Why liberals matter
The party of absolute intolerance goes after the liberals - and where does that leave the Nationalists?
This is another guest-post by Liberal-Nationalist.
Have you ever considered the number of votes the Nationalist Party repeatedly gets in local council and European Parliament elections?
In the Euro-election of 2004, the Nationalists got 98,000 votes. In this Euro-election, the number was 100,000. In the last three rounds of local council elections, the Nationalists got 110,000 votes (because the 2008 round was held with the general election), and in the previous three rounds (2004-06), they got 92,000.
It’s an altogether different story in general elections, when the Nationalist Party hits way above 140,000 votes. But you get the gist: in less important elections, each party’s vote is its core vote. This means that the Nationalist Party’s core vote is not more than 100,000 while Labour’s is over 120,000.
It is actually easy for Labour to win general elections because it need only pull in 25,000 votes of the 70,000 or thereabouts who are neither party’s core voters. That Labour hasn’t managed to do so except in 1996 is food for much thought. The Nationalist Party, on the other hand, performs a miracle in every general election when it convinces two-thirds of the non-party-core vote to vote for it.
Who are these 45,000 voters who tend to vote PN only in general elections? One of the mortal sins of public life is generalisation; these 45,000 individuals are certainly not homogeneous. They’re all over Malta and Gozo and must have different attitudes and reasons for voting as they do.
But one should assume that they do not find the Nationalist Party a natural home. Their preference for it is only relative, not absolute. They generally prefer a Nationalist government to a Labour one, but a Nationalist government is not exactly their ideal.
Research in stable democracies around the world plots voters’ attitudes not on the traditional left-right axis but on two different axes: government control vs. free choice in economic and social issues. This divides voters into four general types: conservative (free economy, control on social issues), socialist (the other way round on each axis), liberal (free choice on both axes) and authoritarian (control on both).
Research shows that these four types are quite steady in percentage terms: conservatives being the largest type with around 35%, socialists coming in with 30%, liberals with 20% and authoritarians 10% – all very approximate percentages. It is the parties that change to fit voters’ preferences rather than the other way round, a classic example being Tony Blair’s Labour Party ditching Clause 4 and becoming more economically liberal.
Lets say that Maltese liberals account for few than 20% of the voting population, which would mean 60,000 electors. Even so, a good chunk of the 45,000 electors who elude the Nationalist Party in the ‘less important’ elections are liberals. They agree with the PN on the economy. They want an open political system. They like privatisation and competition. They dislike Labour’s traditional authoritarianism, state control and system of patronage. They are staunchly pro-European. On social issues, though, they disagree with the Nationalist Party.
The general drift of Nationalist governments has essentially been to create a more liberal Malta, even though the PN might like to think otherwise. EU membership has been the epitome of Nationalist liberal policies. Membership has opened up not just our economy and politics, but also people’s lifestyles and attitudes. Now people are asking: if choice is good at the supermarket, why not in the rest of my life?
The Nationalist Party needs to understand the kind of Malta it has fashioned in these last 22 years. Everyone accepts that the PN’s base is largely conservative. But it needs liberals, as it always has, to reach a relative majority of votes.
That’s why liberals matter.
67 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
“System of patronage” applies to all political parties in Malta – your article infers this is a Labor Party trait. Please get it right.
Thank you. This is what I have been trying to say.
The bottom line is that in 2013, if nothing changes, many of those liberals will very easily float to the PL because although it too leaves a lot to be desired, Joseph Muscat is trying to frame himself as very liberal on social issues, as a sort of Maltese Zapatero, and although one can still criticise him, he’s still stuck his neck out a lot more than the PN has done in 20 or so years on these issues.
Also, there isn’t the Alfred Sant fear-factor that liberals used to be so concerned about.
Therefore the only fighting chance the PN has to win the next election is to make some radical changes to its policies. Let’s hope it does, not because we want PN in government for eternity, but because we want both our political parties up to date on these issues, and so they do not have to take precedence over more important matters like the economy, the environment, education and so on.
I hate these kinds of analysis. You seem like Prof Scicluna playing with numbers. It reminds me of Dr Sant’s addition of the dead when claiming victory after the EU referendum. Voting trends are complicated in politics where one week can be VERY long let alone four years.
In my opinion the biggest problem the PN will be facing in the next few years is The Times. From the late 1970s onwards this daily by default almost always sided the PN. The great majority of its readers are still and will remain Nationalists. But read it now! Chaps like Kurt Sansone have transformed it into L-Orizzont in English.
[Daphne – I must say I had noticed that Kurt Sansone’s Malta Today instincts appear to be only partially controlled in the Allied Newspapers newsroom. He seems not to understand that he’s working for The Times now, and he’s not there to push forward his own political agenda.]
I noticed that too. This morning I posted a post on Kurt Sansone’s story. Because it does not agree with the conclusions reached by him, my posts were never uploaded. If this Kurt Sansone was trained by Malta Today, it shows, because he brooks no divergent opinions to his own.
He pushes his own skewed assessment on things, something a good journalist doesn’t do. A commentator yes, but you can’t report facts then be so heavily skewed in their interpretation.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090619/local/rcc-files-libel-suit-against-saviour-balzan
I wonder whether or not the headline of the above article (which uses the initials “RCC”, rather than the person’s full name – unless The Times changes it meanwhile, that is, following a comment I’ve just sent them) is Kurt Sansone’s doing.
The initials are what seem to be used by people who despise the man. It is not The Times’ usual way of doing things, but is more akin to that of “red-banner” newspapers.
Well written. However there is a Maltese factor in the formula. The conservative element tends to be very “pro church” conservative. Try to be more liberal, and you will find the church pulling the carpet from under your feet, so its a very fine line for the PN.
Liberal-Nationalist
“if choice is good at the supermarket why not in the rest of my life?”
….because the rest of your life is not made up of groceries, perhaps?
You should be clearer what you mean when you say that you want free choice on social issues. In a free economy, entrepreneurs take decisions and do not expect the state to bail them out if things go wrong. Would a ‘free social life ‘work like that?
The PN, to its credit, has always created space for liberals, despite having a conservative outlook. Actually, coming to think of it, it has created space in Malta for everyone except extreme anarchists like Lowell et al. It’s the MLP who wants to take these people into its fold. Therein lies the PN’s strength. It manages to please people’s general requirements. Agreed, it needs to do more, much more. But I would trust the PN to look at the times, read the signs and act correctly much more than the MLP.
I am back, by the way. I’ve been to Turkey again. That’s an amazing country. Muslim, but they drink alcohol. Their women are not muzzled. Their food is fantastic. They are secular. They have banned Youtube. But believe me, they are getting there. Liberalism and secularism are treasured there, despite being threatened by the Muslim fundamentalists who draw support from the poor and uneducated. The same thing is happening in Iran. The people who have aspirations want change. It’s the uneducated and the poor, who have been intentionally kept so by Ahmedinajad, who have voted him in again in large numbers. Mintoff did the same in Malta. Thank God, Eddie Fenech Adami came along.
