Tossing a coin on conscience
Published:
June 5, 2011 at 2:14pm
A PN parliamentary group meeting decides who gets to use his conscience and who does not
An ace contradiction – the prime minister on Radio 101 this morning:
While the will of the people should be respected, the representatives of the people should be left at liberty to vote as they please.
So what happens if it pleases the representatives of the people to vote against the will of the people?
But they won’t, because we have the prime minister’s reassurance that the bill will become law. Presumably, if it is the will of MPs to vote No, they will draw lots to see who is going to be persuaded to change his mind.
What a farce.
31 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
The big issue that I see in the above, in the divorce thing, and with practically a lot of issues that have been happening within this party in the past couple of years, compared to what used to happen pre-Gonzi, is that the ‘leader’ cannot rally the troops in the same direction, cannot filter down ideas across the board, cannot manage to get everyone within his team to speak the same language.
I think that this is not the hallmark of an excellent leader and it seems that unfortunately the same issue has manifested itself one time too many now.
Here’s another one who is tossing a coin on conscience
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110608/opinion/The-salary-hikes-comedy-of-errors-.369461
“Dr Fenech Adami had said: “I’m against having a law on divorce, but if I’m in an institutional position, such as that of the President, you naturally have to respect the people’s mandate, except if it’s a serious matter of values.”
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110605/local/President-mum-on-divorce-Bill.369039
Eddie Fenech Adami has said divorce is morally wrong. I have been told that he has three annulments in his household; now, that’s what I call immoral.
Logic is always the first casualty when anyone argues from dogma, and Catholic dogma is the most intransigent of all.
The government strategists were over-confident, prior to the referendum, that with their expert spinners and the support of the Catholic Church, a No vote was virtually guaranteed.
When the contrary happened they found themselves without a plan B, if a plan B was at all possible in the circumstances.
I have no doubt that never in the field of divorce legislation was so much bungled by so few. Their place in history is indeed assured.
When I read the result of polls last Sunday I let out a shout of relief. At long last we have started the way to be a secular state not a vassal of the Vatican.
But these last few days have been an eyeopener.
If the PN persists in looking only through religious spectacles I’ll be tempted not to vote in the next election. If Dr. Gonzi cannot reconcile the fact that the state and the church are two separate bodies, I think it’s time to move him on and let somebody else lead the party to the next election.
Initially I thought ‘what the heck – as long as the bill passes who cares how they vote’.
However, with the passage of a little time it became obvious that the right thing to do, having passed the buck to the electorate to take a decision the parliament should have taken, then they have no issue but to vote in favour of the legislation.
It is no longer a vote for the divorce bill but rather a vote to enact the will of the people.
They are two vastly different votes in my eyes, and although voting Yes in favour is the only honourable thing to do, I would concede an abstention from the vote – short of resigning from parliament – if the burden of voting in favour is too heavy for them.
The decision was passed to the people. The people spoke. Now all you need do is enact what that decision, no more no less.
This is NOT about their conscience any more. It stopped being about conscience the minute they took the cowardly decision to let me and you decide.
That was my very first reaction too. As long as the Divorce Bill is enacted, it was going to be fine by me.
But now, understandably, I’m demanding my pound of flesh.
MPs, when opting for a referendum, abdicated their responsibilities.
Now I want to see them squirm, contort and suffer.
It’s a huge contradiction which I don’t understand. My way of thinking would say: am I going to do something, or not?
It’s that bloody easy.
I hope that all this justified fuss, including mine, will only be to make a ‘tidwir mal-lewza’ look nice with the (dying) conservative-PN-village-core-vote. If not, we’re in deep trouble.
They’ve already decided who is going to vote Yes. An interesting pattern is emerging, one PN MP from every district will be voting Yes. Come next election Yes voters would vote for PN MP who voted Yes now, and NO voters would vote for the rest. It’s a win win situation for the PN. PL were not so clever.
