Divorce: you can’t put it off forever
Nothing could have shown up the sheer fatuousness of the Labour leader’s promise of a private member’s bill on divorce when he becomes prime minister than the bringing of just such a bill before the House by another member of parliament.
The Labour leader needs to become prime minister before he can legislate. He does not need to become prime minister to propose divorce legislation in the form of a private member’s bill.
Thanks to that sucker Joseph Cuschieri, still wafting about waiting for his compensation, Muscat has a seat in parliament and can draft and bring before the House any number of private member’s bills he pleases. But he hasn’t brought a single one, not even the divorce bill he keeps banging on about, waving it around like a carrot before donkeys.
Muscat wasn’t smart enough to work out that at some point in the next three years some other MP would steal his thunder and present that private member’s bill on divorce himself. That MP wouldn’t be on the Labour benches because such action would be tantamount to treason.
So all Joseph Muscat had to do was look at the government side and work out the options. There weren’t many. The answer should have been screamingly, glaringly obvious, but it seems that we’re dealing with the befuddled here.
He can always up the ante, of course. He can retreat to the glass-house, beaver away at a private member’s bill on same-sex marriage (no doubt with terrific input from Anglu, Toni, Marisa and Manuel Mallia the criminal lawyer) and bring it before the House.
But he won’t, will he?
Muscat has been busy courting Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando for the last 18 months, having identified him as a weak link who could be counted on to create trouble for the government and benefit the Opposition by default.
He has come to think of Pullicino Orlando as so much of a tool in Labour’s hands that he failed to see how the very same tendencies and personal characteristics – together with a publicly-declared position on divorce – might well mean that Pullicino Orlando would think nothing of whipping out that private member’s bill while Muscat was still busy talking cant and giving the impression that it’s something only a prime minister can do.
Pullicino Orlando’s bill will fail, just as Muscat’s will should he decide to repeat the process when he becomes prime minister, instead of doing what a prime minister is there to do and driving the legislation through parliament. But it is not a vain and pointless exercise.
On the contrary, it is an important and necessary one – and like many others, I am glad that it was done. Yes, it’s going to create a mountain of fresh problems for the government and a dunghill of difficulty for the Opposition. But they deserve all the trouble they get on this for avoiding the inevitable for so long.
Divorce legislation is inevitable, yet both political parties are behaving like somebody with a cancerous tumour who puts off going to the doctor and confronting the situation, and who hopes, irrationally, that the problem will sort itself out. It won’t. It will still be there when we wake up tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow – until it reaches the crisis point that it is now rapidly approaching.
The Pullicino Orlando bill serves three crucial purposes.
It demonstrates quite clearly that Muscat was disingenuous in his promise.
It will illustrate, when and if it comes to the vote, that divorce can never be the result of a private member’s bill but only of legislation driven forward by the government using the party whip for the parliamentary vote.
And above all, it will force the issue so that neither the Labour Party nor the Nationalist Party can comfortably carry on faffing about with promises of private member’s bills and free votes and strategies biex insahhu l-familja, heads buried in the sand and bottoms up in the air behind.
It is astonishing that both parties have failed to pick up on the Zeitgeist. There has been a seismic shift in attitudes towards divorce over the last few years, and this shift is permanent. We are at the point where the number of those who see nothing wrong in divorce legislation, and of those who think it is right and proper that Malta should have divorce, can only continue to grow.
There is no turning back now. Surely both party leaders can see that, and if they see it, then they must know that divorce as a major electoral issue in 2013 cannot be avoided.
The mistake that both the government and the Opposition are making now is to carry on seeing divorce as a battle with sides: for and against. Yes, there are people who still think like this, but my perception is that most have moved way beyond that.
The predominant attitudes I’m picking up now are of acceptance of an inevitable necessity and of sheer disbelief at the state of denial in which the majority of our politicians exist.
People who argue publicly against the introduction of divorce legislation now sound like theocratic Luddites from a different time and age. People can see something now that they couldn’t see as clearly even just a few years ago: that divorce doesn’t break up marriages, that it merely brings the formalities to a contractual end.
