Joseph Muscat: the true political child of Alfred Sant
With scintillating advisers like this one, what do you expect?
You remember how Alfred Sant used to paint himself into tight corners because he lacked that sharp edge of intelligence which allows the truly smart to be several steps ahead and to think strategically?
And to be frank, you didn’t need to be particularly bright to avoid the kind of corners that Sant used to paint himself into.
It looks like his poodle Muscat is going down the same road. He comes up with a political stunt and acts on it without considering the consequences or assessing the strategic risks.
Getting people to queue up in their thousands by promising that Labour will fight to get their VAT back on car purchases is a case in point.
When Muscat wanted legal advice on this, instead of consulting an expert in EU commercial law and tax, he consulted a criminal lawyer with a lifetime’s expertise in trials by jury. L-aqwa li qieghed fil-Labour Business Forum ma’ Marlene.
It looks like Labour’s going to lose that suit. What price the short-term PR impact of people snaking round the block at Labour HQ, then?
But this morning’s news really revealed Muscat for the god-awful chump he is. I laughed so much at the stupidity of it all that I almost forgave Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando when I heard that he had brought before the house a private member’s bill on divorce.
Joseph Muscat needn’t have been a political strategist of super-normal intelligence to see that one bearing down on him like the Eurostar from London to Paris. What an idiot, honestly.
And he must be surrounded by idiots of an even greater order if not one of them had the mental alertness to see that one heading their way at tremendous speed.
I’ve literally spelled it out in this blog and my newspaper column over the last few months: a private member’s bill is called that precisely because it is a private bill which can be brought before the house by any MP independently of his or her party. We don’t have to wait for three years until Muscat becomes prime minister.
Anyone else can do it in the interim. And what were the odds that at least one MP on the government side would do so? Pretty good, given that there are rather a lot of them and there’s still three years to go.
I couldn’t have spelled it out more clearly if I had lit up the tactical strategy in pink neon and marked it out with shrieking alarm bells.
And finally – FINALLY – somebody woke up, rubbed the sand out of his eyes, and pulled the rug out from under Muscat’s feet. And that somebody just had to be Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando.
What, did Muscat and his scintillating aides really think that the Nationalist Party would sit there for three years until the general election without one MP coming forward to put a rocket under that private member’s bill thing by doing it himself?
How thick can you be?
Really, really thick, apparently – now I know why Joseph Muscat needed five years of hindsight to work out that the Yes vote won the referendum and why he truly believed that EU membership would be the death of us at the hands of Sicilian hairdressers.
You’d think somebody that daft and shallow would at least have the sense to surround himself with clever people to make up for his tremendous shortcomings. But no. Who does he pick – the semi-literate Anglu Farrugia, the totally crass and idiotic Toni Abela, the sparklingly brilliant large-headed midget Kurt Farrugia, and the 53-year-old man-hunting schoolgirl Marisa Micallef.
But then if you’re daft, would you take a smart decision? No, I suppose not. You’d take a stupid one, and surround yourself with other thickos.
I almost give up.
104 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
based on L-Ghannej
Muscat, Muscat
Illejla ghal fejn?
Il-Mile End niltaqghu
U nqattghu saghtejn
Nistiednu lil Consie
Lil Robert ukoll
Jehtieg li jfehmuna
Ta’ Jeffrey l-Imbroll!
Ghannej, ghannej
dan Jeffrey ghannej!
B’abbozz wiehed ta’ ligi
ghal skop laqat tnej’
Se jaghti gambetta
lit-tfajjel Muscat
Se jerga’ jgib lura
Lill-elettorat!
Ghannej ghannej
Qed tifrah ghalxej’
Iddeffes l-Arcisqof
Minn fuq l-RTK…
Insomma s-soltu “MPs Kattolici ma jistghux jivvutaw favur din il-mozzjoni bla bla bla effing bla.” Il-veru pajjiz patetiku. Tara dawn ix-xeni fl-2010. Imbaghad l-iehor gej bil-Vision 2015+.
Tal-RTK ifahhru lil Mulej
But Baxxter, what do you expect the Archbishop to say?!
Have you ever heard General Soft Drinks urging people to drink Pepsi?!
The Archbishop is doing his job.
Had it been the present PM’s great-uncle we would have already seen an excommunication thrown at JPO, Zeus-like.
That would be a “bolt out of the blue”!
But the present Shepherd is himself a Sheep.
I do get your point. I would expect the bishop to urge people to think before they get married, to realise that it’s a commitment, etc etc, but to stop short of making that sort of statement. He should be clear about the separation between the private beliefs of MPs, and their duty towards the common good, which is what the republic is all about. That is the key point.
Of course I never expected the archbishop or any member of the clergy to rejoice at the announcement of this bill. I was only trying to say, through the medium of poetry, ahem chrrrm, that the bishops are sabotaging every attempt to drag the divorce issue out of the sphere of Catholic doctrine and into the realm of politics. This is 2010. Other countries went through this process decades or centuries ago.
It’s the way our wheel of history keeps turning back to circa 1900 Sicily that pisses me off. So much for all the hype about Cremona being, in the words of one “youth”, “bniedem bhalna”. He most patently isn’t. He’s out of touch with social reality, with history, with modern political discourse (for the Catholic church is a political player) and with the worries and aspirations of the Maltese.
Ghannej ghannej
Please stenna daqsxejn
lil-Isqof ta’ Ghawdex
Iharbex kelmtejn
Nispera bil-Malti
Anki jekk miksur
Ghax jekk b’xi lingwa ohra
Jehtieg traduttur…
And the pantomalt continues.
But dear Baxxter, dear Baxxter
– no! I won’t say there’s a hole in the bucket, a hole! –
Seriously, Baxxter, the Church is per definition out of synch with reality!
The Church helps our peregrination through this vale of tears (and marital breakdown is replete with tears) toward Heaven.
Mass, says one of the Church’s greatest minds, is Heaven on Earth.
You seem to want the Church to deny itself. It cannot. It has to be what it is. It takes inspiration from what God told Moses on Sinai, when he appeared as a burning bush.
The problem – and here you are correct, my friend – is that the Church is interfering with Society. But the problem is not really so big.
If we accept democracy as a practical model, then the Church is within her constitutional rights. (And I am not referring to that weird State Religion provision.)
Democratically speaking, she has all the right to do express her views – like every other subject of the Law.
Politically speaking too, she has the right to lobby. Like all lobby groups, she can threaten with the votes of her adherents – for that is democracy after all.
If she is politically powerful – because she has many members – that is just a given, and is not in itself something to be criticised. It means that marketing-wise, the Church is effective; it sells a good product which the market wants to buy; it gives excellent after-sales services and all in all, keeps her clients happy. Ergo, she has many client-followers. Her voice, thus, is very strong, and only fools would dare not listen to what she has to say.
But like all other lobbyists, she is a lobbyist in a democratic society. She does not have the power to legislate; but she has the political power to make her voice heard.
Silencing the Church, dear Baxxter, is UNdemocratic, and goes against the spirit of secularism.
Mill kitbiet ta’ Richy Petto
Ghaziz Baxxter ser nikkwota
jekk dal kliem inti ser t’isma
zgur ‘favur’, illi tivvota
Richy Petto liili taghni
drittijiet tal copy-right
sa’ biex lilu jien nikkopja
w’lilek inkun nista nghid.
Petto qal fil kitba tieghu
l’id-divorzju dritt uman
jekk l’in-nies inti ser t’ichdu
tassew illi tkun tirran
Pullucin tefaghha ghal sieqa
flokk mill bieb ghadda mit tieqa
Izd’ issa b’dan l’indhil
zgur li qadt ma’ jsir tibdil
id-divorzju, hlief ghall tnejn
bieh ma’ jridu jafu xejn
kulhadd hmar. Oh, x’injoranza
biex tghaddi trid maggoranza?
I wouldn’t want anyone to be silenced. I just expect CEOs (like the archbishop) to be sharp.
Flores, se nkellmek straight
Daqshekk poeziji, ghax issa ghajjejt.
Nixfitli l-fonti tal-ispirazzjoni.
U ghall-kuntrarju tal-erezzjoni
Fejn pakkett Levitra tista’ tuza,
Ghall-poezija, trid il-muza.