But education and better standards are not guaranteed to give good governance. in 1998, the AB groups voted in Sant, and in 2009, it’s the same group who voted in so many Labour MEPs. These same groups owe their success in life to the environment created by the PN. So why are so many people angry with it?
I think part of the truth lies in the fact that the PN is a victim of its own success. It created space for all of us, but also for cranks like Norman Lowell et al, and self-serving people like Astrid and Lino. They have turned a non-issue into a national issue in Bahrija. Again. All in the name of personal glory. After all, who is Victor Scerri? A nobody in relative national terms. I have seen the video of this protest, and I know some people who were there have done exactly like Scerri did. Apply for an ODZ permit to fix up a farmhouse and have succeeded. And today, they are protesting. Some of them have also been direct and indirect beneficiaries from the transformation of Sliema into what it is today.
Unfortunately, it’s the PN PR machine that is at fault, or should I say, the government PR machine. It fails to remind people of the massive gains made under the PN during the last fifteen years. That and the fact that the quality of its day-to-day leadership is wanting.
“I’ve been to Turkey again. That’s an amazing country.”
I agree wholeheartedly. I have only experienced Ankara and Istanbul, but was struck by the friendliness of the people. They have a great “service-with-a-smile” mentality. Our hospitality industry could learn tons from them.
Sa fejn naf jien l-Iran hemm inkwiet kbir wara l-elezzjoni tal-gimgha l-ohra! Ahna pajjiz demokratiku u kullhadd ghandhu dritt jipprotesta “even if it’s a non-issue”.
@Mario Debono
You are so right. Also, it’s so sick hearing some people who should know better say ”(we) have been there too long…. time for a change”. What do they mean? Change just for the sake of it? Change to what? Change to the Poodle and the idiots around him?
Ideally the opposition should be the alternative government but they are so not that. They are a joke, and a bad one at that.
They just cannot get anything right…. ever. It’s tragic that they leave us with no option but to keep voting for the Nationalist Party if we aspire to a decent future for our children. With all its faults, it’s still thanks to the Nationalist Party that we are EU members with all the advantages that go with it. And were it for those ‘bravi’ on the other side, we would be in deep schiesen housen (Andrea kindly spellcheck).
High-profile individuals voting for Louis Grech because there is a real semblance of professionalism was no excuse. Because it also benefitted the likes of Joseph Cuschieri, Anglu Farrugia and Toni as a bonus.
It’s easy to blame the PR machine. It’s much more difficult to sell good news whilst bad news sells like hot cakes. I think we are over-analysing the MEP election results. The info provided above is interesting and Muscat (not the opposition leader but the person who signs D. Muscat) is right in saying that voting trends are very complicated.
I know people who don’t vote because they are marked as residents in Gozo and did not bother to go up to Gozo to vote, and these are not just one or two people. Other people do not vote because they forgot to pick up the voting document etc. For the MEP elections people might feel less inclined to make an effort, collect their voting document and go wherever they have to go to vote.
I also agree with the point that four years is a very long time in politics and to my knowledge all elections are won or lost on what happens in the six months leading to the campaign and the eventual election. In this year’s case the last six months were not easy for government so it’s understandable.
One last thing: we can analyse the results but when you see why people vote or do not vote you quickly realise how pathetic the situation can be. I know that some people voted for one candidate or another on the basis of how nice the party he or she organised during the campaign was. I have seen hordes of people sitting down at parties munching on pastizzi and sandwiches with no clue about what is happening in the economy, education, etc and by the end of the party you hear them say “Eehh dal-parti ahjar minn ta’ dak kemm kien hawn ikel”. And if the party was crap “Ehh kemm ha hsiebna iktar dak.” And you realise that this too is part of why people vote for one party or another or one candidate or another. These are the thousands. Those who really think about the repercussions of their vote are fewer than we might think.
So “voting for the better party” takes on a new meaning.
Daphne, this liberal votes/campaigns and militates within a party that:
1. can’t utter the word ‘divorce’
2. has MEPs who vote with homophobes
3. is led by a political faction of the Catholic action
4. keeps whole sectors of the economy under monopoly
5. allows 17,000 landlords to be cheated from fair rents
6. want any more?
Interesting ha? Oh I forgot your standard excuse – Labour is worse!
[Daphne – No, Labour is fake. A free vote on a civil right? Don’t make me laugh. It’s more honest to say the truth: that you don’t want to introduce divorce because you fear the fall-out. The result of Muscat’s free vote will be an end to the divorce issue for the foreseeable future: most MPs will vote against.]
points 2-5?
It’s not an excuse; it’s reality. And no liberal in his right mind would vote for a party that wants a corporate government (goes against the fundamentals of liberals who believe in free market like the capitalists)
Get this straight:lLiberals do not like government Intervention and if they have to choose between two parties that are both authoritarian they are going to choose the least authoritarian one and the one that is in favor of the private sector.
Since the 1980s, the Maltese nation had valid reasons to vote PN, thus keeping the Labour Party at bay. With democratic, social and economic turmoil not to mention the extreme socialist policies being adopted by the Labour Party the Maltese people clearly decided that Labour cannot be trusted.
We then had the EU-related issues, whether full membership or partnership etc, and again the people gave a clear message — WE ARE EUROPEANS.
Now that Malta has joined Europe, cherishing a stable democracy thus providing an equal playing-field, the people are ready to gamble.
The electoral gamble of 1996, which saw Alfred Sant at the helm in Castille,was a sort of Russian roulette – the protest voters did not imagine that Labour would be elected and moreover Sant was overwhelmed by the sudden surprise.
From VAT to CET, the freezing of Malta’s EU application and other pressing issues, he soon came to realise that sitting in opposition, criticizing and mud-slinging is far more comfortable and safer, so he abandoned his political appointment and decided to abdicate by calling an early election.
We now have a self-proclaimed “new movement” which is trying to convince us that the PL is the solution to a better tomorrow.
Joseph Muscat must not take comfort in the numbers achieved in the EU elections. If anything, they give a false sense of security. The nation has come to realise that the local councils and the EU parliamentary elections are ripe for gambling, but certainly not the general elections. Labour has a lot of catching up to do in order to convince the Maltese people that it can be trusted to govern this fine nation of ours.
I agree 100% with the conclusion of this post…disagree on one premise though:
“It’s an altogether different story in general elections, when the Nationalist Party hits way above 140,000 votes. But you get the gist: in less important elections, each party’s vote is its core vote. This means that the Nationalist Party’s core vote is not more than 100,000 while Labour’s is over 120,000.”
The Nationalist Party is in government. This will inherently lead it to fare worse at the “less important elections” held during its tenure. It need not mean that its core is smaller than the PL’s.