They are also increasingly able to distinguish between disagreeing with something personally and imposing it on everyone else. And we know, too, that the whole world can’t be wrong and only Malta and The Philippines right. The numbers suggest that we are the ones who are wrong. Or have our politicians cast Malta in the role of Galileo Galilei?
Do politicians fully understand exactly how foolish and inadequate they sound when they talk about ‘strengthening families’ as an alternative to divorce, while all about them marriages lie in ruins and new unions are formed, and divorce be damned?
No amount of ‘strengthening the family’ can avoid widespread marital breakdown. Marital breakdown is a factor of contemporary life because the only things that militated against the separation of spouses in the past were social opprobrium, fear of hellfire, family coercion and having nowhere else to go or money to go with. Without those barriers and insurmountable obstacles, there would have been as much separation of spouses 50 years ago as there is today.
So what are the politicians going to suggest as a way of insahhu l-familja to 1950s standards – the reintroduction of social ostracism of those who leave their spouses? The reintroduction of the law which dictated that married women had to give up their jobs? A magic spell that will have us all believing in hellfire again? A return to the years before 1993, when the husband was the sole administrator of communally-owned property and sole decision-taker on issues pertaining to the children?
In the midst of all this, the archbishop put in with a statement of unbelievable naivety: that divorce is there so that men can leave their wives for younger women. Where is he living, in which dream-world?
Men don’t need to divorce their wives to run off with younger women. They don’t even need to divorce their wives to run off with older women, as the notorious example of PN mayor Robert Musumeci and Magistrate Consuelo Scerri Herrera has demonstrated to the nation. Neither the magistrate nor the mayor is divorced, and yet look at them. The sooner they get a divorce, marry each other, and rescue the last remaining shreds of their respectability, the better.
How is their situation better than that of divorced couples? It’s not. It’s much worse. Divorce and remarriage at least confer a bit of dignity on the proceedings, especially for those in such a prominent position.
In the democratic west, the developed economies to which we are supposed to belong, the majority of divorces by far are instigated by women who have had enough. Men do not ask for divorce when they have found a mistress. They try to keep both wife and mistress for as long as possible, until either one or the other kicks up a stink, and in their ideal world would keep both till death do them part. Again, the notorious example I’ve just mentioned is a classic case of this.
The archbishop should know this, surely, just as he should know that adultery is not necessarily a cause of divorce and that divorce is not necessarily the result of adultery. It is childish and simplistic to reason that way about something as complicated as spending 50 years with the same person.
Whatever the politicians choose to believe, the evil hour cannot be put off any longer. It certainly cannot be put off beyond the next general election. I think both parties understand this, even if they have yet to come to terms with it and work out how to bite the bullet.
Muscat’s pathetic private member’s bill proposal was a thoroughly weak attempt at being seen to do something about it while doing nothing about it at all. It was a jolly bad try at staving off the inevitable.
And now the prime minister, too, has painted himself into a corner by announcing yesterday evening that he is against divorce. We know he is against divorce, but that is not the same thing as taking the decision for everyone else. He is wrong, too, in saying that the decision should be taken by the electorate. It shouldn’t. The electorate does not decide on legislation that is fundamental to democracy. You do not use democratic tools to hinder or curtail democratic development.
If what the prime minister means is that divorce legislation must be put forward in the parties’ electoral programme before it is brought before parliament, then yes – that is a basic courtesy to the electorate, which should know roughly what to expect. But something as fundamental as this should never be seen as optional, a matter of choice, or a political ‘temptation’.
The only way ahead is for both parties to pull together now, work in a cross-party commission on divorce legislation, and get it through after the next general election. If the parties cannot understand that we have reached a watershed moment, and that the private member’s bill is not the cause but just one of the manifestations, then they are damned. Change has happened, and they haven’t noticed.