Ghannej, ghannej
illejla ghal fejn
fuq il-blog ta’ Daphne
Inqattghu saghtejn
Inciequ u nciccu
Bir-reqqa naraw
Fejn sejra l-pulitka
Fejn se nispiccaw
Jeffrey Jeffrey
lehen fid-dezert
Jew ghandu warajh
Nofs il-Parlament?
Ir-rapprezentanti
tal-poplu maqsum
Jew raw il-vizjoni
Jew f’xifer l-irdum
Muscat Muscat
ghadu minghajr kliem
ir-rih minn gol-qala
hadulu bla sliem
Issa maqful gewwa
Ma’ klikka t’irjus
Anglu, Toni u Mario
U James il-gustuz
Toni Toni
ghidilhom daqsxejn
dan it-tmashin zejjed
fejn se jwassal, fejn?
Ahjar jistudjaw
il-mossa li jmiss
ghax b’dar-ritmu msempel
ghan-nelh jaqaw spiss
Ghannej ghannej
Xi jmiss, x’inhu gej?
Fejn sejra d-dinja
Divorzju u gay?
Hawn xejn m’ghadu sagru
Xejn m’ghadu qaddis
Xejn m’ghadu ta’ siwi
M’hawnx bzonn il-qassis…
Jeffrey, Gonzi
Anglu u Muscat
Is-siggu tal-muzka
Pulitka stuffat
Il-poplu jistenna
Il-poplu ghatxan
Ghal jeddijietu
ghax huwa Sovran!
Sorry Baxxter, didn’t see this comment before: “I wouldn’t want anyone to be silenced. I just expect CEOs (like the archbishop) to be sharp.”
What do you mean by this?
picked this up from Timesofmalta.com
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100706/local/archbishop
*************
Joe Grima
The papers have been full of the debate on divorce ever since Joseph Muscat put his commitment to legislation, by a new Labour Government, on the table. So what was the Archbishop doing when he put his two bits in on the subject, sleepwalking?
*************
When did Jsopeh Msutac commit himself to introduce divorce? as in legislation??
funny how things don’t tie in if you see the Mtalasatr wesite.
http://www.maltastar.com/pages/r1/ms10dart.asp?a=10389
Joe Grima, Joe Grima… aaaaannndddd sleeep.
Archbishop Cremona:
“…in most cases abroad, divorce was not sought by people who were suffering, but by people who wanted something else – such as men who wanted younger women.”
Speechless!
[Daphne – And absolutely wrong. Most divorce proceedings in Europe are instigated by the wife. If the archbishop knew anything at all about human psychology, he would understand why, too: most men are prepared to go on with a situation because they hate change and love their creature comforts. That is why the man who finds a mistress will try to keep both wife and mistress for as long as possible, because he wants both: the set up he has at home, and the excitement of a mistress. Men don’t instigate divorces when they have mistresses. Their wives do. And a woman will leave her husband even if she doesn’t have another relationship.]
And for the sake of the argument, what does the archbishop have in mind? Forcing ‘those men’ to stay married at gunpoint?
[Daphne – When the archbishop speaks so foolishly, he lets himself down. Men do not need divorce to go off with younger women. They do not even need divorce to go off with women a decade their senior, as Robert Musumeci has most amply demonstrated.]
Dear Daphne,
To answer Mr Joe Grima,
The Archbishop is doing hard work in silence!!!!
Hafna nies min tal- lejber favur it -tifrik taz zwieg,ma jarawx sa mnehirhom!!!! u imbad inwadbu il- problemi fuq haddiehor , jipretendu Kollox B’xejn. ghax hekk ghalimhom il- mexxej antik tahom.Dom Mintoff !!!!!!!!!!
So the PN has stolen Muscat’s thunder.
And it had to be Pullicino Orlando!
Someone over at the PN’s strategy room is doing their homework very well!
Pullicino Orlando has to show he is loyal to the party. He’s risking some votes for this. Most probably, if all goes well, after next election he’ll get a ministry.
You either cry or laugh or both at the same time whilst reading the readers’ comments on timesofmalta.com beneath the report on this story.
They cannot understand what a Private Member’s Bill is all about, what a personal opinion is etc. One even said that Labour have a clear policy about the introduction of divorce as stated by Joseph Muscat – obviously, that man cannot distinguish between Joseph Muscat’s personal opinion and party policy.
Daphne, you tried in vain explaining the above, and I think JPO managed to call JM’s bluff on this issue.
Just read Alternattiva Demokratika’s statement. What pretentiousness. I’d rather throw my vote in the bin than give it to these people.
Better to throw it in the bin than vote for PN or PL.
This situation will turn out to be a very good Mexican standoff.
And it will not be too clear who is the Good, who the Bad and who the Ugly. Each spectator will decide for himself who is who.
The tension is dramatically high.
How I wish Ennio Morricone could write the music for this moment in our national history.
I don’t believe that this bill will produce any dramatic moments. There are ways, in which Malta’s political parties are experts, how to let anything dangerous die out and be swept under the carpet.
Technically speaking, JPO is ultra vires. He does not have a mandate from the people to put forward a Private Member’s Bill on the introduction of divorce for Maltese residents. (Mintoff did it in 1975 for those resident abroad.)
This is because, between one sob and another, he never promised any such thing to his electors.
On the other hand, someone has to go to Court to test this theory – that is, that the Legislature cannot legislate legislation beyond the mandate given by the electorate.
Who would do this?
1. The PL
Highly improbable. Not only because of the hypocritical situation it would find itself in – it would be ridiculously similar to a patent-infringement action! – but also because these rules are not on paper. Since we get our Constitution from the UK, we are drawing water from an unwritten constitutional tradition. Like the Gospels, our constitutional document has captured only a few aspects of the constitutional framework of the UK; like the Catholic Church, the real interpretation of the Constitution lies in reading the constitutional documents in synch with the constitutional tradition. (One such example is the continuous reference to Erskine May.) Like in religion, there are many interpretations of the tradition – some orthodox, some heretical, and you never know to which school the judge belongs. (This is, in essence, the critique profferred by Jeremy Bentham to the common law model, personified in Blackstone…)
So the PL will not want to risk venturing into uncharted territory, risking a humiliating judicial defeat.
2. The Church
Here it becomes more complicated.
The Church might want to test the audacity of JPO and the PN (if they follow the course he is indicating) by going to Court and submitting the reasoning that, there being no popular mandate, JPO’s Bill is unconstitutional. There was a similar case in Poland, not too long ago, and – if my memory serves me right – the Constitutional Court of that country upheld this reasoning.
But – like in the Mexican standoff – the Church would be very myopic to do this. Shooting down the PN would only mean leaving the PL alive to shoot the Church back.
3. Gonzi
To my understanding, the buck stops with Gonzi. Why?
Gonzi’s moral authority has been faltering. Really and truly, he never had much. But we must admit that he is a very shrewd politician and has found ways and means of braving many a storm, with cool-headedness and determination. Whoever came up with the par idejn sodi slogan knows the man inside-out.
This is an opportunity for him to assert once and for all his moral authority.
By not giving in to the easy temptation offered by JPO-snake-in-the-Garden-of-Eden, Gonzi might hit two birds with one stone.
He may augment his moral authority while – possibly – introducing divorce and cheating Muscat out of a golden opportunity to win the coming elections.
All Gonzi has to do is call a referendum. The question: Should Parliament discuss JPO’s Private Member’s Bill?
If the electorate votes yes, then Gonzi will have no choice but to bow his head to the will of the people – who is SOVEREIGN.
He would have sky-rocketed his moral authority – the Man of the People – and introduced divorce.
In this way, he would also give the Church the opportunity to influence the vote of the people, but – at the same time – give the people the opportunity to express their collective will.
My argument is ultimately based on the idea that we do not elect our Sovereign, but that WE are, collectively, the Sovereign. (This is just plain modern political theory… nothing outlandish.)
Not being based on any clear popular mandate, JPO’s Private Member’s Bill is based on the idea that Parliament is Sovereign. This is mistaken. Parliament is supreme, but its sovereignty comes from the People. It is a delegated Sovereignty.
Monarchs used to argue that Sovereignty comes from God – Dieu e(s)t mon Droit.
The 1688 Revolution changed that: sovereignty comes from the people.