In a nutshell, this article is proposing: let’s make PN pro-divorce, pro-abortion, pro-gay rights and that will attract liberals to the Nationalist’s fold.
I hardly believe this strategy will ever work. If, for example, the Nationalist Party suddenly becomes pro-divorce to appease liberals, Labour would reply with better options making its opponents’ proposals look dated. Mimicking your opponents will only prove them right. It has always been like that and will not change. May I add one comment about the local divorce debate. One serious drawback in the liberal camp is Emy Bezzina. This eccentric freak is actually helping the conservatives’ cause
Moreover, elections are won or lost almost entirely on economic issues. Sant did it with the promise of removing VAT. Berlusconi promised to remove Prodi’s taxes. Obama skilfully rode over the financial woes of American people facing the worst financial crisis in decades.
PN should introduce divorce and same-sex partnerships simply because they could significantly improve the life of a few thousands of people without making anybody else worse off. Conservatives can argue forever that divorce will lead to more marriage breakdowns. The truth is that those who would seek a divorce are either already separated or in an unhappy marriage. As for same-sex partnerships, conservatives will argue that same-sex couples will then want to raise children. The truth is those few who really want to raise children are already doing so.
On top of this, yes, PN would regain the confidence of those liberal voters who are reluctantly looking left, as Muscat would not be in a position to make empty promises on such issues any more.
I’m not saying whether divorce or gay marriages are right or wrong or whether these benefit society. My point is discussing electoral strategies.
In my opinion the haemorrhage of liberal voters from the PN to Labour is pure speculation. Moreover, electoral results everywhere in the world show that it is the economy that matters most. Gay lobbies have always been sore losers at the polls. No single referendum, not even in ultra-liberal California and Florida were won by gays. Obama knows this and he is shrewd enough to steer his way among opposing camps by promising everything to all and giving nothing in return. Does this strategy work?
But what is this “Liberal-Nationalist” actually after? If he is, as is being claimed, very closely linked with the PN, presumably a member, why does he not stand up at the Kunsill Generali and suggest changes? Political parties are democratic institutions, or are supposed to be. Unfortunately in Malta, and the PN’s record here is much worse than the PL’s, the AGM of political parties is simply a Kim Il Sung “Praise the great leader” performance.
The parties’ general meetings are there so that delegates openly discuss the policies their party has to follow. This is what the LP did years ago in discussing such topics like the EU. The discussion was open and free.
The PN is ages behind all this. It can be seen from the very same contributions here, where a “prominent Nationalist”, and other seemingly less prominent, dare not speak his name in public, but hides behind a computer screen, apparently waiting for “Gonzi” to make the changes.
Regarding core votes and what not, as some said, voting intentions are much more complicated than that. I think the definitive decisive factor is what comes in one’s pocket and what goes out of it. And this is legitimate. Have you ever heard of a commercial company which voluntarily lets its profits fall instead of firing employees or putting them on a shorter week, when times are bad? Likewise, let us not expect the ordinary man in the street to be asked to do sacrifices for the “greater picture”. One cannot make a super generous budget, while at the same time warning of “black clouds on the horizon” and after the election begin enforcing austerity because the international situation is bleak. As is being seen now, the chickens are coming home to roost. This will happen without fail, surprisingly for the Nationalists, even to themselves!
What will Gonzi do about divorce? He never uttered a word. At least we know what Muscat will do. Of course it’s wrong once it’s coming from the PL side.
[Daphne – No, what’s wrong is offering a free vote on a civil right. If Muscat really does believe divorce is a civil right, then he should use the whip.]
What is Gonzi going to do? At least Muscat raised the issue, whether you agree how he will lead it into parliament is another issue. So far PN has avoided completely the issue.
@ Daphne
[Daphne – No, what’s wrong is offering a free vote on a civil right. If Muscat really does believe divorce is a civil right, then he should use the whip.]
Yours is a rational argument but still a weak one to make in the present context. There is a number of liberals who do not need divorce per se but view the issue as a sort of Trojan horse to break up the present mould of confessional politics. Therefore, in their view, Muscat’s plan to move a personal bill without whip is already a considerable move forward because it tallies to their political aspirations.
[Daphne – That’s a very dangerous and irresponsible attitude. Because you yourselves don’t need divorce per se, it doesn’t mean that you should take a gamble on the issue, thereby prejudicing the position of others who do need and want it. If you are serious, you will not use divorce as a ‘Trojan horse’ (the allegory is wrong, but anyway). You will do nothing to put divorce legislation at risk. A divorce bill with a free vote almost certainly means that it will not pass. Once a divorce bill is defeated in parliament, the issue will consider to have been settled, and that will be the end of that for another decade or so. What Muscat is proposing is actually much worse than what we have now. Now, the situation is still open. What Muscat is proposing is closing the divorce issue with a No vote in parliament, and getting it out of the way. This leaves him without the need to deal with public pressure for divorce or even with its introduction.]
‘That’s a very dangerous and irresponsible attitude. Because you yourselves don’t need divorce per se, it doesn’t mean that you should take a gamble on the issue’
Daphne, this was not a personal analysis of how I will use my vote but I was trying to analyse some of the characteristics of the ‘pro-divorce’ vote. The reality is that a good number of the pro-divorce voters are not even married and generally view that issue as a mark of secularisation that the country must arrive at. They don’t consider the practical side of it since for them it is a matter of principle.
I agree that it is irresponsible attitude, by all means, but that is the reality of the situation and the Nationalists should take heed of it.
Can someone define “liberal”?
Liberal in the economic context meaning free market, liberalisation of monopolies, privatisation, or liberal in the meaning of gay marraige, pro-choice, seculisation, divorce?
They have two complete different meanings and they are absolutely not interchangeable as ideas. One can be liberal in the economic sense and conservative in the social meaning of the word, and vice versa.
So “Liberal Nationalist” should declare exaclty what liberal meaning he is giving to him/herself.
[Daphne – Read the piece again and you’ll find a clear definition.]
I fully agree with the author’s views on liberalism, however I also believe there is an other issue out there which would give the initiative and political edge to the political party who grabs it first, namely, radical constitutional change.
I won’t bore you with the details here but briefly what is needed is a much reduced parliament of say 11 MPs including one from Gozo. One of these MPs is elected prime minister from the party who obtains the majority of votes and that party has a guaranteed majority of MPs , similar to today’s constitution – with a couple of extra MPs added if needed to provide this majority. The prime minister then forms his cabinet from any Maltese citizen including the much ignored Maltese diaspora, thus providing a much wider pool of talent.
Money saved in this reduced parliament could be partly invested in offering much more attractive salaries to parliamentarians and ministers with plenty of change for the exchequer. Over time the MPs will naturally form a closer non partisan bond with all their constituents as most constituencies will have only one MP representing them, UK style – without the scandals I hope. Most importantly Malta can then expect not merely to be governed reasonably well, which is the most optimistic expectation under the present system, but to be run by first-class people, in a first-class way for what can be a first-class country.
