A proposed human rights bill, promising to set up a new national human rights and equality commission, fell through in July, after failing to receive the required two-thirds parliamentary majority.
The bill, which has been in the works for several years, promised to revolutionise Malta’s equality legislation, introducing new mechanisms for discrimination to be tackled and establishing new bodies to deal with the issue.
Several professional bodies and associations had raised concerns over the bill in the days leading up to the vote, calling for broader consultation and pointing to concerns over how the bill would affect their respective sectors.
However, some of the public discussion on the bill in the weeks leading up to its parliamentary vote focused on one narrow issue: whether the bill would effectively ban the crucifix, and other Catholic iconography, from classrooms and public spaces.
What is this bill?
The bill has become one of parliament’s longest-standing agenda items, with the Labour government having attempted to push it through in fits and spurts at various points over the past decade.
The bill first appeared, in an embryonic stage, as a white paper back in 2014, under the watch of then-equality minister Helena Dalli.
By 2017, this had become a working draft, only for its progress to be halted by that year’s general election.
A bill, known as Bill 96, was eventually tabled in parliament in 2020, sparking objections from Catholic organisations and pro-life groups.
As the public debate surrounding the bill became increasingly polarised, it was quietly shelved, only to be revived in recent months.
The new bill’s broad aim remains to establish a national body for human rights and equality, in line with recent EU laws and UN guidelines on equality bodies.
However, the recent version of the bill has also faced complaints similar to those expressed in previous years, with objectors stressing that while they do not oppose the bill in principle, they are worried about its impact on their respective sectors.
Some healthcare professionals, in particular, questioned whether the bill would mean that they are unable to object to administering treatments to which they are morally opposed.
“Without appropriate safeguards, the bill could create legal uncertainty about whether healthcare professionals would continue to be protected for decisions made in good faith on professional or conscientious grounds,” the Chamber of Pharmacists told Times of Malta in reaction to the bill.
Previous versions of the equality bill had been dogged by similar calls for the inclusion of a conscientious objection clause, particularly from Church school parents, medical associations and pro-life groups.
Other associations raised an array of concerns, with business lobbies saying the bill would to business owners’ bureaucratic burden, introducing new layers of reporting related to recruitment, promotions, dismissals and training, many of which they say are already imposed through other laws.
Will the bill impact Church schools?
However, the debate has also been shaped by elements of misinformation that have long characterised discussions on equality legislation.
One commonly raised concern is over how such a bill would impact Church-run schools, which form a large segment of Malta’s education landscape.
Some questioned whether the bill would mean that Church schools are unable to recruit Catholic members of staff or offer their students teachings inspired by their Catholic faith.
However, Malta’s Church School Association itself laid rest to those fears, saying the new version of the bill is a marked improvement on that presented in 2020, with authorities having taken several of the concerns they raised during previous consultation sessions on board.
Stephen Cachia, coordinator of the Church Schools’ Association told Times of Malta that it welcomed the fact that the bill has taken on board EU legislation “which recognises the rights of faith-based organisations, including schools, in relation to employment for certain key roles where a genuine occupational requirement linked to the organisation’s religious ethos exists”.
However, schools remain concerned that these rights “have been included through subsidiary legislation rather than being incorporated directly into the Act itself”, effectively making them easier to repeal with just a simple parliamentary majority in the future, rather than a two-thirds approval.
Does it ban crucifixes from classrooms?
More prominently, the debate has been dominated by speculation on social media warning that the bill would mean that crucifixes would have to be removed from Church school classrooms upon the request of a Muslim student.
One widely-shared Facebook post claimed that the bill which “would allow the removal of the crucifix from classrooms” had fallen through after a parliamentary vote.
Another post warned that “a Church school will have to remove a crucifix from its classrooms if Muslim parents ask for it”.
Unsurprisingly, the claims sparked outrage in some circles, prompting angry reactions among several parents and Catholic organisations.
However, the text of the bill reveals that the claims are misleading.
A clause inserted in the current version of the bill specifically safeguards the practice of religious organisations and communities, going so far as to explicitly state that the display of religious imagery and symbols would not be impacted.
This clause was inserted after discussions with the Church, authorities say, as a way to allay fears that religious organisations’ operations could be affected.
Fact Check, Health, Politics, Society, Uncategorized
Copyright 2026 Times of Malta. All rights reserved.