In fact, when Napoleon elected himself Emperor, he (i) crowned himself (disallowing the Pope to crown him) and (ii) called himself Emperor of the French – namely his sovereignty came from the people, the people “elected” their Emperor.
Now, unless, JPO thinks he’s Napoleon, he should seek a mandate from the people.
A referendum on whether Parliament should discuss his Bill would solve the question once and for all.
If Gonzi won’t do it, the PL or the Church (but it’s probably in the Church’s interest to do so), might go to Court to have a ruling that a referendum is required.
An MP does not need permission from the electorate to suggest legislation, whether it has been promised or not.
The court cannot order a referendum.
And besides, a referendum on whether to allow divorce or not? Seriously, how much more undemocratic can you get!
Gonzi did not exclude a referendum: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100707/local/gonzi
Is Gonzi too undemocratic?
In this case I believe Dr Gonzi expressed all possibilities but no, I don’t believe a referendum will be called by the government.
Dr Gonzi is not quite so undemocratic!
David, did you read my comment?
I said: a referendum on whether the Bill should be discussed.
Not a referendum on whether divorce should be introduced.
I think you ought to zero in before firing.
And yes, no representative can propose legislation which has not been promised. That is the meaning of MANDATE. When you give a mandate to someone, you tell him what to do on your behalf. He cannot exceed the mandate.
This is the essence of parliamentary democracy – that is why they are called representatives of the people, or deputies.
In democracy it’s down-up; in dictatorships it’s up-down.
David, Madonna santa!, this is basic.
@Min Weber
” said: a referendum on whether the Bill should be discussed.
Not a referendum on whether divorce should be introduced.”
I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but no, it IS that bad! Permission from the electorate to even discuss something?
hah!
“And yes, no representative can propose legislation which has not been promised. That is the meaning of MANDATE. When you give a mandate to someone, you tell him what to do on your behalf. He cannot exceed the mandate.”
Yes, fine you are absolutely right, it’s written in stone, m’hawnx b’hallek!
@Min Weber
“And yes, no representative can propose legislation which has not been promised. That is the meaning of MANDATE. When you give a mandate to someone, you tell him what to do on your behalf. He cannot exceed the mandate.
This is the essence of parliamentary democracy – that is why they are called representatives of the people, or deputies.
In democracy it’s down-up; in dictatorships it’s up-down.
David, Madonna santa!, this is basic.”
Yes, you are basic!
Using your (ridiculously stupid) arguments, why have parliament at all? Why have a government at all?
Parties can put forward their manifesto and the people vote to make one or the other law! It would save a lot of hassle, perhaps we could have such an election every year!
David – I don’t know if you are for real.
Parliamentary democracy is democracy by representation.
You should read a book or two, every so often, instead of losing it.
Mea culpa however: my diary used to say, don’t argue with a fool, because the onlookers won’t know which is which.
So, mea culpa.
And, David, if you cannot understand an argument, it does not mean it is ridiculously stupid. It just means you cannot understand it. Don’t mix the two concept, as they are like oil and water.
@ Min Weber
Like I said “you are absolutely right, it’s written in stone, m’hawnx bhalek!”
David, who am I to deny you the pleasure sarcasm gives you?
@Min Weber
Which article of the constitution mentions “mandate” or restrictions on enacting acts for which one does not have this mandate?
That anyone should feel that it is politically proper to consult and obtain a political mandate from the electorate through an election or referendum I can understand. But that a law can be struck down because it did not feature in an electoral programme or a referendum question is odd.
It is basic constitutional law.
First thing I found, Wikipedia (and in this case it is reliable):
In politics, a mandate is the authority granted by a constituency to act as its representative.[1]
“The concept of a government having a legitimate mandate to govern via the fair winning of a democratic election is a central idea of democracy. New governments who attempt to introduce policies that they did not make public during an election campaign are said to not have a legitimate mandate to implement such policies.”
This is so basic, that there is no need to write it.
But it would seem that with certain people, and I referring to Mr Buttigieg in particular, who have to spell things out.
This is the constitutional theory behind a democracy.
Any attempt to break this rule requires a strongly-reasoned and argued justification.
But Mr Buttigieg seems to prefer other forms of government, not parliamentary (i.e. representative) democracy.
Luckily, he is in a minority. And I do not think anyone wants to give such a minority any rights.
Some people should get a culture before opening their mouths.
@Min Weber
So what about Partnership for peace? How did they manage to do it and why didn’t Labour force them to stop it through the courts?
Because the constitutional clause on neutrality is ambiguous. It refers to “the two superpowers” – a fact-situation which no longer exists. Labour would have been utterly nuts to go to Court with such a clause.
Sacrifice the bishop, aim for the queen, get pawned by a tosser.
So well put, Daphne. I can visualize the ‘Glass House’ at the moment – head chimp with his assistant chimps and assorted chimpettes, jumping, scretching and scratching.
Joseph’s adviser Gadget became a lawyer with the guidance of his mentor Ret Butler. I’ve watched Gadget in court many a time, and to be honest he impressed me not. He tries to mimic his mentor by snorting while asking questions trying to impress the judge and other lawyers, but honestly this man is just a bully on his way to nowhere.
I know who Rhett Butler is, but not Ret Butler.
I wonder what excuse Muscat is going to come up with to vote against this motion, because however “clear” his position is, I am sure that he will not dare vote in favour of divorce lest he loses the few thousand votes he needs to become prim ministru ta’ l-Ewropa.
Who said summer was the funny season?
It’s quite miraculous really, I always thought that Alfred Sant was politically impotent.
[Daphne – Now he can take the new, cheaper Levitra.]
From The Times:
“Jeffrey gave me a hint some time ago that he was preparing something but I had no idea when he was going to present the Bill and what it contained,” Marlene Pullicino told The Times.
So she knew and kept it hidden from her Leader?
Is that the state the Labour Party is in?
[Daphne – Well, it seems Jeffrey kept it hidden from his leader too. I must say that we have a very strange situation here: a married but estranged couple, each living with somebody else, on opposite sides of the House, one vehemently and vociferously against divorce and the other presenting a divorce bill. It’s the stuff of comedy, really.]
I’m no marriage psychologist or anything and I don’t know them from Adam but differing opinions is usually one of the most common reasons why couples separate in the first place. So, as much as this whole JPO-Marlene situation might look odd, I’m not surprised about the fact that, amongst a million other things, they also don’t agree on the introduction of divorce.
then why all the hustle to marry at all if different opinions cannot centre on what is the best way forward for the family? Why go all through all those expenses to marry, just for a beautiful body or a night in bed? That’s easy to do in today’s world. Find an easy chick and that’s all. They are the most vulnerable people on earth and they have only chicken minds.
This goes to show you were right when you criticised Consuelo Scerri Herrera, saying a liar is always a liar.
Marlene hid from her leader her knowledge of her ex-husband’s divorce legislation intentions, just as she had hidden from her ex-husband her liaison with the then Mayor of Zebbug.
[Daphne – Not ‘ex’ husband. Marlene is still Jeffrey’s wife. Isn’t that the point of what we are discussing? The Times made that mistake, too – referring to her as his ‘former wife’. Jeffrey and Marlene are still married to each other. Separation is just that – a separation of abode and estate. It does not affect the status of marriage, merely its administration.]
Thr divorce issur must be settled by a referendum.
[Daphne – Of course not. You don’t get the majority to vote on minority rights. It is definitely not a referendum matter. The world has moved on since the historical period when countries introduced divorce through a referendum. Now divorce is a fact of life everywhere. Times have changed.]
I agree. Referenda are a slap in the face of democracy.
That’s how we entered the EU!
“That’s how we entered the EU!”
I was pleasantly surprised nobody uttered something so stupid .. until now!
Why stupid? Wasn’t the EU referendum meant to give more moral authority to Government to forge ahead with EU membership?
Why, David, do YOU think the referendum was held?
For fun?
[Daphne – Referendums should be held only on major, fundamental matters which affect the electorate as a whole and every elector on an individual basis: integration with Britain, for example, or EU membership. Divorce legislation is not such an issue. It does not affect the electorate as a whole and certainly not all electors individually. It is a minority issue – but whether we respect the interests of minorities or not reflects on our society as a whole.]
I beg to differ, Daphne.