It is ridiculous, to say the least, for a conservative party to try and change its policies just to try to gain more votes. How can a conservative party become liberal? It’s like you are trying to “tbiegh lil ommok’.
Idiom – a leopard can’t change its spots. So beware, this might be the beginning of the end for the NP if such ideas were to be implemented. Instead of gaining voters, it will be losing most of its faithful sheep.
Mary, changing (or pretending to change) its policies to gain more votes is exactly what the PL did in 1996 and what Muscat is trying to do now. Incidentally you are wrong about the leopard because there are black leopards without spots. What you should have said was that a poodle cannot change its curly coat.
This article rightly dissects the present political situation. It is not an easy situation because conservatives and liberals cannot reach a consensus on social issues. This applies also to the PL. On a strategic issue, the PN can resist Muscat’s building of a new national movement in the PL. There is no need for a national movement because there is not a situation like a threat to democracy. This can be done by:
1. good bovernment PR;
2. good PN PR and customer care;
3. PN MPs’ involvement with constituents;
4. meaningful dialogue with the constituted bodies, unions, NGOs; etc;
5. challenging the PL to come up with solutions on national issues;
6. more ongoing consultation with the PN parliamentary group.
A liitle off subject, but I wonder what weight readers put on the Lisbon Treaty? Ireland seems to have got enough to get a referendum Yes. If the UK can ratify it before an election or a collapse of the Labour government, I wonder how that will alter the equation in the EU and in Malta. Any thoughts?
‘Who are these 45,000 voters who tend to vote PN only in general elections? One of the mortal sins of public life is generalisation; these 45,000 individuals are certainly not homogeneous. They’re all over Malta and Gozo and must have different attitudes and reasons for voting as they do.’
….you forgot to add…..and some of them come from abroad……
These people decided the last general election.
The Mystery Man is Ranier Fsadni, isn’t it?
[Daphne – As if.]
There is an element which I would have expected the guest-post to emphasize. This is the importance of a free press and freedom of expression in a liberal, democratic society. You can have a free-market economy and a multi-party system with elections held on a regular basis. But if people are not able to express their feelings without the risk of being arrested and/or beaten up and do not have a free choice as to what they can see and hear, then you’re falling short. Some commentators mentioned Turkey and the progress this country has made. But there are reports of journalists and campaigners for rights being attacked by the police and imprisoned; broadcasting media which criticize the military or sympathize with the Kurds have their broadcasts suspended.
A free press serves as a counterbalance against the faults of our (Western) system of government. It brought down Nixon. Under the Mintoff/KMB regimes, even people writing about television and gardening in The Times would not dare sign off with their name. And we all know what happened to that newspaper’s building in 1979. It’s this lack of freedom of expression that pushed the people into the streets, not the cheap corned beef.
It makes you ask why many contributors to this blog do not sign their real name.
You’re joking right? If you say something here you say it to the whole of Malta and I’d rather not have the phone ringing every time I post a controversial message. Plus it’s summer and my job prospects don’t look very good.
Regarding anonymity, I’ve noticed something curious happening in broadcasting. When the first radio stations started operating, Malta discovered phone-ins and they were all the rage; most programmes had them. People who phoned to express an opinion would usually be asked by the presenter to state their name on air. They might have given a false one of course but at least it gave them some sort of identity. Nowadays presenters do not even bother to ask for a caller’s name any more – somehow it makes the whole exercise more impersonal and less interesting.
“not the cheap corned beef.”
That, too, pushed people into the streets, so to speak. Cheap corned beef wasn’t a problem itself – after all, many people still prefer it over better and reasonably priced food – but it represented an economic supply system that was as bad as the lack of freedom of expression, with the same degree of interference and blackmail.
The guest-writer should know (being a PN insider) that PN has a database on which people’s political leanings are recorded. All he has to do to see for himself how many hard-core Labourites and hard-core Nationalists exist in Malta is to look up this database, and screw the EP and local council calculations.
“Liberalism” (together with “democratic” and to a lesser extent “socialist”) is one of the most abused-of words. People coming from conflicting ideologies can claim to be liberal because they agree with some of the tenets of this ideology. The fact that liberalism means totally different things in different countries also means that various people can identify with the various forms of liberalism. There are three main versions of liberalism. In the USA liberalism is associated with left-wing politics. Indeed, “liberal” politicians are traditionally supported by trade-unions in America. In countries like Germany, trade-unions tend to be hostile towards “liberals” due to liberals’ right-wing positions on economic issues in such countries. In Australia too, liberals are associated with Tory-like politics. In the UK however, liberals are quite centrist, indeed the Liberal Democrats are a centre-left Party.
Before speaking of “liberalism”, one has to first identify the kind of liberalism that is being discussed. One should also keep in mind that practically all parties in the “west” are liberal – in the sense that they uphold the traditional basic principles of liberalism (rule of law, separation of powers etc. etc.).
By the way, there was talk of the liberals and the socialists/social-democrats joining forces at the EP.
U jekk trid ippublikah u jekk trid tippublikahx.
Isn’t minimal government interference the basic principle of liberalism? That would explain the ‘different kinds’ of liberalism – they’re simply the same principle, interpreted differently according to circumstance.
What defines a liberal depends to some extent on where one is coming from. I am reminded of a rather right-wing South African friend of mine from apartheid days. He was anti-apartheid, and therefore, though a conservative, was branded a communist (not even a liberal) by the apartheid regime.
In Malta, the Nationalist party/church tandem are extreme right-wing on what they term “moral/social” matters such as divorce, gender issues, abortion, assisted reproduction issues, stem-cell research and euthanasia. The introduction of divorce to Malta by a political party would not make it liberal. It would merely be the first small step to something approaching (but by no means achieving) normality. There is a whole flight of stairs to climb before any local party can consider itself liberal. Even AD, with its anti-abortion stance, and in spite of its pretensions, is firmly in the conservative camp.
What divides the local political parties is their degree of conservatism.
‘What divides the local political parties is their degree of conservatism’
The most illuminating (and depressingly true) comment so far in this debate.
“divorce, gender issues, abortion, assisted reproduction issues, stem-cell research and euthanasia”
The assisted reproduction issue is already being tackled, with good draft legislation already prepared, combed through by the Bioethics Consultative Committee. And I can vouch that the discussion was for sure not conservative and neither Church-run – most of the discussion centred around scientific and medical principles.
With all its hype, stem cell research is not the panacea that its proponents make it out to be. Scientifically the resources should be directed towards organ stem cells – these exist in all organs of the body, they are easier to manipulate, not involved in any type of controversy and safer (one massive risk with embryonic stem cells is that tend to transform into carcinogenic cells).