Public opinion has turned and it is rapidly hardening. While both party leaders keep their focus on that part of the electorate which they fear most – the diehard conservatives whose thinking is still stuck in the 1930s – they have failed to notice the hardening of an even more electorally dangerous swathe of opinion: those who are aghast at the predisposition, of both parties, to detachment from reality.
The division between Labour and Nationalist is shifting into something different: a division between those who understand the true meaning of democracy and civil liberties and those who don’t. Joseph Muscat understands this instinctively, but because it is only the result of his exposure to life outside Malta rather than of any deep thought about the matter or any true understanding of democracy, he cannot see that the division is not party-political.
Do the Nationalist Party and the Labour Party think that they can stave off divorce legislation forever? If so, then their self-delusion is now tipping into insanity, like that of Canute who was told that he could hold back the tide and believed it.
A version of this article is published in The Malta Independent today.
47 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
“In the midst of all this, the archbishop put in with a statement of unbelievable naivety”
I like your tact :)
The Bishop’s declaration about men, younger women and divorce is nonsense. And what about women? Do they also want divorce to run off with younger men?
I don’t think enough people understand that the pro-divorce lobby also believe that marriage is for life.
Nobody has suggested that marriage should be for a stipulated period.
Sometimes, marriages just die, and attempts to rekindle them fail completely.
The recent catch-phrase, ‘ma’ rridux nghagglu, l’ewwell, insahhu lill-familja’, is senseless. We cannot go back in time.
It is evil to deprive others of the ability to end a marriage and contract a new one.
I am pro divorce because I think co-habitation without marriage is more harmful.
Remarriage is better than cohabitation.
The Archbishop should know that men don’t need divorce to find other women, if other women are what they want.
“Do the Nationalist Party and the Labour Party think that they can stave off divorce legislation forever?”
To keep the monseigneurs happy, yes; and they will.
I have never, and will never believe, that the reluctance of either party to just go ahead and introduce divorce has got anything to do with ‘offending’ the ‘moralists’ within their ranks.
You disagreed with me on this before, Daphne, but you’ve just said it yourself – the changes in beliefs, society and economics have made the divorce issue practically redundant. It is the actions of people who have made this happen, and they FAR outnumber the so-called ‘moralists’ you say the parties are afraid to ‘offend’.
No, the only reason they want to be dragged screaming by the hair over divorce is literal fear of the church, which is the only real vote cruncher and economic force, not a handful of ‘moralists’ who have today gone out with the dodo.
Both parties know this.
All it takes to introduce divorce is a very minor addition to the current civil code, and none of this over-inflated pomp or panic a-la-Joan of Arc.
I said it before, and I’ll keep saying it – we live in an Asterix & Obelix village, where the surreal and farcical is a way of life.
By staving off divorce legislation, it is not the Monsigneurs you are keeping happy – for them it is absolutely indifferent they are not married men. By staving off such legislation, Malta will be kept happier in the years to come. Divorce wreaks havoc because it breaks instead of mends.
[Daphne – No, it doesn’t. Divorce is merely the legal termination of a contract. It does not break up marriages. People break up marriages, and they’re breaking them up all the time, without divorce. Surely you’ve noticed.]
Divorce breaks. No divorce mends. Mends what? Broken hearts?
Divorce is like air: it’s not important unless you need it.
Victims of love gone wrong fill depression and suicide clinics everywhere.
What I cannot understand in all this is the Church stand on Divorce. After all, doesn’t the Church permit divorce? If not, then what is annulment?
[Daphne – Annulment is a misnomer. It’s actually a declaration of nullity. Annulment nullifies something that previously existed. A declaration of nullity means it never existed. So no. It’s not a divorce. It’s actually much worse.]
Would kind of make bastards of children born before the annulment.
[Daphne – No. There is a legal fiction which would give children legitimate status even while their parents are declared as never having been married to each other. Yes, I know….]
Thanks for the explanation. So the Catholic Church justifies annulment by simply pretending that under the circumstances this particular marriage never existed. My question then is does the Church really give a damn about the children born into these marriages?