Minorities are people who cannot change their predicament.
Things you cannot change:
1. Skin colour: Coloured people in white-race populations (or white people in black-race populations) are minorities.
2. Ethnicity: The Japanese in Hawaii are a minority.
3. Mother tongue: Linguistic communities are minorities because they cannot change their mother tongue.
4. (Possibly) sexual orientation: Gays claim to be a minority because they claim they were born that way and cannot change.
5. Civil status / marital condition? NO. Would-be divorcees cannot by definition be a minority – since every married person can potentially become a divorcee, whether they want/like it or not.
Actually divorce depends on a change – from a working marriage to a broken marriage. Colour, ethnicity, mother tongue and (possibly) sexual orientation do not depend on a change.
So, I’m afraid your argument does not hold water.
[Daphne – It does. Minorities are not necessarily people who cannot change their predicament, just as minorities are not necessarily minorities. Women were a minority once, remember, even when we were not a minority numerically. And to claim that every married person is potentially a divorcee is ridiculous. Most people have a pretty good idea as to whether their marriage is likely to end in divorce or not, and from day one, too, believe it or not. Shame we can’t have a referendum on whether we’re allowed to leave our spouses, isn’t it? Would you have suggested a referendum to decide whether husbands should no longer be the sole administrators of the marital home and sole decision-takers on matters pertaining to the couple’s children? Would you have justified this on the basis that the outcome will affect husbands and so they have a right to a say in the matter? I certainly hope not.]
Of course not! (And I am laughing out loud!)
OK – so we are not agreeing on the term “minority.” To me, a minority is first and foremost numerical. What is a “minority” to you?
You say, almost paradoxically, that “some minorities are not minorities” by which you mean the rich minority in Brazil or in post-Communist Russia, for instance. You are referring to aristocracies and oligarchies. These are minorities, but are not disadvantaged.
So I would guess that your definition of “minority” is a “qualified minority” or a “disadvantaged minority”. (You also extend “minority” to signify any disadvantaged group, e.g. pre-1993 Maltese women.)
I agree with this.
But your argument is not a reply to mine, for the argument you propose does not address the other aspect of minority, namely the numerical aspect, which is of the utmost importance.
If it weren’t so the argument that the majority cannot decide – by referendum – for the minority would not hold water.
What we are discussing here is majoritarianism, namely rule by numerical supermacy.
Numbers can be determined when they are fixed. When they are potential, it becomes messier.
In the cases I mentioned, the numbers are fixed. There are x coloured people, or people of a different ethnicity, etc etc in any population – ceteris paribus, of course. (That ceteris paribus would depend on the mortality and the birth rates. But those are factors which affect the whole of society: therefore, ceteris paribus par excellence.)
In the case of would-be divorcees, however, the numbers are not fixed. They can swell or decrease, because divorce depends on the will of individuals. This is the basis of the pro-family-strengthening measures rhetoric: let us convince people to save their marriage.
It follows, to my understanding, that a referendum on divorce cannot be ruled out a priori. Because (by implication) it would ask every voter:
1. if your marriage has broken down, do you want to divorce and re-marry?
2. if your marriage were to break down, would you want to divorce and re-marry?
3. if the marriage of your child, sibling, relative, friend, neighbour, enemy, were to break down would you want them to divorce and re-marry?
It is a question in which everybody has a (real or potential) interest. Therefore everyone should have their say.
On the other hand, a referendum on the rights of black people in a white population does not satisfy this criterion. Imagine the three questions applied, mutatis mutandis, to skin colour:
1. if you are black, do you want segregation?
2. if you were to become black, would you want segregation?
3. if your child, sibling, relative, friend, neighbour, enemy, is or were to become black would you want segregation for them?
It is patently clear that questions 1, 2 and 3 second limb cannot be answered, as a matter of biology.
Therefore, I humbly submit (!) that your argument is invalid.
[Daphne – You are confusing issues that are clearly a matter for a referendum – EU membership, integration with Britain (issues in which, to use public affairs terminology, each and every one of us is a stakeholder) – with those that address the interests of a minority but which have a bearing on fundamental democracy and civil liberties. I do not have a stakeholder interest in divorce, gay rights and the ending of discrimination against blacks, Jews or Muslims, but if asked in a hypothetical situation to vote Yes or No, I would vote Yes. Using a democratic tool (the referendum) to curtail or hinder democratic development is the worst sort of cynicism. It is essentially undemocratic not to permit divorce in Malta, especially when Maltese citizens are permitted to divorce elsewhere, creating a privileged class that is in direct contradiction of the spirit of democracy. Have you ever tried explaining the divorce situation in Malta to somebody who does not live here? I don’t recommend it, but it is a very good exercise in testing the rationality of the situation.]
It is patently clear that questions 1, 2 and 3 second limb cannot be answered BY EVERYBODY, as a matter of biology.
Referenda are undemocratic because they expect the electorate to answer simply “yes” or “no” to complicated issues without being able to express their will in full.
[Daphne – That’s such rubbish. Typical indecisive Maltese – decisions come in two types: Yes and No. There is no halfway road. What do you respond when asked whether you will take this woman as your lawfully wedded wife? Yes or No. What do you respond when asked by your bank, notary, etc whether you will sign the contract? Yes or No. What do you say when asked whether you are going to buy this car? Yes or No.]
Our EU referendum was a case in point. I am a Labourite who voted ‘yes’ but admittedly that referendum was clearly unfair and manipulated by the PN.
For e.g., those who agreed in principle with joining the EU but only at a later stage because they thought that Malta wasn’t ready yet, could not truly express themselves at all in the referendum. For the record, I am a Labourite who voted “yes”, but that’s besides the point.
[Daphne – You have GOT to be joking.]
@Min Weber
“Why stupid? Wasn’t the EU referendum meant to give more moral authority to Government to forge ahead with EU membership?”
I think Daphne answered you perfectly well on this – a referendum is used to deal with matters that affect the country as a whole. The EU affected every single person on this tiny little rock of ours.
Whether Cikku and Cikka stay married or not, for whatever reason, has no effect on you and everybody else.
Likewise whether they wish to re-marry!
Of course, I suspect some people are terrified that they may no longer take their spouse for granted, a very few I admit, but I still think so. Not that the argument holds water, I know, because they can still separate, but in some Maltese minds that may be an issue.
On another note, divorce is not a sin according to the Catholic church. No, it’s not. Re-marrying is, and in fact, cohabiting is often referred to as ‘living in sin’.
A divorced Catholic may never remarry in church; again I suspect some people haven’t grasped that. If Cikku marries Cikka, she divorces him and she marries Peppu, the church still considers Cikka to be married to Cikku.
“Whether Cikku and Cikka stay married or not, for whatever reason, has no effect on you and everybody else”.
Cikku and Cikka’s marriage is part of a big picture called society.
The introduction of divorce or for example polygamy, affects society, so society should decide on these issues.
[Daphne – Oh for heaven’s sake, John, honestly. How does divorce affect society in any way differently to the marital breakdown and formation of new families happening already? Divorce simply ends a contract at a legal level. It does not break the marriage or start a new family. You’re not thinking logically.]
The church does not come into this.
In my opinion, if we come to the point of introducing divorce we should think about disbanding the institution of marriage and make it a free for all.
[Daphne – It is a free-for-all already, or hadn’t you noticed? One of the reasons I approve of divorce is because I can’t stand messy set-ups. This might sound old-fashioned, but I think that certain kinds of relationships, particularly where children are involved, are squalid without marriage and that marriage confers some form of respectability on situations that might otherwise come across as sleazy. You might think differently from your religious position, but I certainly think that – for example – the magistrate and the PN mayor would be better regarded if they were to divorce and marry each other. Their current situation is squalid. Divorce and remarriage would rescue that.]
Why should one take the trouble to get married in the first place, if there is divorce?
[Daphne – A childish argument straight from doctrine classes: one marries because one fully intends it to be permanent. Otherwise, as you say, one doesn’t bother at all. But over the course of decades, the situation can become untenable. With love, any number of obstacles can be surmounted. But without love, very few can. Sometimes, what we think is love turns out not to be. You can at least try to understand this, instead of making marriage sounded like bonded slavery.]
Marriage is an unconditional commitment for life; divorce undermines that principle.