These organ stem cells can cure all the disorders that are now being listed for embryonic stem cells. The only entity that stands to gain from embryonic stem cells, and the one that is the powerhouse behind the issue, is the pharmaceutical industry. Embryonic stem cells are easier and cheaper to obtain and through genetic manipulation one could potentially obtain costly pharmaceutical therapies (biomolecules such as Herceptin – though this particular drug was not produced through embryonic stem cell means).
Euthanasia and end-of-life issues pose a different question, one that various countries are still tackling, so I am not surprised that we have still to start the real discussion – but by discussion I mean a scientific and objective one.
When it comes to abortion – again here we have various non moral, non religous issues that few people have really put forward in the discussion. From a purely scientific, medical and personal point of view, my objections would be in the lines who should decide (mother, father, both?), when (3, 6 12, 20 weeks – and why say 12 and not 13 weeks, what defines these cut off lines), fetal rights (has the fetus any rights, if yes when do these start, why do they start at that time) and should there be a medical or other reason to have an abortion, is our society mature enough for these decision (I doubt it – our education system is not up to scratch when it involves decision taking), are there any consequences on the fabric of society. These are a few questions that spring to mind when discussing abortion.
As for gender issues, this might be (I have to be cautious as I have no expertise in the field) the easiest to tackle as, in my opinion, it will not change the reality of life. Same-sex couples can already formulate wills and use power of attorney. What they require is for the state to recognise someone as the next-of-kin and for the partners to obtain the same rights as married couples have – the only are of caution that really needs to be studied is that of adoption – and here the question is the psychological effects, if any, on the adopted child and its rights. All of this can be easily done by agreeing on a contractual agreement.
As for divorce – again I think that the discussion is happening in a very superficial way. It is not whether divorce should be introduced or not, it is whether we are educationally well versed to tackle marriage with all its potential problems. This is the real issue that requires action, and we are already seeing the results of this lack of maturity.
Quote Meddoc: [The only entity that stands to gain from embryonic stem cells, and the one that is the powerhouse behind the issue, is the pharmaceutical industry].
Indeed. Could not be more true and veritable!
John II says John (I?) is absolutely right.
Quote Ganni: [In countries like Germany, trade-unions tend to be hostile towards “liberals” due to liberals’ right-wing positions on economic issues in such countries].
@ Ganni:
It is somewhat true that trade unions in Germany do not often support liberal-democrat policies. The Liberal-Democrats in Germany usually plead for protection of capital and for a free market economy.
I sometimes win the impression that “Liberalism” Maltese style could only mean “Anarchism” in practice.
n.b.: the late Ralf Dahrendorf has been regarded as a classical example of (sociological) Liberal-Democrat.
I agree with this article. I’m one of those who don’t feel bound to vote PN in all elections but end up doing so in general elections. I think Lawrence Gonzi is a good, hardworking PM (even if he’s got people surrounding him who are undermining him) and I agree with the PN’s economic policies but when it comes to social issues I don’t agree with the PN at all. I am a liberal. I am pro-divorce, gay marriage, abortion, legalising prostitution and light drugs etc. People should be left free to make their own choices.
[Daphne – Prostitution is legal in Malta. Loitering with intent in the street is not. When you see prostitutes arrested and charged in court, it’s because they’ve been picked up off the street. I don’t think prostitution is illegal anywhere: basically, if a woman wants to sell sex for money, nobody can stop her. It’s her business. And really, there’s not a huge moral difference between selling yourself to one man for money as a wife or mistress and selling yourself to several. Living off the earnings of prostitution – as a pimp – is illegal. But you can see why that would be the case.]
Ultimately I think the PN have a much more clear vision for the country. I have voted AD twice in EP elections because I like their environmental policies and the fact that they have been pro-divorce since day one. Joseph Muscat bandies the word progressive around as if it’s running out of fashion but never explains what he means by it.
The only two ‘progressive’ issues which I have heard him talking about since he became PL leader he screwed up miserably.
1) Divorce: as documented well by Daphne, it’s only a way of putting the issue on a shelf again for the next decade.
2) He once created a whole issue out of some court regulation which said female lawyers should wear a skirt at the courts and males should wear a pair of trousers, labelling the regulation as sexist because it forbade women from wearing trousers. I don’t agree with that regulation myself but at least it was fair. The way he campaigned against it (and eventually changed it) he actually made it sexist because while women are allowed to wear trousers men are not allowed to wear a skirt thereby making the presence of a transexual, transvestite or someone who has a different dress sense awkward at the place where everyone is supposed to receive their dues. The regulation should have said nothing more than ‘anyone working here should wear something smart’.
Joseph Muscat is progressive? My arse.
Let me give my definition of “liberal” in the Maltese context. A Maltese “liberal” is one who wants Maltese society to enjoy rights which have long been considered as the norm in mainland Europe and the UK. That includes divorce. And practically little else. This whole debate about liberals in the PN is really simply a call for the PN in government to legislate in order to make divorce possible in Malta. And that is all.
Now the complication arises from the fact that in Europe divorce has been the norm for generations. No one questions its place in the civil order of things, not even the Catholic Church. Because Malta, as an island, was cut off from the rest of Europe, and because the British in Malta always wanted to appease the Catholic Church as for them it was the means to keep the Maltese loyal, divorce was never introduced here.
Now the traditionally Maltese Catholic Party is coming under pressure to introduce divorce. A quandary indeed! Thing is, with Labour in government for a full legislature in 1996-2001, divorce would have since then long been a reality!
[Daphne – I don’t agree with you on that last point, Albert. It is my view that Alfred Sant was particularly sensitive to the public relations implications of introducing divorce as a man who was on record as saying that he didn’t believe in marriage, and whose own civil marriage had been declared null by the civil courts. In this, he would have been perfectly right. Only a political leader who is happily married and who believes in marriage can convince people on the need to introduce divorce. The least convincing arguments, sadly, come from people whose own marriage has failed, not because they are wrong but because their perceived vested interest eclipses the veracity of their arguments. Until people who are in long and stable marriages join those who are campaigning for divorce, that campaign will be weak. I hope more people see this.]
Alas you’re sooooooo right, Daphne.
Quote Meddoc: [With all its hype, stem cell research is not the panacea that its proponents make it out to be. Scientifically the resources should be directed towards organ stem cells – these exist in all organs of the body, they are easier to manipulate, not involved in any type of controversy].
My question: If organ stem cells “exist in all organs of the body”, why does one not have (adequate) regeneration in the central nervous system, considering that the brain is an organ of the body.
Please kindly allow me to offer following link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8078996.stm
“Ask, and it shall be given you; seek; and you shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto you.”
Neural crest stem cells her we come:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19544446?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Quote Meddoc: [“Ask, and it shall be given you; seek; and you shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto you.”]
