Mahatma Gandhi is alive and well and sporting a ginger goatee
First it was Martin Luther King’s ‘I have a dream’. Now DoctorJosephMuscat is seeking inspiration in an admixture of Jesus Christ (turn the other cheek; the meek shall inherit the earth) and Mahatma Gandhi (peaceful resistance).
He wouldn’t comment on his rivals’ reaction to the MisterMartinSchulz debacle because “it would be cheap”. He is keen to emphasise that when he becomes leader, he will call on all four of them to give him their “24-hour” support. I imagine he will get little more than a reverse salute in return. He tells the newspapers repeatedly that he is ready and willing to work with everyone. And now here’s the latest: “If I am elected, I will strive to see the other four candidates in the heart of the party.”
So what about that MisterMartinSchulz thing, then? “Martin” – golly gosh, first-name basis with the Big Boys – “is a colleague and a friend. Every socialist is my friend.” Really? Only the champagne variety, I would imagine, and not the smelly chaps down at the Lola Bar near the docks.
Will the Labour Party split when he’s made leader? DoctorJosephMuscat doesn’t think so: “We will remain one team. No one will be asked to leave the party.” Oh baby. You never were one team, and it’s not likely that Your Leadership (a nice new way of addressing the MLP leader, though he might insist on Your Grace) is going to change that, rather than make it worse.
Get used to it, Joseph. They hate your guts. They think you’re unworthy and that you have been given an unfair advantage. And I must say, I agree with them.
Those who sit on the fence get a prong up their butt
DoctorJosephMuscat has mastered his mentor DoctorAlfredSant’s crafty little way of appearing to promise people what they want while making sure he doesn’t actually have to deliver the goods. DoctorAlfredSant as prime minister had a track record of doing this, which is why he wasn’t trusted in 1998, 2003, 2008 and all the years in between.
Now here comes the yapping lapdog to do the same, starting with the hoary question of divorce. DoctorAlfredSant, who had his marriage annulled by the Civil Court – the Maltese ‘divorce’, except that you all have to pretend there was no marriage to begin with, which makes a mockery of years of life together – hummed and hawed about this one. He said that it was not up to the government to push divorce, but up to ‘civil society’ to start a debate. For crying out loud, that debate has been going on for the last two decades at least. Before that, we had more pressing things to think about, like keeping body and soul together.
Not up to the government? Who in heaven’s name pushes legislation through parliament, if not the government? So there’s the modern DoctorAlfredSant fence-sat with the rest of them, having rid himself of his own marriage by the expedient means of having it declared non-existent in the first place. Perhaps he expects all those Maltese citizens whose marriage has failed to follow his example and clog up the courts with pleas that they were pressurized into marriage/never wanted to get married in the first place/were unsuited to marriage/didn’t understand what was required of them in married life/were immature/whine/whine/whine and let’s pretend it never happened.
Now we have DoctorJosephMuscat, taking it up a notch by – oooooh, the adrenalin! – saying that he wants the introduction of divorce. Risky! That must have given him a thrill. Yes, but apparently he doesn’t want it enough to bring out the party whip and make sure that all Labour MPs vote in favour so that the legislation actually gets through. Oh no. We get our adrenalin rushes from saying naughty things, and not from actually doing them, don’t we? “If Labour is in government, I will put forward my own draft legislation and will give a free vote to our parliamentarians on this issue,” he told a newspaper yesterday.
“I will put forward my own draft legislation” – don’t take this to mean that even though he is the prime minister, he will attempt to introduce divorce through a private member’s bill (though I wouldn’t put any such circus act past him). He uses the words ‘I’ and ‘my own’ advisedly: l’Etat, c’est moi. The state, that’s me. Or perhaps he is contemplating a private member’s bill, and hasn’t yet been advised that it isn’t possible when you are the prime minister.
Allowing a free vote by removing the party whip is the most efficient way of ensuring that Malta remains without divorce legislation, while allowing Il-Prim Ministru DoctorJosephMuscat to pretend to himself and his electorate that he has done something about it. He will be able to say that he put forward a divorce bill but that The People, through their MPs, rejected it.