[Daphne – Yes, marriage is an unconditional commitment for life, but over the last three centuries or so, European civilisation has come to regard matters of personal integrity and human freedom very differently to the days when people were mere cogs in the machine of society. That’s why we no longer penalise adultery or sodomy, for instance. It’s also why, under British rule in Malta in the 19th century, it was no longer permissible at law to keep people to their promise of marriage when they were betrothed. Before that, you could literally be forced into marriage once you had become ‘engaged’, because you had given your word, and that was a contract. Now, the human being is regarded as being more important than the contract, which is right.]
We have abrogative referenda – a right introduced by the Nationalists pre-1996, not assented to by the President (an oversight), left in abeyance by Sant, assented to after 1998.
If we already had divorce, the electorate would have every right to repeal it by referendum. If divorce is introduced by Parliament, the electorate can repeal it in a referendum which the Electoral Commission is obliged to hold if 10% (31,000 voters) of the electorate sign a petition.
So, why does the electorate have the right to repeal a divorce law, but not to approve such a law in the first case?
With a referendum, divorce stands a much better chance of being introduced in Malta. Despite all the brouhaha, a private member’s bill – lodged by whoever – has no chance of being voted for by a majority in parliament.
[Daphne – I disagree with you. Holding a referendum on divorce is a statement in itself: that divorce is a favour to be granted, rather than a civil right in a secular society. Imagine a situation in which 40% of the adult population is made up of married women who don’t have a say in the administration of communally owned property because the law makes the husband the sole administrator (well, you don’t have to imagine it, because this was the situation in Malta until 1993). The married women are up in arms about this. They want joint administration status and not to be treated like children. The naysayers jeer that there is no such thing as the ‘right’ to administer your own property, and that the way to settle this matter is to hold a referendum. The entire adult population turns out in force to vote on whether some of their number – married women – may or may not share the administration of the property they own with their husbands. But that isn’t how the issue was settled, was it? It was settled through straightforward legislation without a referendum, and b***er all the husbands who objected.]
Yes that’s right: DIVORCE IS JUST A FAVOUR TO BE GRANTED TO MINORITIES. iT IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHT. IT IS NOT A HUMAN RIGHT. In fact it is a human WRONG, which effects women and children putting them on the poverty train. while their egositic husbands flirt with younger chicks. AND I HOPE THAT DIVORCE WILL NEVER BE GRANTED TO SUCH MINORITIES. AT LEAST NO POLITICIAN AT THE MOMENT HAS ANY RIGHT TO INTRODUCE ANY TYPE OF LEGISLATION WHICH WILL SUBSEQUENTLY INTRODUCE DIVORCE IN MALTA. No one has any popular mandate to do so, and the PM rightly said so.
Bugger your popular mandate. There’s roughly a gazillion things for which no government is ever given a popular mandate, because they are such commonsense items that none is required: law and order, police on our streets, a civil service, an army, calling 112 and being answered by someone on the other end, the wearing of suits by MPs at official events, and so on and so forth.
Divorce is one such thing. So obvious that it requires no popular mandate. And you know you’re wrong when the only other country keeping you company is somewhere like the Philippines.
Baxxter
The essence of democracy is DISCUSSION: PARLIA-ment: the place where you “PARLARE”, where you talk, you discuss.
If things are self-evident, this will transpire from a discussion, from many discussions.
A liberal democracy is one in which people have the liberty to have DIFFERENT opinions and discuss them. Those opinions which are inherently good will ultimately convince the majority of people of good will.
Finding short cuts to discussion is FASCISTIC.
Fascism had many good ideas – many of the things we take for granted today were brought about by the Fascists.
But their method was WRONG. Because they IMPOSED rather than DISCUSSED.
Do not rush, Baxxter. Things may be obvious. But even obvious things have to be done the correct way. With the respect due to procedure and formalities.
Fascism was the ideology of action, of running roughshod on procedure and formalities.
Of not respecting constitutional documents and traditions.
Of considering the will to be superior to the form. (In a perverted understanding of Nietzsche.)
From many comments I read here, I realize that the fascist bug is still there. By any other name, but still there.
It is hard to be democratic, to be ready to give one’s life for your opponent’s right to voice opinions which are intrinsically opposed to yours.
But if we forfeit that framework – that is, discussion as the prime method of creating rules and norms – then we are courting trouble.
Beware: Fascism had many, many good ideas. Do not let the content lure you at the expense of the form.
[Daphne – Please distinguish between civil rights and matters which are optional or subject to choice. I would like to think that with or without a popular mandate, any parliament would legislate to end discrimination against women, blacks, Muslims or homosexuals.]
@ Daphne: I agree with you that ending “discrimination against women, blacks, Muslims or homosexuals” does not need a mandate. 100%.
I agree because these are more than civil rights. These are fundamental human rights, which every one of us is entitled to simply because we are all humans.
[Daphne – It’s not so obvious that they are fundamental human rights. I keep bringing up the Equal Partners in Marriage legislation because it is the perfect example. We lived with discrimination against married women right up until 1993 – but how many saw this as a human rights issue? We took the situation for granted, and accepted it, because we were raised in a society in which the husband was the unassailable head of the family. I honestly don’t think that people fully understand how appalling the situation was: the husband could, without his wife’s knowledge or consent, even sell the jointly-owned family home and fritter away all the proceeds. Even if she found out, she was powerless to stop him. But the Socialists, with their progressive views, never did anything about this. In fact, they proposed divorce before they proposed making women equal to men in marriage. And the Nationalists were not in a hurry either. They waited until they were re-elected in 1992 to start thinking about it.]
These rights are defensible from both secular and religious viewpoints. Ultimately – and ironically – the former derives from the latter: fundamental human rights ultimately derive from the notion of “imago dei.”
But civil rights are not of a fundamental nature. Fundamental human rights are independent of the written laws – they are an emanation of the eternal law of humanity. Civil rights, on the other hand, are not independent of written laws and have to be created.
What I mean to say is that FHR are there a priori and have to be recognized; civil rights have to be created abstractly.
Protection from discrimination is an FHR – it derives from the nature of things.
Divorce does not derive from the nature of things – it is a construct, and therefore requires a conscious effort of creation.
[Daphne – Divorce is no more a construct than the formation of a family, the right to which is fundamental. ]
Beg to differ again.
We have the fundamental human right to form a family. This is so because reproduction and companionship are part and parcel of humanity’s interpretation of the natural order of things.
[Daphne – Min, families are not universal. I am not going into it here because it would take me half the night, and half the night is gone anyway, but the only ‘family relationship’ that is universally understood and acknowledged is that between mother and child, because it is biologically incontrovertible. Many societies don’t think in terms of families and organise themselves as loose social groups. The fundamental human right to form a family is NOT the ‘fundamental human right to form a family on the Christian European nuclear family model’. It is merely the right to have children if one is biologically able to do so, and the right not to be forcibly separated from them.]
But we do not have a fundamental human right to dissolve a family. We might have a civil right to divorce.
[Daphne – More sophistry. Divorce does not necessarily involve families. The right to form a family does not mention marriage, still less divorce, because it is perfectly possible to form a family without either of them. The trouble here is that you equate ‘family’ with ‘marriage’, ergo ‘marriage is a fundamental human right’ and ‘no fundamental right to dissolve a family’ with ‘no right to divorce’, ergo ‘divorce is not a fundamental human right’. Both divorce and marriage are CIVIL rights, not human rights. People will continue to form families and produce children even if both marriage and divorce ceased to exist. But if one exists, then the other must too.]
With regard to the joint administration of the community of acquests, I agree with you that this might be interpreted in the light of FHR, as there was a ground of discrimination between men and women. But in the case of divorce, there is no such ground. Neither men nor women may divorce at the moment. All married persons cannot divorce – therefore there is no (positivistic) discrimination. The current discrimination is based on economic means, on those who can go abroad and obtain divorce abroad, and those who cannot.
[Daphne – There certainly is discrimination. One class of Maltese people (those with two passports or a foreign spouse, NOT money) can divorce. And the rest cannot. A Swedish man who commented here brought up an even more valid point: he can divorce his Maltese wife any time he pleases. But she can never divorce him. It’s a fine kettle of fish when Maltese people can be divorced by others but can’t do any divorcing themselves because ‘they’re not allowed’.]