Bad Galileo.. he was wrong; we all know it’s the sun that goes round the earth, don’t we?… just as we all know divorce will surely destroy our perfect society.
”Do the Nationalist Party and the Labour Party think that they can stave off divorce legislation forever?”
– No, yet some are comfortable not introducing divorce under their term in legislation.
Nonetheless, the Curia and its leaders do believe that they can stave off divorce legistation forever and simply because of their grip and control on various MPs of both parties.
I had been separated from my “ex-wife” in Malta for a number of years before moving to the UK, obtaining a divorce in an English court and remarrying. My second marriage has lasted much longer than the first and we are now looking forward to our retirement and plenty of travel together.
I have work colleagues and friends who have been through the same experience and are much happier in their second relationship. I therefore sympathise to a huge degree with fellow Maltese citizens who are unable to regularise their position, either because they cannot afford to go abroad and pay for a divorce (what a farce) or simply because they are governed by a group of befuddled individuals blabbering about insahhu il-familja. What unbelievable nonsense.
Time for our representatives to wake up to reality.
“The predominant attitudes I’m picking up now are of acceptance of an inevitable necessity and of sheer disbelief at the state of denial in which the majority of our politicians exist.”
Exactly. I find it unbelievable how a man who was part of the Cabinet which led Malta into the European Union, and then led Malta himself into the Eurozone, can say he’s opposed to divorce and keep a straight face.
And hasn’t the Nationalist Party understood that Malta’s liberals, both social and economic, are in its fold?
Pullicino Orland (sic) has beaten Joseph Muscat to the post of Prime Minister.
It’s a funny world, isn’t it. While hetero couples are insisting on new laws on divorce, gay couples are insisting on gay marriage laws.
“And now the prime minister, too, has painted himself into a corner by announcing yesterday evening that he is against divorce.”
I am glad you said that. Moreover, it should be noted that while all his colleagues on the way into and out of the Dar Centrali kept mum on the subject when asked by The Times reporter on their opinion, the party leader gave away his personal opinion. This was a bit out of line.
[Daphne – No. The opposite is true. It is out of line NOT to give your personal opinion about divorce when you are the elected representative of the people. The prime minister was right to give his personal opinion, and the others were wrong and cowardly not to. Where the prime minister was wrong was in failing to qualify his statement with another: that he understands how his personal opinion about divorce will, should it come to it, make his position untenable as party leader. This is because the impression he gave by that statement is not that he is against divorce at a personal level, but that he is against having divorce legislation. The two are different.]
“The division between Labour and Nationalist is shifting into something different: a division between those who understand the true meaning of democracy and civil liberties and those who don’t.”
I fully agree with that statement too. Divorce, among others, is purely a matter of civil liberties which other countries have adopted something like 50 years or so ago, and it is time Malta catches up with the rest of the world.
Malta needs a coup d’etat a-la-Henry VIII. Intellaw lill’ Emmy Bezzina PM. Unfortunately, that thought is just as hilarious as the current state of affairs.
“The divorce issue …. is a division between those who understand the true meaning of democracy and civil liberties and those who don’t….It is time Malta catches up with the rest of the world.”
You mean the Arab world? I can just imagine it: Divorce a la Maltija : ITLAQ ITLAQ ITLAQ
Daphne, I very much agree that there is nothing wrong in our representatives expressing an opinion on divorce. But, to be frank, from what I saw on the timesofmalta.com video yesterday, it looked as if the parliamentary group had been asked to not give away any personal opinion, at least before the meeting.
I must say, I liked Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici’s reply to Charlon about the free vote, and his final wink at the journalist. But I cannot trace that video now.
One favourite argument brought up by the anti-divorce people is the negative effect that divorce has on children. As if one child would tell another, “I’m happier than you because my parents have separated and are living with new partners but yours have divorced.”
True, it’s terrible when you argue for a cause, knowing that the people fighting on your side are fighting it for a completely different reason. One which you would almost want to fight against yourself.