Grace, I doubt very much that, in two years’ time, most people will remember who voted how. Unless they are reminded, of course.
Oh I’ll remember, I’m taking note. Only because I consider those who vote No will be ignoring the will of the electorate.
There’s always the internet for reminding people of the democratic credentials of MPs.
Wrong, Antoine. I shall be posting leaflets in all houses in Swieqi with the names of PN member of parliament who either abstain or vote no. Hopefully Mario Demarco shall contest the 9th district.
@antoine vella
Oh how wrong you are, surely not on my district – the 9th. Should I overcome my anger over their dillydallying and get myself to vote come the next general election, I will not give even my No. 10 preference to those who voted No. If need be I will only give one preference and stop at that.
I am a Nationalist Party supporter – liberal in my beliefs but with utmost respect to the conservative majority within the party.
I am very disappointed that instead of turning the referendum result into a good opportunity to consolidate its broad church of liberals and conservatives, the PN is treading on some very dangerous ground.
I honestly can’t believe that PN MPs, (the prime minister included) are seriously contemplating going against the will of the people. This is not the PN I know.
It’s time for liberal-minded PN supporters to speak out. I know many liberal-minded PN activists including staff at Dar Centrali who occupy high positions within the party. They have to speak.
We simply cannot hand this country to Joseph Muscat. Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi is a sensible man who did a splendid job these past three years – it would really be a pity if he gets this wrong because if he does, Muscat will be PM very, very soon.
“So what happens if it pleases the representatives of the people to vote against the will of the people?”
Nothing. Nothing happened in New Zealand when parliament voted against the will of the people.
Dr. Eddie Fenech Adami wrote the following in the Times today: “I have always maintained that moral issues should not be decided on the principle of democratic majorities but, rather, on the principle of what is morally right.
As a Christian I believe, on the authority of none other than Jeses Christ, the Son of God, that divorce is morally wrong and therefore wrong for society.
Should one change this view because a democratic majority decides otherwise? Definitely not.
……….This will put to the test each member’s credibility on moral issues that will leave a permanent effect on the well-being of society.”
Furthermore, Margaret Thatcher said during the eec debate in 1975 that if the referendum will go against the wishes of the Labour Government, the Cabinet will have to resign. No where did she or any member in the House of Commons even contemplate voting contrary to how they would have voted in a referendum. She also argues in detail against holding a referendum in that particular case. She also quotes Dicey – an authority on constitutional law.This is the House of Commons – the mother of all democracies.
Margaret Thatcher went on to win 3 elections and Dr. Eddie Fenech Adami won 4, not to say 5.
37 MPs have already declared their intention to vote for the divorce legislation. The legislation needs 35 votes to be passed. Ten have indicated that they will vote no or abstain. The rest have not declared their intentions.
http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=126664
The legislation will be enacted whilst allowing MPs to reach their own conclusion on how to vote taking into account both the result of the referendum as well as their own views on divorce.
One could speculate as to what PN would have done if there was no such clear majority; toss a coin, draw lots or whatever. There is, however, no need for speculation because there will be a clear majority for divorce in Parliament.
In all the cacophony of post-referendum opinions and counter-opinions, here is one article which, in my opinion, is the most sensible.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110603/blogs/secularist-shylocks-on-the-rampage.368754
[Daphne – Nice one, Fr Joe! Using an anti-Semitism insult against ‘secularists’. Neither you nor he can possibly be serious.]
From being a lapsed frequent commentator on his blog I can inform you it’s his favourite mode of discourse. Claim secularism as being the great evil and secularists as champions of immorality and anti-religiosity, then when people point out what secularism really is, claim that the colloquial use of secularism (= what the Vatican calls secularism) is to be critical of religion, while in reality it’s simply the wall of separation between Church and State (and yes, it’s a two way street).
As he tried to clarify:
“There is a difference between secularisation and secularism. The former reflects the autonomy (legitimate) between the secular and the sacred. This is positive. Secularism generally is understood to include a negative attitude towards the sacred and the religious. this is why secularism, understood in this way, is condemned by the Church.”