But since ours is the capitalist socio-economic formation, our worldview tolerates this form of discrimination. (The alternative is communism – GOD FORBID!)
[Daphne – No, Min. It doesn’t. More sophistry. ‘Because of our socio-economic formation we tolerate a situation in which some can get a divorce and others can’t.’ It is actually the other way round: ‘Because of our socio-economic formation we can’t tolerate that situation’.]
I do not think you are right in labelling my argument “sophist.” Sophistry implies a conscious attempt to deceive by presenting arguments one knows to be invalid.
I would like to underline that I am genuine in my reasoning and am not trying to deceive.
If my arguments are invalid, they are genuinely so, not because I know them to be so.
I am convinced my arguments are valid. Still, I appreciate your efforts in trying to prove them invalid. As I hope you appreciate mine in trying to prove yours invalid.
When I write that I would want to see an intelligent debate on divorce, I have a mind what we are doing here. People are engaging in an exchange of (presumably) genuinely-held opinions for their own benefit and for the benefit of the onlookers.
The debate will then engender a process in the participants leading to a better understanding of the “truth”. This is getting very, very close to philosophy. (I say this encouraged by your reference to philosophical jargon.)
Philosophy lifts the fog and allows clear reasoning. Of course, it does not necessarily entail persuading your “opponent”. But it helps to see things better. In this I think your blog is doing a great service to Malta.
Which does not mean that I agree (or will agree) with everything you say!
I agree with you on this: “Both divorce and marriage are CIVIL rights, not human rights.”
That is why I said, elsewhere, that my reasoning is in conformity with the reasoning of the European Court on Human Rights which found that the non-availability of homosexual marriage is not a violation of human rights.
Also, since we agree that divorce is a civil right, we will also agree that it does not exist by itself (like FHR) waiting to be recognized (this is the accepted theory of FHRs, as far as I can recall), but it is a right which has to be created by the state.
For the democratic state to created such a right, its legislative branch needs a mandate from the people, otherwise the State would be usurping the sovereignty of the people.
P.S. I hope no journalist-turned-law-student decides it’s wise to cut-and-paste these ruminations and present them as his in some Constitutional Law assignment!
I think it should be decided with a referendum , that’s what other democracies did, Daphne.
[Daphne – A long time ago, John. The world has moved on. You couldn’t have a divorce on referendum now.]
JPO has no mandate to move forward a divorce bill, he should solve his private problems differently.
John Attard Montalto did…..Or?
[Daphne – Please let’s not be childish. MPs and government ministers do not push forward divorce legislation so that they can get a divorce themselves. That’s like calling out the marines to rescue your pet rabbit. The prime minister was wrong to bring it up.]
No no, Daphne. John Schembri does have a point.
Otherwise, why would Jeffrey have discussed it with Marlene?
[Daphne – Because she’s the mother of his children and vociferously against divorce and in that situation, it is only decent to give her some intimation of what’s up ahead. He would have had to tell his children before he did it anyway, and no decent parent tells their children something with the proviso not to tell mummy. One parent should never ask a child to keep a secret from another parent, whatever the marital or political situation. When Alfred Sant launched his attack on Pullicino Orlando in the election campaign of 2008, it was at first thought that Marlene knew and failed to warn her children and their father. There was the obvious shock and dismay at family level, but she swore that she had no idea. I think you forget that you can break up as a married couple but you can’t break up as parents.]
it’s you who is being childish and stupid. Grow up and face the world. Dont try to impose your petty views on the majority of the Maltese people who treasure the family and woe betide those who touch their families. Stop making a fool of yourself.
JPO is in a position to solve his problem without requiring a change in Maltese law. He’s comfortably well off.
He’s either doing it so PN can test the electorate. He’s a scapegoat if you will. Like the Jews of old used to do: they’d put all their sins on the goat and escort it out to the desert.
On the other hand it could also be that JPO cannot see his future political career move forward in the direction he wants and is gambling a bit. Raking the pond to see what comes up with the muck.
“Dont try to impose your petty views on the majority of the Maltese people who treasure the family and woe betide those who touch their families. Stop making a fool of yourself.”
This banal argument really makes my blood boil.
Who is imposing divorce on anyone? Nobody imposed divorce on anybody in the free world EVER.
No Catholic in the world has ever had it imposed upon them.
By the way, John Stew is obviously a “blogus trollus”.
[Daphne – No, he is a hellfire right-wing fanatic who posts these sort of comments any time a religious or immigration subject comes up, using different names but the same IP number.]
The Common Blog Troll
Scientific name: Blogus-trollus
Physical Characteristics: Since the common blog troll is a very elusive species and tends to emulate homo sapiens when confronted in Real Life (the habitat of homo sapiens) it has thus escaped proper description. It is said that its head is covered with green warts and its body largely resembles a cone.
Color: Yellow-green, orange, red, black, white, purple and variations there-of.
Habitat: The common blog troll can be found nosing around any weblog that allows the posting of comments.
Belongs to the common troll group.
The Common Blog Troll is a recently discovered species, most likely evolved from the Common Usenet Troll or perhaps its close cousin, the Common Forum Troll. Its primary source of nourishment is a response to its excrement, which is left in the form of a comment on any weblog which allows comments. Its best not to feed the troll, otherwise it might make itself at home and litter said blog with ever growing piles of excrement.
“No, he is a hellfire right-wing fanatic who posts these sort of comments any time a religious or immigration subject comes up”
Sounds a lot like L Galea
There are MPs who push their personal agendas. I wouldn’t be surprised if JPO is doing just that; after all we know of MPs who use their position to get what they want for themselves and for others.
[Daphne – Oh come off it. And when I write about the need for divorce, am I pushing my personal agenda too? Is Andrew Borg Cardona pushing his personal agenda when he writes, as he did today, that he thinks we should have divorce legislation right away? The trouble is that not enough people are prepared to speak about this subject lest it be thought that they are ‘pushing their own agenda’. Yes, I am pushing my own agenda: I want to live in a true democracy, and not in this freak-show where you can run three families at once, a string of concubines, wives and mistresses, boyfriends and husbands, children all over the place, but God forbid we should have divorce.]
JPO himself said that he discussed this with his estranged wife and MP Marlene who sits on the opposition benches.
[Daphne – I’ve asked him about that, and it is not at all as you imagine. He and Marlene met at a hospital recently where one of their children was being treated, and during conversation he brought up the fact that her position on divorce is ridiculous, given her situation. I don’t think anyone can quarrel with that.]
“That’s like calling out the marines to rescue your pet rabbit.”
No need to go far, Berlusconi in nearby Italy is a past master in pushing these types of laws.
[Daphne – John, please, get a grip. Divorce legislation is not ta’ barra minn hawn. It is completely normal. It is a civil right. It is available everywhere bar this micro-state and The Philippines. The way you’re speaking, it’s as though we talking about a law to introduce polygamy.]
“It is a free-for-all already”
I agree. And divorce would not solve this problem. I’ve been to lots of places around the world and all I can say is that divorced people always tell you that it was not their fault, that this fourth marriage would succeed, that her two sons are a pest, that this new girlfriend he’s living with ‘e’ una bella fica’ , that they are happily divorced, that now they’re getting married after four years living together because a child is on the way and he would leave his six year old daughter to his ex-wife. We will end up with one third of our government workforce working with Appogg.
“This might sound old-fashioned, but I think that certain kinds of relationships, particularly where children are involved, are squalid without marriage and that marriage confers some form of respectability on situations that might otherwise come across as sleazy.”
That’s very old fashioned logic , I would say! You say that if it is a childless marriage divorce should be easier to obtain, but wouldn’t this negatively effect the population? (:we will have no children for an easier divorce , just in case it’s not a success)
When one part of a marriage wants divorce and the other part doesn’t , isn’t there another unresolved problem which has been created?
[Daphne – I never said that divorce should be easier to obtain if there are no children. Divorce should always be easy to obtain if the marriage is over, children or no children. What exactly is the point of denying divorce to two people who are no longer living together?]
“You might think differently from your religious position” , “straight from the doctrine classes”. As far as I know I wrote that the “The church does not come into this.” Why do you want to bring religion into this?