I asked, I sought and I knocked and I found following:
“However, due to practical considerations, e.g. inadequate accessibility of the source material, the application of neural crest stem cells is strictly limited”.
Further knocking brought me to consideration of Merkel cells with mutual immunological markers.
I would definitely not like taking a risk of possibly developing a Merkel cell tumor. Nor would I wish to live with a thought that some other neuro-endocrine/nervous system tumour might develop.
Is it correct to surmise that neural crest stem cells in human beings at the moment can only be won through minimal invasive periodontal surgery?
Albert Farrugia is quite right. The PN liberal? This must really be a very blinkered statement. The PN is subservient to Catholic dogma and this is hardly liberal. Has anyone noticed the use by the PM of the new phrase “Maltese values”?
This phrase, to my mind, is not based on fact or reason as there is no such thing as values which are distinctly Maltese. Values, whatever they may be, are upheld by individuals, and not by the collectivity such as entire nations. Yet, we have talk of Maltese values as if these “values” belong only to Maltese Catholics. And which, may I ask, are these values so exclusively Maltese? Presumably, the indissolubility of marriage is foremost in the minds of those who use the phrase. And why has the phrase been coined at this historical phase if not to justify the total refusal to introduce a divorce law thus denying a civil right to the Maltese? The clear implication is that “family” is a Maltese value (as if other nations do not value the family) and hence, goes the logic, no divorce to the Maltese. The value of “family” and divorce are incompatible accoring to Catholic logic. Pay attention, this phrase “Maltese values” will surface again and again – it justifies Catholic imposition over the entire nation: Catholics, agnostics and atheists alike.
And why should there even be a “campaign” for divorce rights to be granted? Rights do not call for campaigns because they are self-evident. If a country will only grant rights following successful campaigns, then the democratic credentials of that country are questionable. Rights must be respected and enforced as a matter of course. And it is not the Catholic Church that should decree what is a right and what is not. I am certain that no amount of campaigning will ever convince the present administration to introduce divorce. For this Government, the indissolubility of marriage is not open to debate: dogma is dogma not opinion and Catholicism is based on dogma. Divorce will never be on this administration’s agenda because the Catholic Church is against it. Period. A campaign in favour of divorce is useless. It must be a campaign for a change of government.
I will not go into my suspicion of the placing in key public positions of confirmed Catholics as a matter of policy (to ensure that Catholic dogma will predominate) because, of course, this “unofficial” criterion for public office can never be demonstrated. I will therefore voice it as a mere suspicion and nothing else.
Liberal indeed.
PN is liberal compared to Labour.
@ E=mc2. So true. I remember Pippo Psaila, a PN candidate in the last general election, saying during an interview that he will vote in Parliament (if elected) as told by the Bishop to vote. Soooo liberal. Why elect a parliament at all, all we have to do is ask the bishop to legislate. Umbghad jitkazaw bl-Iran!
Reminds me of the Malta Kattolika and Rebha Kattolika Rebha Nazzjonalista slogans.
[Daphne – Well, he wasn’t elected, was he. That should tell you what you need to know but refuse to see.]
[Daphne – Well, he wasn’t elected, was he. That should tell you what you need to know but refuse to see.]
@ Daphne: whether Pippo Psaila was elected or not is besides the point because that merely proves that the electorate was not conservative on that occasion. On the other hand he was a candidate on the Nationalist Party list, which means that the party endorsed his beliefs. That is enough to prove that to a certain point the Nationalists are still a confessional party. This does not mean that the Labour Party does not have such elements within it – see Adrian Vassallo.
[Daphne – I’d rather not. So what’s your conclusion – that both parties are confessional? Quite frankly, I don’t understand the concept of a ‘confessional’ party. As far as I know, but I might be terribly wrong, in English idiom confessional politics means the tendency of politicians to unburden themselves of their past and to emote: “I was a junkie but for the past 40 years I’ve been clean”….”I once had an affair but now I’m faithful to my wife”….that kind of thing. It has nothing to do with dependence on the Catholic Church – obviously.]
Pippo Psaila wasn’t elected simply because he was competing with a number of heavyweights (no pun intended).
Daphne, are you conscious of the fact that there are people who despise Mintoff because they believe that it was him who opened up Malta for religions other than the RC Church, even if this is not true?
[Daphne – I have yet to meet them. Most people I know despise Mintoff for what he did in the years 1971 to 1987.]
If it wasn’t for Labour, education would still be controlled from the Curia and having an O-level in “religion” would still be a requirement to join the teaching profession. It was Labour who made it possible for people who had been baptised as RCs to get married in whatever ritual or non-ritual they want, as previously all “Catholics” were obliged to get married with the RC rite. And it was also Labour that de-criminalised homosexual relationships, and enfranchised women, and…
[Daphne – Yes, but do you know what the tragedy of Labour’s decisions was? That it took them not in the name of democracy and liberalism, but because Mintoff hated the Catholic Church and wished to undermine it. Mintoff was by definition not in favour of individual freedom, and the years we all endured 1971 to 1987 are more than proof of this. Also, you’re wrong on one point: there was no civil marriage in Malta, but this did not mean that Roman Catholics had to get married by the Roman Catholic rite. There were other religious rites they could have chosen. Roman Catholics wanted the religious rite anyway, and they still do so today, which is why there are comparatively few civil marriages. When I got married in 1985, we had to marry civilly even though we married in church. A public officer conducted the civil rite in the church sacristy, after the religious rite had been concluded.]
Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessional_state
[Daphne – That’s a confessional state. So what’s a confessional party? One that officially practises a religion?]
Ganni, Mintoff undermined the Church because he saw it as a rival and an obstacle in creating that “socialist generation” (a Wistin Abela phrase) he wanted. He is despised because he was a cowardly dictator and will so be remembered in history books.
Well, my conclusion is that sometimes your arguments do not follow any logic. for instance, the fact that Pippo Psaila was not elected does not indicate that the NP is not a pro-church party as you implied.
[Daphne – My point is that there is no such thing as a ‘pro-church’ party in Malta anymore. There are only individual politicians who can’t separate the secular from the religious, and then it’s up to voters to choose them or not. Pippo Psaila wasn’t chosen precisely because the typical Nationalist voter in his socio-economic group and in the district on which he stood rejects that kind of thinking. I am not in the least bit religious, never have been and probably never will be, yet I find the Nationalist Party far more attractive than any of the other current options precisely because it is hugely tolerant and its approach is to liberalise and to open things up. Labour, on the other hand, is rife with creeping intolerance, which becomes overt when it is confident of power.]
Personally I don’t really care which party, PL or PN, is pro-church.
[Daphne – You should, because you’re either going to be governed by the one or the other. I would say that neither party is ‘pro-church’, but both parties are heavily laden with MPs who would, for example, vote against a divorce bill, which is why a free vote is such a lousy idea, and why Joseph Muscat’s insistence that Gonzi also allows his people a free vote is embarrassingly brainless – or a deliberate ploy to have the bill defeated. He can’t very well insist that Gonzi uses the whip for a vote in favour, because that would beg the question as to why he doesn’t do the same himself.]
