Support us!

Category: Press Statement

Replace the IVF Bill legislative process with in-depth, honest and inclusive consultation.

We welcome the recent statement by the Health Minister confirming further consultation on the Embryo Protection (Amendment) Bill. The Bill’s complex themes require in-depth, honest and inclusive consultation to ensure their appropriate exploration and understanding. We also welcome the removal of the existing discriminatory ban on access to medically assisted procreation by same-sex couples.

It is also positively noted that the Bill endorses our call for the decriminalisation of egg and sperm donation, as we feel that the present law constitutes an unjust interference of a person’s rights to physical integrity. However, we feel that Bill cannot be adopted in its present form as it raises extremely serious human rights concerns that cannot be dismissed.

Contrary to statements made in Parliament, our earlier call for the removal of the present law’s illegal discriminatory treatment of same sex couples is really not about the assertation of the right to have children. Whilst Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights requires States to permit, encourage and support the foundation of families, there is no clearly stated duty of the State to provide medically assisted procreation services.

However, the primary duty of States not to discriminate between persons on the basis of their sexual orientation effectively means that, once a State is offering or regulating such a service, this offering or regulation cannot be done in a manner that creates or tolerates any form of prohibited discrimination. The present legislation is tantamount to a law stating that homosexual persons are prohibited from using public transport and is, as such, a blatant violation of Malta’s Constitutional protection against discrimination.

We are not convinced that the sensitive context within which these decisions will be taken, with extremely high levels of anxiety and stress, are conducive to the provisions of a truly free and informed consent.

As such, we feel that is violates the parents’ right to found a family, the right to privacy and could also – in specific circumstances – amount to inhuman and degrading treatment.

We are also extremely concerned at the procedure whereby embryos could, under specific circumstances, be ‘donated’ or ‘adopted’. Together with the complex ethical and social issues such a procedure involves we feel that the proposed procedure could be tantamount to a forced adoption. We are not convinced that the sensitive context within which these decisions will be taken, with extremely high levels of anxiety and stress, are conducive to the provisions of a truly free and informed consent.

As such, we feel that is violates the parents’ right to found a family, the right to privacy and could also – in specific circumstances – amount to inhuman and degrading treatment. In this regard, we also underline that the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) establishes “the right for women to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children…” (Article 16(1)(e)).

We also question the suitability of the Embryo Protection Authority in assessing whether prospective adoptive parents are ‘suitable’ or ‘eligible’ for adopting an embryo, as also the nature of this ‘adoption’ or ‘donation’ procedure itself. Adoption of children is a strictly regulated regime that seeks to ensure – at all stages – the best interests of the child. Adoption legislation stipulates eligibility criteria, assessment procedures, and monitoring requirements, and all adoption procedures are conducted by specialised entities that seek to ensure the highest possible standards of care and protection of children.

We are not convinced that the Embryo Protection Authority and the related Protocol – as yet unpublished – are able to guarantee the best interests of the adopted embryos.

Yet our experiences with vulnerable and marginalised women – including women living in poverty, women involved in prostitution, migrant women and transgender women – requires us to adopt and advocate for an extremely cautious approach.

In relation to gestation by substitution (‘surrogacy’), we reiterate our serious concern that the ethical and social dimension of this procedure have barely been touched upon in the present consultation. In principle, we believe that this could be a legitimate pathway to parenthood for several couples, and we also endorse a legislative and policy that acknowledges a woman’s physical and psychological autonomy. Yet our experiences with vulnerable and marginalised women – including women living in poverty, women involved in prostitution, migrant women and transgender women – requires us to adopt and advocate for an extremely cautious approach.

Furthermore, instead of presenting its views, procedures and guarantees in relation to gestation by substitution, the Bill abdicates this responsibility to Ministerial regulations. Despite the Minister’s recent assurances that these regulations will be publicly available for discussion and commentary, we stress that issues of such human, social and national importance should be regulated in the most formal and transparent manner, whereby future amendments would also require public and Parliamentary scrutiny.

On a more general note, several provisions in the Bill lack clarity as to their meaning, implications and future regulation (in view of the unpublished Protocol and Regulations). It is impossible for the nation to endorse such an important law if it is unable to understand it’s most important provisions.

In view of the above considerations, we urge the Minister of Health to immediately halt the legislative process and opt for a slower and more inclusive consultation process. Specifically, we urge the Minister to organise or facilitate the organisation of public discussions and stakeholder meetings on specific aspects of the proposed legislation.

The dignity and rights of prospective parents and future children deserve the highest form of legislative and social protection, and these can only be achieved if civil society organisations, medical practitioners, academics, and parliamentarians carefully examine the relevant themes.