I can’t understand how a well respected lecturer, educator and commentator feels free to simply change the meaning of words to fit his agenda.
This is why it’s nonsensical to call the Russia of Stalin and the China of Mao secular. They were atheists, true. But they were in no way secular. The problem is that the Church have taken to task to attack secularism whenever it gets the chance. Fr. Joe is no exception.
Actually I am serious. This unnecessary controversy raises many questions which have been well-articulated by Fr. Joe as follows:
“Then an artificial controversy was fomented. MPs were bombarded to proclaim how they are going to vote. Can anyone explain to me why those on the “Yes” side are not happy with the assurance of the political leaders that divorce will be legislated by Parliament but also want (issa hi u malajr, tafx) to know how each MP is going to vote? ……… …. Is this another outburst of “tolerance” from their side? Or is this just another instance of bullying, another in a long series indulged in during the referendum campaign? ……. Why all this anger not to say abuse directed towards those MPs who feel bound in their conscience to vote no or to abstain? ……. Had there been a 0.1% of a doubt that divorce legislation will not be approved by Parliament one could understand the chorus of indignation that is being roused….. . But why this entire hullabaloo though they have been assured that they will be given what they want? Why has the “Yes” lobby put aside the road towards national healing and reconciliation and have embarked on a strategy that will only create more friction and division?”
What we need now is national healing and reconciliation.
It is time to move on. It is time to let the MPs get on with their job and enact the divorce legislation. It is time for our politicians to focus on the many challenges that face our economy and our society.
[Daphne – You and Fr Joe, possibly because you both voted No, are content to be fobbed off with the assurance that the bill will be carried come what may. But the rest of us are interested in the how and why of the process, and we are not going to ‘move on’ just because it suits those who voted No and who still wish to vote No – for the second time – in parliament. Yours and Fr Joe’s view is consistent with the paternalistic/authoritarian approach which probably made you vote No in the first place: let the grown-ups decide and run off and play.]
Here’s another one who thinks it’s time to move on and he voted yes.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110605/blogs/happening-again.368901
[Daphne – I tend to agree with this comment posted beneath the article in question:
“Mr Chris Gatt
Jun 5th, 20:42
Sorry Bocca can’t agree with you on this one ( and not for the first time I may add! :)).
This is a classic case of the Nationalist Party losing the plot and shooting itself in the foot.
First the PM does the right thing and rushed to TV to admit the yeas have it. It was obviously a prepared speech and not off the cuff, so why, oh why, did he think it appropriate to add the weasel words: ‘I do not agree with this law, but I will make sure that there are enough votes to see it through”, or words to that effect?
From then on in the rot set in. The media immediately smelt a story and went for blood. They pounced on very MP they could find to ask them (legitimately) how they would vote .Speculation was riot. And so what should have been a private debate within the party becomes a public spectacle of a party tying itself up in knots.
If the PM had merely said the people had spoken , we will now legislate. That would have been an end to it. The vote would have been carried without too much hassle. Now both the yeas and the nays will be ticking off which MP voted how.
But this has really been a fascinating example of how not to things right from the start. It was fascinating to see how the PM (surrounded by a gaggle of self-righteous ‘yes men) let his judgement be clouded by emotion and choose the wrong option at every step of the way. Including now. Truly a case of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!!”]
Incidentally, a certain JoeM posted a comment earlier and said that he wants his ‘pound of flesh’. He also wants to see MPs ‘squirm, contort and suffer. ’ So is this what it is all about?
“What we need now is national healing and reconciliation.” Errr hello It’s not South Africa post apartheid, the “Yes” vote won. Now just implement it.
I’m not at all surprised, Daphne. Fr Joe’s prejudice against secularists is chronic.
Say what you will about that Fr Joe, but he’s one snappy dresser, with an admirable cut of jib on his pinstripe.
