I noticed that too. The implication was that this person’s opinion does not matter because he is PN.

So has public opinion changed enough to actually introduce divorce, or does it still need some persuading?

A civil annulment in Malta is identical to a church annulment. There must have been a “mistake” when saying ‘I do’. No other reason is acceptable. Both parties have to agree, go to court, take oaths, and lie through their teeth that they made a mistake. The judgements are then filled with cut-ad-paste case-law, and annulments are churned out like pastizzi.

A separation in Malta is a spitting image of a divorce in every single conceivable way from start to finish – civil, economical and socially – minus the right to remarry.

There is absolutely no need for any United Nations style debate about introducing divorce. We have it already.

All that is needed is a minor amendment in our civil code, that gives the CHOICE for any one of the separated couple, the right to remarry. This is a simple matter of paperwork that is handled by the registry.

The biggest oversight the Labour Party ever made after Alfred Sant finally departed was not making Evarist Bartolo party leader. And I don’t say this because of the divorce matter. He is in my eyes one of the few ragel fuq l-irgiel from both sides of the political divide.

Why don’t you say it yourself?

@ dudu
What you have stated is one of the problems that some homosexuals bring on themselves. Heterosexual persons who act in outrageous ways are shunned as much as homosexuals are who act in the same way. One does not need to go and put up a placard stating one’s sexual orientation. The sexual orientation of those who have made it to the highest levels within the PN was known to all, including the highest officials of the PN.

There should be no referendum on divorce.

It’s a choice and not by any means mandatory. Basic human rights are not subject to majority rule in any civilised country which in this case means everybody except us and the Philippines.

If you take it by its definition you are right in that there isn’t a majority issue but that is hardly the way things really work out in practice especially in this case.

My point is that your prediction is flawed because it does not consider that there would be a new parliament with some different members, possibly a different opposition leader and the influential strength Muscat would enjoy if he wins the next general election after 25 years in opposition.

[Daphne – 15 years, not 25.]

I have no hard facts to prove my point but no-one does as it never happened before in Malta! Any prediction at point is just speculation.

“Start a debate? Where have you been these last 20 years? You sound like a teenager, who thinks that sex started when he turned 14.”

Oh I see so the divorce debate actually started when you stated to write about it 20 years ago! Sorry but you have simply shifted the date from my perspective to yours so the teenager stereotype you mentioned applies to you as well.

[Daphne – No, there was no debate before that. I started writing a newspaper column because I was tired of reading sterile newspapers in which there was no debate about issues but only stiff reports about facts and events. It was the first such newspaper column – a proper one, that is. There were no radio or television stations other than PBS at the time, either. Those came in 1992. The debates to which you are accustomed, with everyone and his dog having their say on air and in print, are a development of the last two decades.]

@ scicluna
You should be locked up – pronto