The pro-camp too have those who say that once the world has divorce legislation, then we should too. Crap reason if you ask me.
[Daphne – No, not crap, but commonsense. The whole world can’t be wrong and roughly 100,000 Maltese adults right (if that). On a scientific principle, that might be possible, and there have been many notorious examples, but certainly not on a matter of contractual and social administration, which is what divorce is.]
To say that only 100K Maltese in the whole world are opposed to the introduction of divorce, you must be making the faulty assumption that in each case divorce was introduced with the backing of the entire population. So as to say that even the peoples of Poland, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Italy are 100% in favour.
[Daphne – You forget that in the rest of the world, where there is no distinction between marital breakdown and divorce, to say that you are in favour of divorce is like saying that you are in favour of marital breakdown. Malta’s situation is weird; you can’t compare. People who don’t live here genuinely don’t understand the distinction we make between marital breakdown and divorce. Most people I’ve spoken to about the subject actually believe that ‘no divorce’ means that we are not allowed to leave our spouses. When I explain that there is no law which forces couples to stay together or prevents them starting new unions and new families, their next question is, inevitably, ‘Then why on earth don’t you have divorce?’]
I would answer with another question: why get married by the Catholic rite, with all its rules and regulations, in the first place?
The fact that non-Maltese cannot understand the difference between marital breakdown and divorce might back the argument that couples in other countries may go for divorce the minute their marriage starts to crack. For them, there’s no one without the other.
[Daphne – As if. Grow up. There is no difference between the way marriages break down in Malta and the way they break down elsewhere.]
Who said that there was a difference in the way marriages break down? The difference mentioned here (a point you raised, incidentally) is in the way the breakdown is handled or ultimately resolved.
“In the midst of all this, the archbishop put in with a statement of unbelievable naivety: that divorce is there so that men can leave their wives for younger women”.
But there are other scenarios of people exploiting divorce to achieve their wicked ends; imagine, “Mr. & Mrs. Borg and Mr. & Mrs. Vella would like to announce that they have divorced. Mr. Borg is now living with Mr. Vella while Ms. Vella is living with Ms Borg”.
Yes, Leonard, but the way you suggest, they can only live with each other, or cohabit, but not get married.
Any other unbelievable naive statements from the Curia?
Fr Mark Montebello wrote about Jesus Christ and divorce and ran into problems because of it.
We all know that the Catholic Church is not a democracy. In a democracy we are not supposed to muzzle people. If the Church pretends to take part in a democratic discussion it cannot bully or threaten anyone with its so called moral authority.
[Daphne – The Catholic Church is an organisation, and like every organisation it controls and disciplines its members and ’employees’. Organisations are not democratic, by their very nature.]
On the question of what Jesus really said about divorce and the context in which he said it we cannot be fundamentalists.
In fact, it is not easy to state with no equivocation what Jesus actually said about anything at all before one does some very serious exegesis.
If the Catholic Church in Malta wishes to participate in the debate it must first and foremost educate its faithful on how not to browbeat opponents by the use of quotations from Scriptures.
It is not in the Catholic tradition to do that and one should not do it especially in this case. What is required is for some serious New Testament scholars to explain the texts, the difficulties that arise from the texts and how Catholics should interpret those difficulties intelligently.
It is quite pathetic to read in these discussions arguments from religion which are really pathetically glib; arguments that are not even accepted by clergy but are never corrected lest these ignoramuses are scandalised and shocked.
If any one can help me find the said article written by Father Montebello I would sincerely appreciate it.
We would have one hell of a situation if the government were to legislate to support financially only those who are well-off to assist their relatives abroad for some specific medical reason. It would be a grave injustice which obliges everyone to stand up and be counted.
For the same reason, but this time inversely, the government must find a solution for the not-so-well-off to get the same type of right as the well-off who can get a divorce in another country.
The fundamental and very important issue at stake here is *the right of every citizen to have the same rights* and not some fuzzy religious theology. But let us not do a ‘Mintoff’ and remove the right of those who already have it so that everybody is equal.