I have been following this farce for the last few months. I am shocked that Maltese politicians have been treating this issue with such hypocritical statements and immature posturing.
Rather than facing a crisis of conscience, irrespective of how surreal that sounds, in reality they’re facing a crisis of leadership. The PM is not sure of his role. Every time he speaks, I cringe.
Lately, all his statements have included mention of something religious or defence of the Roman Catholic Church. The Curia has its own PRO and can and should defend itself.
The PM is the leader of the ‘secular executive power’ and of a political party. The latter roles seem to have evaporated as of late.
On the other hand, we have this clown and spoilt brat as an alternative prime minister. The less said about him the better.
Judging by his one or two positions during the last three years, he is definitely not up to it and has already proved that he is no leader. Whatever he has achieved so far is only due to the self-inflicted gaffes of this administration and has only attracted people with enormous grudges against the PN.
Muscat has done nothing in his career except for clutching onto other people’s coat-tails, most notably Alfred Sant’s.
He can inflict real damage on Malta once he becomes prime minister, but at that point it would be too late.
“Muscat has done nothing in his career except for clutching onto other people’s coat-tails, most notably Alfred Sant’s.”
Grossly uninformed or misinformed on the above and the rest of your mumblings.
Daphne, please allow me to enter a reminder to the MPs:
All MPs, please make sure you do not forget your conscience home on Saturday when you go to vote on your raise. Thank you.
Muscat is as phony as his suntan and that piece of brown turf on his numbskull.
Now don’t go and spoil it all by doing something stupid like voting NO
Dear PN Parliamentary Group,
Later on this morning you will meet to discuss next Saturday’s PL honoraria motion. Most probably the divorce legislation bill will also dominate the discussion.
As a liberal PN supporter I appeal to all of you, namely the Prime Minister, to be sensible and realize that if you persist in getting this wrong Malta will very soon go to the polls and Joseph Muscat will become Malta’s next Prime Minister. We can’t hand this country to Muscat. He is not prepared – he simply doesn’t have it. But am afraid that as things stand this will happen very soon.
So please dear PN MPs do be sensible and stop engaging in short-lived games.
Dear JPO next Saturday it would be suicidal for you to vote in favour of the PL motion – you are right now on a high and for the first time since the general election I’m not disappointed that I voted for you. Thanks to you and the likes of Deborah Schembri this country finally joined the rest of the civilized world. So please JPO don’t go and spoil it all by doing something stupid like voting with the Opposition.
Dear Prime Minister, you did a fantastic job at the helm, managing to weather the economic storm successfully. Really and truly you proved to be a safe pair of hands.
But now, please, don’t go and spoil it all by doing something stupid (read suicidal) by voting NO or Abstaining on the Divorce Legislation Bill. The will of the people has to be respected and no it’s not enough to guarantee that the bill will go through with or without your vote. Of course, the bill will go through but then if you vote NO or abstain that would surely not be thanks to your vote. Because, if all MPs had to use your same logic the Bill would not go through. Thankfully there are some sensible MPs who despite voting NO in the referendum have now declared that they will vote yes to respect the will of the people.
The likes of Austin Gatt have nothing to lose. He can afford to be bullish and vote no. Come 2013 people will not hold him or (Eddie Fenech Adami) accountable but they will surely hold you. The buck stops with you Dr. Gonzi. You get this wrong and this country is doomed. You vote no and liberal minded people like me who have always voted PN will desert our party in droves.
The people have spoken loud and clear – now go to Parliament and say that you as the humble servant of the people will see that their decision is respected. You have to set the example – by voting yes. You have no choice.
It would be catastrophic if you, dear PM, had to vote NO. That would surely be the end of the Nationalist Party as we know it – the end of a broad church that has always been the Nationalist Party – the one and only home to thousands of liberal minded people like me.
Mark
‘Conscience and cowardice are really the same things. Concience is the trade-name of the firm. That is all’ – Oscar Wilde
At this moment, all it needs is a Brutus.