Tag Archives: Freedom

A fundamental freedom

Recently, a Dutch women’s abortion rights group, Women On Waves, organised an inspired publicity stunt to highlight the difficulties that women living in certain European countries face when trying to obtain an abortion.

The stunt, reported in the news links below, entailed flying 2 boxes of medical abortion tablets over the border from Germany to Poland using a miniature drone, so that 2 Polish women could get the abortion that they needed. Obtaining an abortion in Poland is only permitted under certain specific, extreme, circumstances and it is believed that there are a significant number of illegal back-street abortions carried out in Poland each year, with all the risks and hazards that this presents to the women concerned.

The drone operation was a complete success, in that the Polish women were able to take the tablets, and awareness of the issue was undoubtedly raised from all the media coverage.

Some of the women responsible for flying the drone were apparently arrested though the exact charges have not been revealed at the time of writing. I’m at a loss to understand what possible crime could have been committed, since both Germany and Poland are in the Schengen open border zone and the tablets were apparently prescribed by a doctor before being flown across the border.

Church-led Discrimination

This action highlights the inequality and discrimination that exists across Europe, where in some countries abortion is available on demand, and in others it is almost unavailable (e.g. Poland) or completely unavailable (e.g. Malta). I’m focussing on Europe because that’s where my main residence is.

It may not need saying, but of course the unavailability of abortion correlates almost exactly to the relative strength of the catholic church in those countries.

Yes or No

Regular readers will know that I tend to see things in black and white, and it seems to me that either a woman has the right to control what is happening in her own body, or she doesn’t.

If she doesn’t, then we may as well deny her the vote, the right to equal pay, the right to contraception, and the right to press criminal charges for rape, because equality just went out of the window.

If she does, which seems to me to be the more civilised option, then she should have the right to abort an unwanted pregnancy on demand. There should be no need for her to give a reason, just as there should be no need for me to give a reason for wanting a vasectomy, for example. I’m willing to accept practical limits (for example, only before the foetus, if born prematurely, would be certain to live) as long as the woman is given ample time to make her decision.

To me, the arguments are as simple as that. I don’t subscribe to the ‘life begins at conception’ argument – it seems self-evident that sentience and self awareness can’t exist in the early stages of a pregnancy, and furthermore I am of the opinion that the value of something that already exists (the mother) trumps the value of something which may or may not come to exist (the potential child).

I also don’t subscribe to the “only in case of rape” or “only if the woman’s life is in danger” arguments. If a woman has full rights over her own body, as I believe she should, then such arguments are completely superfluous.

Like I said, black and white.

Ports in a Storm

So if a woman in Poland, or Malta, or Ireland, or anywhere else in Europe that abortion is illegal or unfairly restricted, decides that getting an abortion is the right thing for her to do, what can she do?

At the moment it looks like she has two options.

Firstly, she could travel to a country where abortion is available on demand. Right now that means The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden or Switzerland. Currently Sweden has the most liberal laws, with abortion being available on demand up to 18 weeks into pregnancy, including for women who do not live in Sweden.

Secondly, she could apply online for a medical abortion kit from the Women On Web website. This kit consists of a number of pills and may be used up to around 12 weeks into pregnancy. I would assume the kits are sent out in plain wrapping! The website asks that the woman completes an online questionnaire and makes a donation towards costs, but that’s all.

Useful resources

Share Button

Freedom of expression in Malta, part 2

The ugly truth about censorship in Malta has been thrown into the spotlight again, as noted by this article from the Times of Malta website:

PBS blacks out politician shoe-hurling satire

The bit that really interested me was not the fact that the TV show described in the article was censored, but the reason why. Here’s a quote from the article:

The Press Act says that whoever uses “defamatory, insulting or disparaging words, acts or gestures” in contempt of the President would be committing a criminal offence liable to a jail term of up to three months or a fine.

There are so many things wrong with laws like this, it’s hard to know where to begin.

First of all, is the president so thin-skinned that we all have to tiptoe around him? Aw, diddums, did the widdle pwesident get his feelings hurt? There there, Mummy will put the nasty man in jail…

Secondly, regimes that seek to prevent public criticism of them (because that’s what’s going on here) are usually only too aware that they have taken, or are likely to take, actions that justify, or at least are likely to cause, such criticism.

Thirdly, as noted in the article by a spokesperson from the Maltese Front Kontra ċ-Ċensura (Front Against Censorship), preventing freedom of expression in the form of political satire is actually unhealthy in a modern democracy, as it stops people from challenging sacred cows and the cult of personality (which is very strong in Malta).

Fourthly, a regime that prevents criticism of its president would probably be less hesitant to prevent all criticism of itself and its policies – the first step has been taken, after all. After that it’s a slippery slope to totalitarianism.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: freedom of expression must be absolute in order to be safeguarded without erosion.

Share Button

Freedom of expression in Malta

As I’ve said before, it doesn’t exist.

Let me explain…

A man who posted a comment on Facebook saying that the Pope should be shot in his hand, cheeks and in his side just as Christ was, was today condemned to a month in jail suspended for a year and fined €500.

Swieqi Man fined €500 for Facebook Comment, Times of Malta, 20 May 2010

This hapless guy posted a satirical comment in the Facebook Group NO to Pope Benedict XVI in Malta (LE għall-Papa Ratzinger f’Malta), and somehow a Maltese judge decided that not only is it illegal to make such a comment, but that Malta has jurisdiction over something said by a Maltese person on an American website.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: What the fuck?

Share Button

Serious setback for free speech

The Danish newspaper Politiken, which published those famous cartoons of Mohammed in 2006, has apologised for reprinting one of the best cartoons in 2008 (the one showing Mohammed with a bomb as a turban).

This is really disappointing, and sends a message to religious extremists of all kinds (but especially the three most violent ones – islam, christianity and judaism) that if they make threats when they feel offended, those offending them will give in.

Freedom of speech has to include the freedom to offend, otherwise it is not truly freedom. No-one has the right not to be offended – if they did, nothing would ever be achieved and the whole of society would be in a permanent stalemate.

So, for those of you who missed them first time around, and also just because I feel like it, here are those famous cartoons in all their glory. Click for the full sized version.

Share Button