[Daphne – This mistaken belief about divorce being available to ‘well-off’ Maltese is really annoying. Money does not get you a divorce. Residence in another country does. To get a divorce elsewhere, if you have a Maltese passport, you have to be resident there. That means going to live in, say, Britain, Germany, or France for the required length of time. How many people can do that, money or no money? There are work commitments, family commitments, and the rest to contend with. All this talk makes it seem like there’s some kind of ‘rich list of divorced people’ in Malta, but there isn’t. The divorces registered here tend to fall into two types: Maltese people married to non-Maltese (the non-Maltese spouse could initiate the divorce in his or her own country) and Maltese people who lived elsewhere – Britain, Australian, the USA, Canada – and got divorced there. Money just doesn’t come into it.]
Daphne, you chose three expensive countries: Britain,Germany and France. You have to do your thinking very well before you do such a thing.
A friend of mine got a divorce from Spain.They hired a small flat in the south of Spain; it’s very much cheaper there than anywhere else you mentioned.
Hired a local lawyer who told them what to do, made I.D.s to show that they lived there, found work in a hotel and enjoyed their holiday for a year.
When all the paperwork was done and signed a divorce was granted. They came back to Malta, their divorce was registered, and after some time they got married to others. Quite cheap, and now they are living happily with their new family.
[Daphne – New family? First family, I imagine. They couldn’t have done that if they had children to start with.]
The first family was OK for a few years, then boom. Their children were over 25 yrs. old so they had no problems. I agree with small children you are doomed.
The democratic way forward is a referendum. We cannot leave the decision even in future to representatives who stay mum on the issue and then vote for or against.
[Daphne – A referendum is a democratic tool. You cannot use it to hinder democracy, by using it to take a decision on civil liberties. A referendum on divorce is fundamentally undemocratic.]
For the attention of the Iran sympathisers among us.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/08/iran-halts-woman-death-stoning
‘The division between Labour and Nationalist is shifting into something different: a division between those who understand the true meaning of democracy and civil liberties and those who don’t. ‘
My problem is this. With the Carm Mifud Bonnicis and Tonio Fenchs on one side and the Adrian Vassallos on the other side, who do we vote for?
[Daphne – That was my point when I said that both parties will have to contend with the dangers of major elector-disillusionment and anger in 2013 if they don’t start getting their act together on divorce now. Divorce is no longer just divorce. The issue has become symbolic of something wider: civil liberties in general. Freedom of speech, censorship, prosecution of writers, divorce – they have all become enmeshed.]
Too bloody right. And then we whine about the need for theatres and fostering the artistic professions more “world-class performances”. Yeah right. Fostering the arts in the Land of Censorship.
Rover: You are happy in your “second experience” good luck and may you remain so; but one question: What happens when this present “experience” dries up? Will you try a third one, and if you are granted more time on earth, how about a fourth etc etc experiences?
[Daphne – Oh come on, honestly. I think Rover made it quite clear that there is nothing wrong with his second marriage, which has lasted so long that he is now approaching retirement. Can we not be cynical? Hard as it is to accept, first marriages, especially when contracted early in adult life, can be complete failures and second marriages can be better. Not everyone runs off with a Russian or breaks up for capricious reasons.]
What you do not understand is that, in the large majority of separations, there is a huge sadness that a marriage has failed. Separation is stressful, very emotional and greatly expensive.
Along with bereavement it is considered as one of the most stressful things to go through. Two people who once thought the world of each other now cannot live together.
Divorce comes later. Please read Daphne’s article and understand the timescale. It is only at the point of no return in a relationship that divorce is contemplated because it is just a termination of a contract which allows you at some point in the future to move on.
What we have in Malta are a large number of people who have separated their assets, now live with a different partner and yet are still married to the first partner. Does this not strike you as odd?
Once again divorce does not split up marriages, people do.