V18 Artistic Director must go.

In a society supposedly promoting equality, dignity and respect for fundamental human rights it is unacceptable that women are labelled ‘sorry bitches’.

Recent public comments made by V18 Artistic Director Mario Philip Azzopardi fly in the face of Malta’s efforts at improving the way it treats all members of its society, particularly women.

Mr. Azzopardi’s disgusting insults might be his chosen method of expressing himself, yet they offend the laws, policies and values that secure the protection of all persons from vulgar insults intended to bully and intimidate.

His disgusting language cannot be defended by a government that has just adopted legislation protecting all persons from gender-based violence. He must go.

How would the government had reacted had Mr. Azzopardi called a gay man “sorry pufta” or a migrant “sorry nigger”?

aditus foundation condemns this horrid language, and urges the relevant public authorities to also express disgust at what is, essentially, an expression of verbal violence by a man holding public against a women exercising her fundamental rights.

Anything short of an absolute condemnation amounts to endorsement. He must go.

We endorse the position paper on sexual and reproductive health and rights

aditus foundation welcomes the position paper Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights published by the Women’s Rights Foundation earlier this year.

The position paper adopts a rights-based approach to a topic that for too long has remained a national taboo, yet which continues to affect thousands of women, and men, in Malta.

Sexual and reproductive rights are fundamental human rights and, as such, merit to be respected, protected and fulfilled. The paper’s recommendations urge Malta to reflect on the status quo, with a viewing to engaging in an effective and inclusive reform process.

With human rights at the core of our activities, we fully endorse and support the recommendations made by the Women’s Rights Foundation, and look forward to participating in the forthcoming national discussion.

Rent Regulation for a Fairer Society

Press Conference 24 February 2018

A coalition of seventeen organisations working in different sectors, including aditus foundation, are today launching a document with a Proposal for Rent Regulation in Malta. Malta has almost no regulation in the rental market, and the law of the jungle currently applies. This is forcing many tenants to lead precarious lives, with only temporary roofs over their head and no place to call home.

There is a pressing need for rules in the rental market in order to establish some fairness and to create more stability. Thus, we applaud the Parliamentary Secretariat for Social Housing for working on a White Paper about regulation in this sector, to be published shortly, and look forward to contributing to the consultation process.

The Proposal for Rent Regulation in Malta is based on the recognition that people have a fundamental human right to adequate housing.

Skyrocketing rent prices over the last few years are hitting vulnerable groups the hardest, such as pensioners and low-income groups. Tenants regularly paying their rent are finding themselves forced out of their homes due to overnight exorbitant increases in the rent price requested, or having to use the largest part of their wage/pension for rent payment.

This reality is also increasingly affecting other groups, such as the youth, some of whom have no other option but to live in rented places due to unaffordable property prices.

As property prices continue their steep rise, the number of Maltese people living in rented places is destined to increase at a fast pace and, in a few years, it will not be uncommon for Maltese people to live in rented places. The introduction of effective rent regulation at this juncture is essential to ensure that the rental market is not driven exclusively by the urge for quick profits, without any consideration to the impact on individuals, society and the economy, but is sufficiently regulated for the benefit of all.

We believe that landlords will benefit too from a regulatory framework since this will increase clarity and peace of mind. Rent regulation will not stop landlords from making profits out of rented property.

The rent regulation model in this document has been developed by looking at rent regulation laws in other European countries. In fact, Malta is one of the very few EU countries where there is no effective rent regulation in place. The type of rent regulation present in European countries ranges from controls on initial prices (present in countries such as the Netherlands, Austria, Denmark, Sweden and France) to regulating contract length and rent-price increases (present in countries such as Belgium and Germany).

It is to be underlined that the model in our proposal has no relation to pre-1995 rent legislation that existed in our country. The model we are proposing here would not impose any tenant-landlord relationship, other than that established in contracts that have the agreement of both in the context of clear and fair rules.