Confessional politics is used in English but rarely so. It is more common in Italian which refers to political parties with very close ties with the church, such as the old Democrazia Cristiana.
[Daphne – That would explain it, then. I’m not really au fait with Italian thought processes.]
I have to put in a word in favour of a much respected colleague in the press Kurt Sansone who has been described as turning The Times into a left leaning paper. And you preach freedom of the press…… Kurt is a factual, investigative and extremely accomplished journalist who is head and shoulders above some of the individuals who dominate the paper’s newsroom. After all The Times is historically not a Nationalist paper but a Stricklandian institution so it has no real links with the PN although that has obviously changed of late. If such reasoning is intended to win back voters who have deserted the PN for good reason then this is really the pits.
Gerald, why does Kurt Sansone need defending? If he can write what and how he wants, surely other people can comment about it. You imply that criticism impedes the freedom of the press and that therefore nobody should dare discuss and judge journalists. Since you are also a journalist – of sorts – I suppose this goes for you too. You’re saying that we cannot criticise you (I just have) as it would go against the freedom of the press.
It takes an amateur journalist to defend another one. You really made Sansone’s day by defending him, since you are both of the same ilk – morphing an opinion piece into a news article.
Where do you achieve your reporting skills – during the Super One lunches at Mamma Mia with Charlon Gouder, Sansone and Joseph Muscat?
Gerald conveniently forgets that Kurt Sansone was an AD candidate in several general elections.
Daphne, it was not always possible for Catholic to marry in other rites. Non-Catholics also had a hard time having their marriages recognised in Malta.
See first article, http://www.clsgbi.org/newsletter144.htm
[Daphne – Come now. Be specific. Recognised by who or what? At that time there were many thousands of British people living here, and the vast majority of them would have been married by the Anglican rite or in a registry office. So who or what wouldn’t haven’t recognised their marriages?]
I do not agree that Mintoff enacted the laws decriminalizing adultery and homosexuality and introducing civil marriage “not in the name of democracy and liberalism, but because Mintoff hated the Catholic Church and wished to undermine it” and I do not think Daphne will be able to demonstrate what she states.
[Daphne – I don’t have to demonstrate it myself. There is 16 years’ worth of newspaper reportage to document the incontrovertible fact that Mintoff was neither liberal nor democratic, but rather the opposite. Hence, he cannot possibly have decriminalised adultery and sodomy (not homosexuality, because sexuality can never be a criminal act) or introduced civil marriage in the name of democracy and liberalism, because he didn’t give a stuff about that. Do you think it’s a coincidence that these three matters he chose were all linked to Catholic teaching on sexual behaviour? If he were liberal and democratic, he wouldn’t have shut off access to higher education, ruined schools, suppressed the free press, turned state broadcasting into a ‘socialist tool’, and controlled every last area of everyone’s life, bar bedroom activity.]
One should not let one’s dislike for Mintoff cloud one’s judgement.
[Daphne – My god, my god. What sort of reasoning is this? People didn’t suddenly decide to dislike Mintoff for no reason at all. That dislike – make it contempt, please – is based on real-life events and his actions, and not on the fact that, say, he wore hideous belts or cuckolded his own brother (though that too….).]
I am no Mintoff fan (though I can appreciate some things that he did) but the MLP was much more liberal than the PN where it concerned civil liberties – one case was the reform of censorship.
[Daphne – I almost give up. Really. Praising Mintoff’s Labour Party for being liberal, in favour of civil liberties and reforming censorship! What on earth are you talking about? Mintoff presided over gross human rights abuses, pretty much making the career of the man who now represents Malta in the European Court of Human Rights. He presided over the burning to the ground of the newspaper house which published the only (and they were very timid) anti-government views. We lived in a society where nobody spoke out or put his or her name to a newspaper article for fear of the consequences. Instead of going to the police for protection, we sought protection from the police. You praise Mintoff for faffing around with ‘censorship’ while ignoring the far more salient fact that he actively stamped on all opposing views and the people who promoted them. You are really unbelievable.]
I doubt very much the PN would ever have enacted civil marriage which, in the 1960s, was one of the famous “sitt punti” over which fire and brimstone were unleashed during the fulminations of Archbishop Gonzi.
[Daphne – I think you’ll find that hundreds of thousands of the dead and the still living would gladly have sacrificed civil marriage for the chance to live in peace, civility and prosperity, with respect for human rights and a free press, in those 16 years of utter hell between 1971 and 1987. Speaking for myself (though probably also for most of my generation), normal life only began for me when I was 23 years old, and that’s a terrible tragedy because, unlike my parents’ war-torn and post-war upbringing, it was entirely avoidable and unnecessary. My son commented earlier this evening about how sad it is seeing what’s happening in Iran, knowing that there is no solution for the people his age who have no opportunities and whose youth has been wasted. And my response was: that was my experience. We, too, knew nothing else and thought that it would never end.]
The Catholic Church in Malta always held that civil rights which have existed in other countries, including Catholic ones, for generations are not suitable for us. It was so with civil marriage in the 1960s and it is so today with divorce. The Church is always wary of anything “new” (for Malta) as it fears losing temporal power which it craves. The Church’s battle with Mintoff was in more ways than one a re-enactment of the Church’s battle with Lord Strickland in the 1930s.
[Daphne – The Catholic Church was a problem in the 1930s and the 1960s, but it wasn’t the problem in the 1970s and 1980s. During those years, it was the Labour Party that was the real threat to society. It turns out that the bishops were right all along about Mintoff and the evil he represented: what they predicted came to pass. We would all have been better off without him instead of having to wait until the late 1980s to join the normal world.]
Some of our present politicians, especially some most influential in the PN, look at their political life as being at the service of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church teaches that a Catholic politician cannot go against Catholic teaching in his political life and, at the time of the enactment of laws, he must vote according to Catholic principles. I am afraid that some of our most prominent Catholic politicians feel conscience-bound by this rule even if it means denying certain civil rights to the Maltese, Catholic or non-Catholic.
[Daphne – Yes, but the mistake you make is to assume that these MPs are all sitting on the government side. They’re not. Joseph Muscat’s free vote on divorce will reveal that there are just as many conservative Catholics on the Opposition benches, if not more.]
When such politicians say that they look at the “common good”, what they mean is that they will act according to what their church prescribes because only that church knows what is good for the whole of humanity. I contend that those Catholic politicians who fear for their soul should quit politics. We have heard recently that the Pope had told a leading Maltese politician that Malta is to be a beacon of Catholicism in Europe.