If the Opposition party also gives a free vote on the bill, the legislation might just scrape through, but even then I don’t think so. If the Opposition party votes with the whip to oppose the bill, it definitely won’t get through, because there will be many MPs on the government benches who will be drawn by their Catholic consciences and their respect for holy married life to vote against it, starting from Marlene Pullicino.
The anthropologist Mark-Anthony Falzon wrote an excellent piece about all this, which was published in The Sunday Times yesterday. Read it here. He wrote, in barely veiled reference to DoctorJosephMuscat:
The fortunes of the sixth hat have of late risen, what with its fashion among upstarts with megalomaniacal visions. We would take the divorce issue to parliament (following a public discussion, of course) but only after decommissioning all whips and calling for a free vote. In other words, this is an admission of inability to take decisions, and a sure tactic of delay and dodging. First, ‘free’ or ‘conscience’ votes are usually reserved for life and death questions such as capital punishment, where individual morality may override any collective decisions taken by a parliamentary group. Second, given the attraction of the moral high ground – particularly in such a public place as parliament – a free vote on divorce would be a recipe for disaster in the shape of sanctimonious antics.
DoctorJosephMuscat should take care. Every time he opens his mouth, he confirms the impression that he is cast in the DoctorAlfredSant mould. His political sophistry on the question of divorce is just the latest example.
17 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Hey Daph,
I read the interview on the Sunday Times that you referred to in your article, where they asked the five contenders several questions, and (in an unexpected – for the Sunday Times – but welcome turn) included one on divorce.
I must say I was quite impressed by Joseph Muscat and George Abela’s answers. At least they expressed a very clear personal opinion about the issue which is more than Michael, Marie Louise and Varist did. Also it’s MUCH more than any PN candidates have done to date.
My point is just that rather than worrying about things like Joseph Muscat being a clone and him trying to introduce divorce in a format that may not be most ideal, someone like you should be pressuring your own party to start a debate on the matter.
Let’s hope the PN recognise that civil liberties are going to be a very important part of the next elections – or at least, I hope they will – and we need PN’s take on the matter.
@Slavocic – I’ve written about the issue of divorce many times. Please don’t confuse matters. The point I am making here is that Joseph Muscat says that he is in favour of divorce, then says that he will remove the party whip for voting, which is tantamount to saying that he doesn’t want divorce introduced at all, but only wants to be seen as the one who tried to do something about it. A prime minister who is truly committed to the introduction of a law does not remove the whip for the party vote.
@Daphne: Please note: “Removing the whip from voting’ is just an expression. It is used when a leader gives the MP’s a ‘free vote’.
You should preach the other party to follow such behaviour rather then mocking such a democratic behaviour.
Capish Madame?!
[Moderator – It’s not ‘just an expression’ because the whip is a person – Joe Mizzi in this case. By holding back the whip Joseph Muscat is sending out the message that he doesn’t expect the party to take a united stand on legislation.]
Moderator: you do not amaze me in jumping to such silly conclusions!
The message is there but you are failing to comprehend!
There’s nothing more deomocratic then let the MPs at liberty on such a ‘hot issue’. I bet the PN are ‘united’ on such an issue!lol
[Moderator – Divorce is not an issue. It isn’t an issue in any one of the world’s democracies, and there’s no reason why we should be any different.]
@Moderator – yes, and he’s also saying that he doesn’t expect the legislation to go through and that he doesn’t care much either. The most important thing is that he has been seen to take action.
But could it not be just a more realistic and tactful way of doing things? Don’t get me wrong, I, like you, feel that this isn’t something anyone should question. But realistically, we know that there’s a very large portion of the population that is against the introduction of divorce, and very passionately too. Therefore it is very risky business for someone who aspires to be voted in by hundreds of aging conservative party delegates to say that he will impose his party’s stance on divorce before he gets the approval. If he had made such a statement he would run the risk of his being elected becoming dependent on this single issue.
The thing I like about what he said is that he did not stop at saying he will give his MPs a free vote (like Marie Louise did). He gave his personal conviction in no uncertain terms that he is in favour of the introduction of divorce. And he did not let this be open to interpretation.
