Is this our weekly Posie Parker thread amalgamating itself with the new regular "only trans activists will protect your right to termination" thread?
Thank you ambassador, you're spoiling us.
And also, sod off to whatever hole you dug yourself out of, because we have had years of trans activists gushing about how great Malta is. You didn't care about abortion access then, and let's not kid ourselves you care now. It's just a stick to beat women with, that you've found on the ground.
Less than a year ago, this was published in Prospect Magazine by a transwoman and lawyer, Robin Moira White.
Yes. The 2004 Gender Recognition Act (GRA) provides for a medically-based, panel-assessed gender recognition process. It is almost two decades old, and means that we are falling behind other liberal western democracies. Putting the process online and reducing the fee as the government has pledged to do are all very well—except that those on low incomes were already exempt. The UK process still requires expensive medical reports and extensive data-gathering. Malta, France and Ireland have self-declaration and make it work perfectly well.
Prospect Magazine
Bold is mine. As you see, the implication is that Malta is a "liberal western democracy" that we should model ourselves on. They have self-declaration for trans identities. Male people's word is good enough to entitle them to use women's spaces. However, a female person's word isn't good enough to entitle her to life-saving treatment. Let me explain why.
Malta has some of the strictest anti-abortion laws in the world and is the only country in the European Union to prohibit abortion entirely. Even the (lifesaving!) treatment of tube removal after an ectopic pregnancy (which constitutes an indirect abortion) is only allowed on a policy of case-by-case decisions.
Generous of them, hmm?
Apparently a "medically-based, panel-assessed" process in the UK is a human rights violation for legal documentation, but it is just fine when a woman's life is at stake.
There was some coverage in the press in 2020 about how that policy meant there was a delay of over two days (while they waited for authorisation) before the termination for one woman's ectopic pregnancy could be carried out. It's not like time could be of the essence or anything, is it? Not like fallopian tubes can rupture.
A Maltese doctors for life group defended the policy with the very convincing rebuttal that no pregnant woman in Malta had lost her life due to an ectopic pregnancy/tubal pregnancy for the past 10 years.
To that, I say,
i) that implies that one or more died before that timeframe, and;
ii) how many lost the tube due to rupture while waiting for the procedure?
iii) how many women had to suffer, both physically and emotionally, for an unnecessary period of time while waiting for authorisation to be given?
This is the text of the legislation.
Whosoever, by any food, drink, medicine, or by violence, or by any other means whatsoever, shall cause the miscarriage of any woman with child, whether the woman be consenting or not, shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term from 18 months to three years. [Bold mine]
The same punishment shall be awarded against any woman who shall procure her own miscarriage, or who shall have consented to the use of the means by which the miscarriage is procured. [Bold mine]
Any physician, surgeon, obstetrician, or apothecary, who shall have knowingly prescribed or administered the means whereby the miscarriage is procured, shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term from eighteen months to four years, and to perpetual interdiction from the exercise of his profession.
Yup, that's right. Women can go to prison for having a termination.
You can read more about Malta, pinnacle of human rights, here. Voice for Choice
I actually had the chance to make these points to the author, right here on mumsnet. My post must have been sadly missed, as I don't recall any response.
As late as June 21st this year, at a meeting of the Scottish Parliament Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, we heard yet more praise of Malta. The committee met to look at the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. You see, back on June 21st, trans-activists hadn't spotted the abortion stick as one they could beat women with. They picked it up off the ground, where they'd carelessly discarded all women's rights, three days later on June 24th, the day the Roe v Wade decision was officially released, making abortion access headline news . Up until then, they didn't give a hoot about abortion access!
A representative from MurrayBlackburnMackenzie was in attendance, and live-tweeting discussions.
Also present were Dr Sandra Duffy, Lecturer in Law at the University of Bristol, and Dr Peter Dunne, Senior Lecturer, University of Bristol School of Law.
Dr Sandra Duffy cites Malta's system for gender recognition, noting its "high standards for human rights". She states that there was "robust legislative debate" when the GRA was passed in Ireland in 2015.
twitter 1
Her colleague joined in...
"really good example is Malta" echoes Dr Peter Dunne.
Twitter 2
Neither law lecturer is interested in the kind of legislation that determine whether a woman may live or die, clearly. It's so irrelevant to them that they can publicly claim Malta has high standards for human rights.
Also, Malta held a referendum on whether divorce should be legalised in 2011. This was the question. Do you agree with the introduction of the option of divorce in the case of a married couple who has been separated or has been living apart for at least four (4) years, and where there is no reasonable hope for reconciliation between the spouses, whilst adequate maintenance is guaranteed and the children are protected?
48% of voters said no. It's a rather more conservative place than the UK as a whole, never mind our own AIBU forum, wouldn't you say?
But sure, Malta is a "liberal" country we should aspire to be more like.