[Daphne – Because it is obviously your religious upbringing that has led you to reason the way you do, failing to see divorce for what it is – termination of contract – and completely distinct from the causes of marital breakdown. Divorce cannot be an evil, because it is the termination of a contract and not the breaking up of a marriage. Marriages break up before divorce comes into the equation. Those who learned about divorce in a religious context see it as something which breaks up marriages. This is completely illogical.]
As far as my religion is concerned it’s nobody’s business what I do, and I cannot impose my religious beliefs on others. If divorce is introduced in Malta I should not revert to it as a Catholic if I have marital problems. There are many other ‘sinful’ things which are already available to me in Malta which are not illegal.
So let’s keep religion out of this issue.
[Daphne – That’s impossible. You and I both know that the main problem is with opposition on religious grounds.]
I have no solution, I recognise that there are situations where divorce solves the problem, but I’m afraid that once we open that door a little bit we will create a bigger problem.
[Daphne – Well, it’s not up to you or the state to prevent any such bigger problem. You cannot and should not control other human beings and their private lives. The state can and should only deal with the fall-out. Controlling people’s behaviour for the good of society is the thin end of the wedge that leads, at the thick end, to Iran. Why do you think they do what they do – for fun? No, because they argue that it is for the good of society.]
The Times’ journalist to the prime minister, on camera, as he left parliament:
‘Prim Ministru, ħadt gost li Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando ressaq dan l-abbozz ta’ liġi llum, jew?’
Just like that. Like he was a teenager asking his mate whether he was off his face. It’s on http://www.timesofmalta.com.
Kudos to Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando for this (and ONLY for this). Up goes my blatant metaphorical middle finger at the PM and all those patronising, anti-divorce lobbyists.
My God, do I hate people who derive pleasure out of imposing their way of life on others. Just live and let us live already!
you are just a hypocrit. You are finding pleasure in trying to impose your own perverted views on marraige on the majority of the people just like the time when your party governed against the will of the majority. You are just a lunatic fascist. no more no less. We dont take lessons from petty dictators. They are in the pigshit, lying face up and burning in hell.
Syd Barrett, 6 January 1946 – 7 July 2006
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsf8sgOJjv0
Those in favour of divorce, say that estranged couples should be given “another” chance – just another? – why not more say if the second marriage fails as well, and the third, fourth etc. just like in Italy and USA – just see what the situation in these countries are. The Church is against divorce because divorce is anti-social.
[Daphne – The situation in Italy and the USA is no different to the situation in Malta.]
Baxxter din hallini nghidlek
din ta’ l-ahhar zgur ha nghid
inweghdek li ma nghidx izjed
ghax issa anche jien xbajt
da’ lejl pirmla blajt ha’ nara
biex nitlellem hu niccara
ghaliex ma’ kontx ghadni cert
garanzija jien ridt nghati
min qal dawn kollha cucati
min kif kont, gejt ghall oppost
ghax uzajta kif suppost
3-legged race qed nirbaha wahdi
bhali ma’ rawx f’din il-pjaneta
Issa j’riduni ta’ l-Athleta
niehu sehem qisni’ atleta
oh, kif tbellhu s’spettaturi
hekk kif lili rawni nirbah
kulhadd skanta, kullhad tbellah
qalu issa dina ‘isbah’
ghaliex bhali qadt ma raw
b’dil bravura kif skantaw
han hallikom ha taqraw
pjacir niehdu niccajtaw
bic-cajt gejna
w’bicc cajt ha morru
ghal xejn illi ninkwetaw
Issa l-aqwa bil levitra
lill Chris Said ser nivvutaw
Wake up guys. The PM knew this was afoot but was only surprised by the timing of JPO. Labour knew the minute JPO spoke to his wife and had time to prepare for it.
The PN whip will bring this bill forward within a short time with the call for a party free vote as on the other side of the house. The bill will fail to garner a majority and the divorce issue will be buried for another five years. Muscat thus loses control of the divorce debate and his strategy to win over PN voters who are more liberal towards the introduction of divorce than PL voters.
On the other hand if the bill passes by a small majority, rather unlikely, the PM would still have personally declared that he will vote against it and would have done so. Clean hands.
He can only risk political points if he delays the private members bill being discussed and dealt with. He has to nip it in the bud.
The local news never fails to remind me that we live in an Asterix & Obelix village. At times like this, I find it more entertaining to read rather than live it.
Chapeau to the creatives here! Thoroughly entertaining!
As for being classified as thick (Joseph would qualify as with pedigree – no offence to ancestors), such people normally believe that beyond their mental processing ability there is only divine existence, so much so that they are not able to factor in the “otherwise obvious” repercussion of their superficiality.
By the way is this private member’s bill instigated by a mid-life crisis ?
All members should be kept private–until the price of Levitra droops further.
Iz-zmien dejjem ghaddej. wasalna fl-2010 u l-ebda gvern qatt ma ndenja ruhu jaghmel referendum biex verament jara il-poplu xi jrid – iridx id-divorzju jew le. U nghidilkom jiena li d-dahka tas-seklu tkun li l-poplu jridu.
Dazgur li jridu. Imma ibqa’ cert li jekk isir referendum ma jghaddix: 1) ghax il-maggoranza ghadha dik li dejjem kienet – l-istess nies li vvutaw kontra l-integration ghax ‘sa nsiru Protestanti’ u 2) ghax ovvjament l-isqof jaqbdu panic shih u mur zommu.
Ghax in-nies jinqasmu fi tlieta: Dawk li jridu d-divorzju, dawk li ma jriduhx, u dawk li ma jimpurtahomx either way, imma li f’referendum se jivvutawlek le, ghax il-Maltin anke fl-2010 ghadhom jahsbu kif kienu fin-1917.
Kont nahseb li int Malti Baxx!
One would have thought that Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando was super-human, presenting a private member’s bill, with the way Dr Muscat talks about private member’s bills. As we can see, it doesn’t take a PM to bring forward a private member’s bill.
The question Joseph Muscat should be answering is why is he going to wait till he gets elected (if he gets elected) to put forward something he can put forward right now.
Or better still, why, as PM, will he put forward a private members bill when he can just legislate? (Yes, I know Daphne, you have asked that question many times.) It’s like he knows how to play a few games, but is way out of his league at the moment.
My main concern though is the Church. Why is it such a bolt out of the blue? And moreover, why is the Archbishop saying that convinced Catholics must vote against it?
Is this not the exact type of behaviour the Church is constantly accused of? Isn’t this exactly the type of attitude it has said it will not adopt?
Catholics don’t have to force others to live by their rules to prove their faith. Being a Catholic has nothing to do with taking away the choices of others who are not Catholic. Why must Catholics vote against it? You can be Catholic, disagree with it, say you will never get divorced, but understand that many people do not share your religious views and allow them to get the divorce they want.
Once again, the Church gets in the way. In my opinion it is almost blackmailing it s followers into doing what it wants them to do. If you are a real Catholic you have to say No to this and Yes to that and if you don’t then you are not a real Catholic. It really is annoying.
“As we can see, it doesn’t take a PM to bring forward a private member’s bill. ”
Come to think of it I think it makes a PM look quite stupid!
The Catholic church believes that divorce will bring negative social repercussions, thus it is not solely a question of individual freedoms in the eyes of the Catholic church. That is the crux of the argument. The Church has moved away from the times when it imposed its teachings (especially those moral ones) ‘no questions asked’- in a dogmatic manner, and nowadays the Church argues against various issues (namely homosexual marriage and divorce) in the light of the common good and the role of the traditional family within the structure of society.
Thus its members (who supposedly accept and share these teachings) would logically vote against divorce because it has negative social implications.
Personally I agree to a certain extent, in that it would be naive to consider divorce SOLELY as an individual freedom with no repercussions on society. (Divorced mothers, the effect on children.. so on and so forth)
@Daphne
My wife and I married at our own discretion and convenience and not at someone else’s like in the case of Malta’s joining the EU.
Had the priest asked the very same question a couple of years back I would have answered “no” and not because I didn’t love my wife or didn’t want to get married to her but simply because a couple of years earlier I was a broke student with a million things in my head.
[Daphne – No, you answered NO because you didn’t want to marry her. ‘Now’ does not factor in either a question or an answer when the question is about will and desire.]
It’s all about context, dear Daphne, and that referendum question was contextually (and deliberately) unfair.