I think, you and I, as advocates of civil liberties, especially something so basic as divorce, should commend him on this – not because it is a grand gesture, but because it is a start. Much more than we have seen in recent years. Is it not?
Also, rather than giving such an oppositional reading to the interviews conducted on the Sunday Times, I ask you to take advantage of the situation in which one of the two big political parties is openly ready for a positive debate on the issue, using your powerful (and now virtual) pen to highlight the lack of discussion about divorce that the PN continues to show.
Why are we all here seem so sure that the majority of MP’s (and the majority of the Maltese electorate) are against the introduction of divorce legislation?
And while I’m at it, another question – as far as I’m aware, most of countries introduced divorce legislation via a referendum. Do you think that in Malta, the Catholic church position being so strong (and so strong against divorce), would holding such a referendum be an exercise in democracy or not?
@Slavocic – I am actually opposed to the cohabitation legislation being proposed by the Nationalist Party, except in the case where, say, two sisters or brothers live together. This might sound eyebrow-raising at first, but in the UK there is actually a dreadful problem with this situation. Two old siblings live together in a home they own, one dies and the other is forced to sell the home to pay inheritance tax.
In the case of heterosexual couples, I strongly disagree. There is already a law that protects their interests. It’s very old, tried and tested, and called marriage. If people are free to marry they don’t need ‘cohabitation laws’. They only need cohabitation laws because they are not free to marry, and the solution to that is divorce, not a law that protects the interests of cohabitees.
I think it is wrong to introduce laws that protect the interests of cohabitees – not for moral reasons, but because when two people choose to live together without getting married, it is because they don’t want the ties and tangles that go with marriage, and so it is wrong to impose these restrictions on them. The obvious solution is divorce, so that all couples can choose to marry if they want to. And if they don’t want to, that’s their choice.
“No one will be asked to leave the party” – They’ll simply leave on their own volition
Daphne: there is another situation where a case may be made for regulating cohabitation: that of same-sex couples, who currently do not have the option of marriage.
[Moderator – Do gay couples want to be marginalised into a form of sub-marriage?]
On this note, here are some funny videos I found that show the difference between Marriage and Civil Unions (which is an example of the sub-marriage the moderator referred to):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrwAUV8Ofcc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niUsik0NQmc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyXEaR-qdyg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xNKuEI_p_k
Enjoy :)
Moderator – ‘Do gay couples want to be marginalised into a form of sub-marriage?’
My point is that there should be legal recognition of their rights. Whether this would involve extending the institution of marriage to homosexual couples or setting up some other legal framework is another matter.
[Moderator – If that ‘other legal framework’ is not marriage, then it follows that it less than marriage. So, yes, the structure of the legislation is at the heart of the problem. If gay couples want the status of marriage then they must get married. There are no two ways about it.]
@JB – I think cohabitation rights for gay couples is as bad an idea as it is for heterosexual couples. Why? Because you end up having your cohabiting relationship governed by this law by default and not by voluntary submission through signing a contract. This is completely off-the-wall. People who make an active choice to live together without marrying usually do so (if they have the option of marriage) because they don’t want their relationship regulated by the law. You can’t force the law on them. It’s wrong. Having your relationship governed by the law should be a choice, not a default scenario.
Gay couples should be able to voluntarily commit to each other through a civil contract recorded at the public registry, as all married couples do (even those who marry in church). And they shouldn’t be put at risk of a situation where, if they live together for, say, five years, they discover that their relationship is regulated whether they want it to be or not.
Something else about that cohabitation law: it’s going to be dealing mostly with couples who can’t get married because one or both is/are married to somebody else. So what are we planning to do here – institutionalise an odd form of polygamy or a wife/concubine system? It’s absolutely ridiculous.
Daphne: I wasn’t trying to imply that cohabitation should be regulated by default. I agree that couples should declare their commitment to qualify for these legal rights.
Your previous comment did not refer to same-sex couples, but now you have clarified your position, and I have nothing to add, except to say I agree.
Another issue that I think should feature more on your articles in the coming year Daphne…. Especially if the Labour party is going to be proposing it. Let’s have Nationalist “liberals” have a voice through you…
@Slavocic – definitely.