The main points of our proposal are:

  • A tax regime that incentivises long-lets through lower tax rates for longer leases
  • The creation of a state registry of properties on the rental market as well as the establishment of a public entity responsible for rent regulation
  • The registration of properties that are up for rent, where the first price set in the first contract will be considered as the ‘initial price’
  • The possibility for landlords to increase rent-prices yearly during the duration of a contract by a percentage that does not exceed the cost-of-living-increase percentage. Once a contract expires, the landlord is allowed to draw-up a new contract with the same, or a different, tenant. In either case, the price set in the new contract cannot be higher than 10% of the last monthly rent paid under the previous contract. Besides the 10% limit, the price set in any new contract cannot be more than 25% higher than it was five years earlier. This is to avoid having landlords entering into short-term contracts in the knowledge that following each contract, they would be able to increase the rent by 10%
  • The establishment of a Rent Price Index that lists prices in 1) different areas and 2) for different classes of property according to their size and quality. Landlords would input in the state registry specifications pertinent to their property. An initial price should not exceed 10% of the price listed for that particular category within the Rent Price Index. This would prevent abuse (such as setting unrealistically high initial prices) whilst giving landowners ample leeway in setting initial prices, since the Rent Price Index would in itself reflect market prices, and the initial price can even be 10% higher
  • A system for the termination of contracts similar to that outlined in employment law
  • Provisions for clear rules on deposited money, payment of utility bills and upkeep of property
  • Protection for persons on existing lease agreements
  • The regulation of Agencies and a legal standing to a Tenants’ Union
  • A tax on empty rentable property that disincentivizes rent on the black market and increases the amount of properties for rent.

Rent regulation, which is the focus of our proposal, should only constitute one dimension of a strategy on affordable housing. Our country still lacks a comprehensive Housing Policy that aims to ensure the availability of affordable housing, including both affordable properties and affordable rent prices.

Affordable housing depends also on other factors, such as the availability of social housing and the overall strategy with regards to property and construction. Thus, it is being suggested that rent regulation is placed within a broader National Action Plan on property and affordable housing.

The following organisations are putting forward the Proposal for Rent Regulation in Malta:

Moviment Graffitti, Alleanza Kontra il-Faqar, Forum Komunita’ Bormliża, Malta Tenant Support, Malta Humanists Association, The Millennium Chapel, Żminijietna – Voice of the Left, aditus foundation, Malta Gay Rights Movement, The Critical Institute, Spark 15, Mid-Dlam għad-Dawl, Women’s Rights Foundation, African Media Association Malta, Koperattiva Kummerċ Ġust, Integra Foundation and Third World Group Malta.

Inciting hostility against members of a particular faith cannot be accepted as legitimate!

We, the undersigned non-governmental organisations, are gravely concerned by the decision of the Magistrate’s Court in the case against Brandon Bartolo. We feel it gives a message that it is not only an acceptable, but also a legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of expression, to express strong anti-Muslim sentiments and to state that members of this religious faith have no place in Malta.

We are also deeply upset that comments made by the Magistrate in delivering judgement, as reported in the local media, were irrelevant, populist and also factually incorrect. In expressing those views, the Magistrate essentially condoned anti-migrant sentiment instead of upholding the human rights values our Courts of Laws are intended to promote.

Bartolo had written “Tmur tihdu fox kemm anda … awnhekk edin pajjizna .. ahna religjon wihed biss … huma guests iridu jimxu al ligijiet tagna … ma jogobomx??

Fuck off back to your country!”

It is extremely worrying that one of the highest authorities in the country condones the use of such hostile and denigrating language against anyone, particularly when it is because of a personal identity characteristic such as religion, sexual orientation, gender, disability or their race.

Condoning such behaviour risks undermining not only the rights of members of the group directly targeted, but also the right of each and every one of us to be treated with respect, regardless of who we are or what we believe in.

While it is true that the law protects the right to freedom of expression and, to some extent, the right to offend, this freedom is by no means absolute. In fact, the European Convention on Human Rights specifically states that the Convention should not be interpreted as allowing anyone, be it the government or an individual, to behave in a way aimed at the destruction of the rights and freedoms laid down in the Convention.

In a case similar to the present one (Norwood v. The United Kingdom), the Court said that “a general, vehement attack against a religious group…is incompatible with the values proclaimed and guaranteed by the Convention, notably tolerance, social peace and non-discrimination”.

Statements which clearly incite hostility against members of a particular faith, and violate the prohibition on discrimination and the right to freedom of conscience and religion, cannot and should not be accepted as legitimate in a democratic society founded on respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Such tirades do not only damage, annoy and offend the individual concerned, they also run counter to and undermine the values on which we claim our society is based.

This statement is issued by:

aditus foundation, The Critical Institute, Drachma LGBTI, Drachma Parents Group, Integra Foundation, International Association for Refugees , Jesuit Refugee Service (Malta), KOPIN, Malta LGBTIQ Rights Movement (MGRM), Migrant Women Association Malta, National Foster Care Association, Platform of Human Rights Organisations in Malta (PHROM), SOS Malta, Troup 18:45, Women’s Rights Foundation.