[Daphne – Please grow up. Were you really spoiled as a child? You must have been, not to understand that in life, you’re expected to take firm decisions and stick to them. Referendum questions always demand a straight Yes or No answer, because they are addressed at people who are over 18. I strongly suspect you are confusing a referendum with a survey, in which you get to tick a variety of options. But a referendum is there to get a decision, and a survey is there to canvas your opinion. They are fundamentally different.]
“My wife and I married at our own discretion and convenience and not at someone else’s like in the case of Malta’s joining the EU. ”
Are you comparing joining the EU to marrying someone?
You surely don’t take a lot of time to jump to conclusions, do you? Thank God you’re a journalist and not a magistrate. So let me understand, I am spoilt and immature because I believe that a question does not deserve to be answered if it is wrongly or unfairly put?
A referendum question must encompass the whole perspective and all the discussions which preceded the referendum. Otherwise, it is flawed.
[Daphne – Flawed? You’re using the terminology of the Astrid brigade now. I hate to disappoint you, but referendum questions are always straightforward,direct, to the point, and require a simple Yes or No answer. But I don’t know why I’m bothering. This has been done to death already. It was brought up back then by those who wanted to straddle the bleeding fence: ‘Yes we want to join Europe but not now.’ Give me a break.]
For example, if in a referendum I am asked whether I am in favour of divorce as opposed to whether I am in favour of the introduction of divorce in Malta, I would simply consider that referendum question as unfair.
[Daphne – I’ll just count to 10 here. Referendums are not opinion polls. Referendums ask you for a decision on a specific matter. They do NOT ASK FOR YOUR OPINION. This is not a fine distinction, and it is a significant one. A survey will ask you whether you are in favour of divorce, but a referendum will ask you whether Malta should legislate for divorce. I hope this is clear now.]
Wouldn’t you? One could simply be a proud Catholic, totally anti-divorce but firmly believes that others should have the option if they want to. So yes, referenda are tricky because the answer you get is not always a result of the question you ask and if that question you ask leaves room for several interpretations, you get a lot of chaotic frenzy as we got after the EU referendum.
[Daphne – We got a chaotic frenzy after the last referendum only because the political party which lost was led by somebody who was never quite normal to start with, and who then quite obviously hit the bottle and took to a truck to protest. You might not have seen it on television, but I did. And his handmaiden did likewise, bar the bottle, and is now leading the party after telling us ‘with hindsight’ he can see that the Yes vote won the referendum. So please, deal with your ambivalence about the EU in your own way, but don’t dump it on anyone else.]
@Lejborist
If memory serves me correctly, the question in the EU referendum was “Do you agree that Malta should become a member of the European Union in the enlargement that is to take place on 1 May 2004”?
So if you wanted to join but later you should have voted NO, otherwise you are just thick.
To join on the date in question meant accepting the deal negotiated by the government that everybody knew about.
If you disagreed with any part of it you had to vote NO.
Like Daphne said, nobody wanted your opinion, just a straight answer to a straight question.
Divorce is a different matter entirely and should NEVER be decided by referendum.
Daphne, you cannot deny the possibility of having a deliberately vague or ambiguous referendum question put to the people, as happened in the former Soviet Union in 1991, producing an ambiguous outcome in itself.
[Daphne – Nice comparison, lejborist. It doesn’t do your argument any favours.]
This is mainly because, and on this I stand to be corrected, in Malta, the wording of the question is not a joint effort between the government and the opposition – the government formulates it and then presents it to parliament for approval and we all know how this ends, making it not the greatest of democratic exercises.
[Daphne – Look, I don’t mean to go on about this or anything, but it is crucial for you to be able to distinguish between a question which canvasses opinion and a question which demands a decision. An example of the former would be ‘Do you like cake?’ and an example of the latter would be ‘Would you like a piece of cake?’ Of course, you can quibble and say that the question is unfair because you do not want a piece of cake now but you will want one later. That, however, is not a decision. Unfortunately, too many people regard a referendum as an expensive exercise in canvassing their opinion. It is not. It is a forum for taking a concrete decision – Yes or No – on a highly specific matter. Opinion polls are there to canvas opinion, and that is why the formulation of the questions is different, allowing for wider scope in answering. If you stop thinking of a referendum as an opinion poll, you will be able to see this immediately. Just picture, say, your wife standing there and saying, alternatively, ‘Do you feel like watching a film?’ and ‘I’m going to see a film tonight. Are you coming with me or not?’ One is the opinion poll, and the other is the referendum.]
What’s more, there are many issues out there that are too complicated and mind boggling to reduce them to simple Yes or No answers to be made by many uneducated and, even worse, politically unprepared people. A referendum addresses a single issue without proper regard to a larger, more complex context. Just my two cent’s worth.
[Daphne – Now that’s very insulting. Many hundreds of people worked tirelessly for at least two years (and for many more years before the actual intensity of campaigning) to inform people of every last excruciating detail of EU membership. There was a relentless Yes campaign, a relentless No campaign, and a relentless non-partisan information campaign. You are supposed to prepare yourself and form an opinion BEFORE you vote, and not in the polling-booth. In the case of the EU referendum, there really was no excuse for not being able to form an opinion, because there was information coming at everyone from all sides. Even if you didn’t want information, it would practically rugby-tackle you in the street and force itself on you. Of course, this does not mean that everyone has the mental capacity to use that information well and form an opinion they won’t live to regret. Our would-be prime minister is the most famous example of this. But that’s democracy for you. That’s why the country was saddled with Labour for 16 years and almost saddled with them again in 1987. And that’s why, too, almost half the population voted to bring back Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici as prime minister in 1992, when Malta was doing SO well. But there you go. The alternative is a dictatorship.]
If you belong to the Catholic Club you have to follow the rules of that club. If you disagree, no one is stopping you from renouncing membership. But you cannot expect the Club to change its rules to accommodate your uncomfortable position in life. Agreed?
A club may change its rules at any time by means of a general meeting. A club, like the Church, doesn’t want changes that may hinder their beliefs/positions. But it has the power to change if necessary.
That is where a church is different to a club; you can be a member but you can’t change the rules.
But you are free to leave. No Catholic can ever remarry though they are free to divorce.
Joseph Muscat: the true political child of Alfred Sant –
This was the heading of this article but was lost – In my opinion, even though at the time I believed what the PN said, and totally was against Alfred Sant, today I must admit that Alfred Sant in hindsight was not the idiot he was made out to be.
It would be interesting to see the results of a referendum today, now that we have tasted the cake. Actually Sant’s mistake was being unprepared, as his partnership idea was not expanded upon or researched properly.
Now when Alfred Sant lost the reins of his party and was not in control, he called an election. That was the right thing to do. Today we have a prime minister in a similar position, but who is holding onto power.
I feel sorry for Dr. Gonzi as he inherited a dirty party, all the cover-ups and corruption surfacing – and these are just a few which surface are beyond his control. He needs to call an election, drop all the old dirty members of the party and start off afresh with him in command.
If he does this many, like me, will applaud him and vote for him. If he does not, many of us will abhor him and the PN, even though we have been lifelong PN people.
The ordinary citizen who lives a normal and straight life, absolutely does not want anything to do with this dirty party or old politicians who live with consultants, secretaries etc etc passing laws and decisions which affect the man in the street, and 90% of the time those who can least afford the laws.
Recently in Robin hood we saw the King with his finance minister taking from the poor to give to the rich. Dr. Gonzi and Mr. Fenech, it’s time for Robin hood to appear – nowhere in sight yet – or Dr. Gonzi to actually accept that his party has lost it and make the changes that we need to see our party back as a champion of the people.
Dear oh dear… and here we are arguing about divorce yet again.
People.. it is so simple. If you cant follow the Church on this, then just don’t accept marriage, which after all, is and will always be, a religious Sacrament. If you do not recognise it as binding, then simply refuse it and, live in.
Instead of having all this fuss about divorce, we should be discussing about the repercussions of separations (and divorces), the effect on the children, and so on… why are people getting separated, is life becoming too hard to maintain a relationship, and if so, who is making it so hard ?
These are the issues MP’s should be discussing, if they really want to make a difference, then deal with social issues, and to hell with the institutions that make our lives so complicated in the first place.