Hitting out at Manché to woo hunters

People like Gordon-John Manché are dangerous because they have the audacity to think that God is always on their side, even when they are promoting an agenda of hate.

This breed of people has been exported directly from the US Bible belt, and is perseverant in promoting its own personal crusades. In countries like Uganda, they created a kind of hysteria that has also led to repressive anti-gay laws.

Fortunately in Malta, homophobia is on the retreat and although a majority is against gay adoptions, only 26% are opposed to the introduction of civil unions.

Unfortunately, in their attempt to score points with the hunters’ lobby, some Labour MEP candidates are trying to lump all minorities in the same basket.

Cyrus Engerer, who wants to stop an abrogative referendum demanded by 45,000 signatories according to a provision of the law, to repeal derogations from an EU ban on spring hunting, immediately issued a statement against any future referendum on the civil union bills.

Incumbent Labour MEP Marlene Mizzi argued that petitions “are a threat to minorities”, including the gay community.

But what exactly constitutes a minority?

While gays have been on the receiving end of discrimination, hunters have been dictating their agenda through political blackmail. Using Engerer’s own definition of minorities, any category negatively affected by a legislative proposal can depict itself as an aggrieved minority.

Using Engerer’s twisted logic… if cock fighting had been legal in Malta, a referendum seeking its abolition would amount to an attack on the rights of all minorities.

Where I agree with him that any referendum seeking to abrogate newly acquired civil rights is certainly undesirable – and I would join Engerer in persuading voters not to sign any such petition – Engerer’s argument on this point is very shaky.

Contrary to perceptions, in Italy where the referendum instrument is associated with Marco Pannella and his merry band of radicals, it was the Catholic right-wing that used the instrument to push for a referendum on divorce and another one on abortion. Both attempts at reverse laws that had been approved in parliament were reversed only thanks to the tireless campaigning of people like Emma Bonino.

I personally doubt whether Manché can find 35,000 signatures (US signatures excluded) for a referendum in a country which is clearly not in the mood for a religious crusade (not after divorce).

But neither can we change our referendum law to stop Manché from potentially calling for a referendum.

Moreover our referendum law expressly prevents any referendum which impinges on Malta’s international human rights obligations. So to the great disappointment of the anti-immigrant brigade, there can never be any referendum about pushbacks.

Moreover, one cannot propose any law or even choose the referendum question. One can only simply remove a law – that is why it’s called abrogative – so that parliament enacts a new one.

I personally have my doubts on a democracy which substitutes plebiscites for parliamentary debate, but in the case of hunting we have a clear case of the people acting on their steam because the PN and PL are held hostage by an arrogant lobby.

Our Referendum Act is meant to limit the use of the referendum instrument, to the very extent that we have not seen one single referendum since it was introduced 20 years ago.

It would be a democratic setback if, in order to block or discredit a referendum on hunting, some politicians use Manché as an excuse to tinker with the Referendum Act as enshrined in Maltese law.