ‘discussion’.

A discussion is most certainly needed, but how do the same people who are calling for one propose to go forward? Will experts be invited to attend a special plenary session in Parliament? Will there be a symposium? By the end of the proposed symposium, what will the intended outcomes for the audience be? What will MPs do after the intended outcomes are met? Most importantly, will there be measures in place for activists to hinder any harassment which they may face? These are the questions we should be asking after the ‘discussion’ band aid is plastered on anyone mentioning abortion. 

The Oxford Union comes to mind in such a case; a longstanding society at the University of Oxford where the greatest minds meet to debate an issue and present their considerations or objections in a respectable manner. Consider this: you might be someone who considers abortion to be a grey area. Alternatively, you might have an idea of where you stand on abortion, but would like to know more about what the other side has to offer, in a setting that is free from external factors such as religion. Ultimately, these are the kinds of people who will significantly benefit from engaging in active discussion.

But for this engagement to come to fruition, our politicians need to follow up with tangible plans to commit to a discussion. Until then, any calls for ‘discussion’ are simply personal prayers of contrition. 

Photo: Chris Sant Fournier/Times of Malta