MHA troubled by discrimination against atheists

In light of television presenter Lou Bondi’s claim that he is an atheist, the Malta Humanist Association (MHA) said that certain reactions to his declaration were of concern. Reactions included the view that people were “shocked” by Bondi’s statement and that “something should be done” about it.

“There is nothing at all unusual about an individual coming to the conclusion that God does not exist. On the contrary, this is a perfectly rational conclusion to reach, and atheism is today an opinion shared by countless ordinary and respectable people all over the world,” the MHA said in a press release this afternoon.

The MHA said that expressing shock at such a statement was outdated because it is not a new concept but the association was more concerned by the suggestion of ‘action’ to be taken against atheists which would imply “active prejudice on religious grounds. Matters were worsened by the fact that a judge was asked to rule on Bondi’s prior statements, made under oath during a libel suit.

According to the MHA, it was implied that his testimony was less reliable since Bondi does not believe in any deity. The lawyer who made the request for ruling, Toni Abela also suggested that Bondi’s declaration of atheism may even have invalidated his earlier testimony, as he had sworn to tell the truth by kissing a crucifix.

“It bears pointing out that the same Abela is also deputy leader of the Labour Party. As such, one hopes his approach in this case does not constitute a foretaste of what is to come in the imminent election campaign,” the MHA said.

The MHA consider the situation worrying because sworn statements made by people are called into question based entirely on their lack of faith in God and could be compared to discrimination of a person’s testimony simply because he or she is Muslim or a Jew. It is believed by the MHA that the difference between religious believe and the values commonly associated with religion should be distinguished.

“Such values are for the most part universal, and are therefore unrelated to any one religion. For instance: ‘belief in God’ is not in itself a value – but tolerance towards others, irrespective of faith, gender, race, sexual orientation, etc., most certainly is,” the MHA said.

The MHA was also informed of a number of cases in which lawyers had highlighted the fact that witnesses were declared atheists in order to influence the court’s opinion against them especially during child custody battles in separation cases.

“If our law-courts are to guarantee justice equally to all, this sort of undisguised prejudice can no longer be accepted in the court room. Otherwise, we would be forced to regrettably conclude that Malta’s justice system is weighted in favour of one category of person, and against another,” argued the MHA.

Bondi’s case also illustrates a grey area with regard to oath-taking in court causing debate as to whether witnesses are given an adequate choice when it comes to taking their oath since many assume witnesses would be to swear on a crucifix.

“Indeed this is often the only option they are physically presented with, thus forcing all those unwilling to swear on religious icons to ask for an alternative themselves – something many witnesses will be reluctant to do, owing to justifiable concerns that this initiative may affect the eventual outcome of their case,” said the MHA.

The MHA said that this is unfair and discriminatory, as it places atheists in the awkward position of having to make a public statement of their atheism each time they testify in court.

However, they believe the problem can very easily be solved, if the law courts assumed a policy of presenting all witnesses with a choice to take their oath on a religious symbol, or make a solemn declaration without being forced to ‘conscientiously object’ every time.

“Similar tactics have been employed in the past, including attacks on former Prime Minister Alfred Sant, when he refused to take his oath of office on a crucifix in 1996. In all such cases, we must firmly and categorically insist that all political parties, and other comparable institutions, cease to behave in a discriminatory and prejudicial manner towards people whose beliefs are different from their own,” the MHA said.