Even Larry King, in his 7th marriage with his wife of thirteen years, recently have torn up their LA divorce petitions and have reconciled – he is retiring from his television show to spend more time with his wife and children.
Larry tried not only more than four times, but seven times; and it requires courage and determination (after single or multiple failures) to embark upon any marriage with all of its mutual commitments, potential imbalances, and struggles – along with its benefits and pleasures, particularly being with and loving the spouse, while that relationship is reciprocated.
These decisions are personal; and it is a violation of human dignity not to allow persons (by imposition of individual or social opinions of others) to execute their commitment to their personal decisions.
After a divorce from America and a church annulment, I am in my second marriage with my Maltese wife. Her first marriage was annulled by the State of Malta, hence we could be married in Malta in a civil ceremony fourteen years ago; between her marriage and mine, she had been in a second long-term relationship out of Malta that did not enjoy any civil protections when her partner terminated the relationship; so, I have been her third husband, and she is my second wife. And our marriage also was blessed in the church almost two years ago.
Divorce is an essential social tool. Nowhere would it be implied that re-marriage cancels the familial obligations pertaining to previous relationships. The social rules for marriage and divorce provides for the sometimes messy details; and, divorce or its equivalent is always painful.
Unfortunately, Malta has provided for only half of the civil requirement regarding marriages; divorce is the missing and essential complement. And religious arguments against divorce are not valid: personal views should be entirely separate from our social obligations.
Divorce is not a matter for referendum; it is an obligation in and for social justice. It is shameful that both mainstream political parties do not admit to their parlamentary political responsibilities
Every single political action of extraodinary consequence has to be subjected to discussion.
This is the essence of democracy.
Daphne – this is becoming worrisome. What do people think Fascism was (and still is) all about? A clown make spirited speeches to crowds of mountain goat-herders?!
The Fascists used to invoke SOCIAL justice all the time. (Within the confines of the Nation State – in this they were different to the other Socialists who wanted social justice for all nations – thus the Socialist International.)
Political education is an absolute need in this country.
[Daphne – I agree. The sooner everyone learns to distinguish between something that is a matter of opinion and choice (EU membership) and something that is a civil right (divorce), the better. Then perhaps we won’t have any of this claptrap about the people deciding whether to introduce divorce or not. What can I say? Thank God the people were not asked to decide whether women got the vote.]
Ok, I appreciate the irony. But I am trying to say something different.
Frankly, I really do not care (any more) for partisan politics. I am more interested in conducting a normal existence in this country. My ultimate aim, therefore, is not to help the Capulets against the Montagues (or vice versa). I feel more akin to Mercutio – hoping not to meet his same end at the hands of some fiery Tybalt.
Elsewhere, I left a comment on the difference between civil rights and other rights. I think my comment conforms to the reasoning of the ECtHR which you have quoted in a slightly different context.
It’s 2010 and Malta is debating whether or not to introduce divorce. I’m out of here. Good luck, you weirdos.
Lovely article, thank you.
For information about divorce in Malta go to http://www.freewebs.com/maltadivorce
it seems that the only country reasoning like our dear prime minister is the philippines !! so is all the rest of the world wrong, immoral, going to burn in hell….. except for us maltese and and them????
wake up maltese nation and smell the coffee…..
those that want to abuse of divorce as surely finding a way of abusing anyway.. even without it…. so let us all be realistic and practice the democracy we all preach……!!
JPO butterly sitting under Gonzi utterly nose-leading liberals on Joseph’s very own divorce-bill-to-be, not fair, says MaltaStar:
http://www.maltastar.com/pages/r1/ms10dart.asp?a=10463
I sometimes see your website Mrs. Daphne Caruana Galizia – tell you the truth I like most of all you write. This divorce thing is inevitable like you mentioned! We are not in the Middle Ages.
Today I felt like saying my bit, so thanks to your site I can. This simple civil right (divorce) is a must in today’s society. I am fed up with such hypocrisy in this country!
No one can stop the inevitable.
I am sure that the Church has a very good reason to forbid divorce