Imagine: when such former Catholic strongholds like Spain and Italy are now centres of secular government, tiny Malta is to quixotically ride a white steed all over the continent and carry the banner of Catholic defiance in Europe. This is why the present administration will not bring a bill about divorce before parliament.
[Daphne – For the zillionth time: whether the government or the opposition puts a bill before parliament (and Joseph Muscat from his seat in the opposition can do it without waiting to become prime minister) is utterly irrelevant. A divorce bill, whoever places it before parliament, is nothing more than an empty gesture unless the party whips are used to secure a vote in favour. If MPs are left to vote as they please, the bill will fail.]
It is a matter of Catholic principle. It also means that there is no effective separation between Church and State in Malta. And not only – the powers-that-be do not believe in such separation because for them being a politician means being a Catholic politician in obeisance to the Church. How one can claim to be liberal and accept this kind of position on the part of the present administration escapes me. This much seems crystal clear.
[Daphne – Liberalism is not about sex. And if you were to look clearly, you would see that there are as many, if not more, bigoted Catholics on the Opposition benches. What is Joseph Muscat’s promise of a free vote on a divorce bill if not subservience to the Catholic bigotry among his MPs? “Don’t worry: I won’t force you to vote in favour if your Catholic beliefs won’t allow you to defend a civil right.” The fascinating thing is how he actually managed to put this across as something amazing and liberal rather than as yet more submission to the bigots. Rather than using his whip, he’s letting the conservative bigots use their whip on him. Few people who describe themselves as liberals really are so here. They are either homosexuals with a vested interest in gay rights but otherwise extremely conservative and traditionalist, as so many Maltese gay men tend to be especially when they are bound to their mother’s hip, or people whose marriages are on the rocks and who have a vested interest in divorce, and more of the same. And over and above that, I think it’s highly amusing that the liberals here define themselves by a desire for MORE regulation of relationships rather than less (divorce, gay marriage, cohabitation rights). The desire for a regulated relationship makes a person a conservative not a ‘liberal’. People with a liberal attitude to relationships don’t want the state regulating those relationships. But try explaining that to your average Maltese liberal iffissat fil-barunijiet tan-nove cento.]
Daphne: what I fail to understand is why you bring in Joseph Muscat when I never mentioned him. Does criticising the PN’s attitude to such questions as divorce mean that the critic supports Joseph Muscat? If that’s your conclusion, you are very wrong in my case.
When I mentioned censorship, I was referring to film censorship (sorry, I should have been specific and yes, I do remember the movie “Raid on Entebbe” being banned in Malta on political grounds by the Mintoff regime). I do not differ much from what you stated as regards Mintoff generally.
I only said that he did some good things too – is it possible you only see the wrong he did (which is admittedly, a great deal)?
[Daphne – I’m not the kind to say of murderers or drug-dealers “Oh, but he gave a donation to charity” or “He was nice to his mother.”]
And no, I do not assume that conservatives sit only on the government side: where did I say that? I think it would be a good idea if you do not assume that critics of the present administration (as regards certain aspects like civil rights) are necessarily Labour supporters.
[Daphne – I don’t assume that. But I find it extremely disturbing how easily people absorb Labour’s propaganda, now as in 1996. Muscat’s repeatedly calling the Nationalists ‘conservative’ has worked wondered in obscuring the fact that the conservatives are mainly on his side of the house. So everyone discusses the conservatives in the Nationalist Party and nobody discusses the fact that the Labour Party is packed full of them]
I repeat that I do not agree that Mintoff decriminalized adultery and sodomy (here I think even this term used by you is not quite right because sodomy is not necessarily between homosexuals or persons of the same sex…) [Daphne – Precisely: sodomy was illegal even when performed by a man on a woman. The law was against sodomy because you cannot – and surely you can see this – make it illegal for a person to be homosexual. That’s like making it illegal for a person to have green eyes.] just to spite the Catholic Church and you have not demonstrated that.
[Daphne – I don’t need to demonstrate it. He followed the same principles used by extreme left-wing dictatorships everywhere: liberalise the ‘sexual’ laws – to undermine the authority of the ruling religion, as religions always concern themselves with sex and marriage, while tightening the noose round people’s freedom in every other respect and not respecting individual dignity or human rights.]
In any case, what do Mintoff and Muscat have to do with the government’s adamant refusal to enact divorce?
[Daphne – The government does not enact legislation. Parliament does. Our legislators are our MPs, on both sides of the house. For a divorce bill to pass into legislation, a majority of MPs has to vote in favour. If both political leaders give their MPs a free vote, it is my understanding that there will not be enough Labour and Nationalist MPs voting in favour to get the thing through.]
If you can live with considering yourself as liberal (if such is the case) and yet support an absence of certain civil rights, so be it.
[Daphne – I really don’t know what gave you the impression that I “support an absence of certain civil rights”. You clearly haven’t read much of what I’ve written over the years.]
It is useless mentioning Joseph Muscat; he is not power.
[Daphne – On the contrary, because as an MP he is a legislator and as party leader he can use the whip. There is nothing to stop him putting a divorce bill before parliament as leader of the opposition and using the whip with his MPs. Then all he’ll need is a couple of votes from the other side of the house and we’re done. Strange how everyone’s forgotten that it’s parliament which legislates, not government. Government is thought to be the legislator because it has the majority of MPs and so can get its legislation through – except in some high-profile incidences.]
Who said liberalism is about sex? Not I, for sure. We are talking of divorce not sex.
[Daphne – Divorce, marriage, gay rights…they’re all essentially about the regulation of sex and the consequences of sex.]
In any case, sex is one aspect which touches liberalism. Liberalism is not only about free trade either. And yes, divorce and liberalism are not necessarily connected – you’re right there. In fact, even in totalitarian regimes, divorce exists. Indeed, it exists everywhere except in Malta. So what do you suggest? That we accept the present state of affairs in silence?
[Daphne – Silence, eh? That’s an interesting observation about somebody who spends her life shooting her mouth off.]
The thing is that those who consider this issue of prime importance have been driven to consider any proposal from whichever way it comes. And what’s wrong with persons who have a vested interest in divorce airing their views?
[Daphne – Nothing’s wrong as such. It just weakens their argument, that’s all. And that’s not useful when you are trying to persuade others.]
I do not consider it logical to say that those who want divorce want more regulation. The two are separate issues.
[Daphne – By definition, those who want marriage, divorce, partnership rights, cohabitation rights, gay marriage, are people who favour the regulation of relationships. All others just live together.]
That’s what lobbies are about. It does not follow that if one wants divorce, one wants more regulation or that one is aiming at marrying a partner, if that’s what you mean. I do not understand the bit about the “barunijiet tan-novecento” — forgive me but I must be missing something here.
[Daphne – It tends to be a subject that fascinates lots of gay men in Malta, the sort who call themselves liberal because they favour divorce and gay marriage, but who would much, much rather take a time-capsule back to a grander age.]