Six years after Chile, we're still chewing the cud
BBC News – 18 November 2004
Chile introduces right to divorce
Chile has become one of the last countries in the world to grant married couples the right to divorce.
The law which makes divorce legal was introduced in April but only comes into effect on Thursday.
The BBC’s Chile correspondent says the law has overwhelming public support, and President Ricardo Lagos has described it as a major step forward.
But the Roman Catholic Church has warned it is a threat to the stability of marriage, and to the family.
The Church also argues that the separation periods before a divorce can be granted are too short.
Under the new law that overruns the 1884 marriage code, a couple may divorce a year after separating if both partners agree to split up. If one partner disagrees, a divorce is allowed after three years.
The BBC’s Clinton Porteous in Santiago says the new law is expected to trigger a large number of applications in the next few months.
One woman planning to take advantage of the new law is 44-year-old Esther Sumastre. She is separated but still legally married, and believes divorce will liberate her.
“It’s not for the money – it’s to be free and to have the opportunity to start another life,” she told the BBC.
Opinions polls have consistently shown overwhelming public support for divorce, even though more than 70% of Chileans call themselves Catholic.
Malta and the Philippines are the only countries that do not have a divorce law.
62 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
92.0 million people = Philippines
00.4 million people = Malta
92.4 million people = No Divorce Law
6.9 billion = world population
98.7% of the world lives in sin
01.3% of the world has priority tickets to heaven.
Silly, isn’t it? We always make headlines for the wrong reasons.
Divorce should be introduced for the RIGHT reasons!
Not because everybody has it, but because it is RIGHT to have it.
I cannot really understand the direction the public discussion is taking. It is once again a question of trying to fathom our insular mentality, not trying to behave as if we were normal by having a normal debate on divorce.
The attitude is very undemocratic: all the world is like this, so we too have to be like this. This is emulation not emancipation.
If we are to introduce divorce, we do not do it slavishly, because everybody else has done it. That is very superficial.
We introduce it because we understand WHY it is good to have the divorce option.
[Daphne – And while we’re about it, we could try our hand at reinventing some other wheels. Why not? Majtezwel. La qedin fiz-zifna. Tertiary education, for instance – do we really need it? Just because the rest of the world has it? Air travel? What about that. Colour televisions? Just because the rest of the world has them? Computers? Toothpaste? Tights? Fashionable clothes in the shops? And all the way back to Mintoff. It’s actually your reasoning that veers to the fascistic, Min. There’s consensus about civil rights in the free world, and if we want to be part of the free world (we’re not, yet) then we have to join in and play ball. There’s no consensus about the right to bear arms – the United States is unique in that. But there ruddy well is consensus about the right to terminate a marriage contract. ]
Public discussion is necessary to understand.
Public imposition in the name of being like the rest of the world, is ultimately tantamount to the admission that we are a backward people.
[Daphne – That’s a nice piece of sophistry. Our president emeritus (the original one) would be proud to claim it as his own. We are backward, Min, because we are STILL discussing this, when the discussion is long over. Divorce is not a subject discussed on a state-by-state basis. It is an issue with commonality to all states which share a post-Enlightenment heritage. Divorce in Ireland or Italy or France or Germany is no different to what divorce would be in Malta, so why are we talking about it as though it is something new or as though we are a special case with a different brand of people?]
We might be backward but we are not simpletons. We have the brains to understand and conduct civic debates, in a democratic fashion. We can claim total membership of the Western world – if only we want to!
[Daphne – Anybody who is still trying to hold back the tide can’t claim membership of the western world. Our prime minister is one of the suavest operators on the political scene, yet even he cannot defend his case. ‘I am against divorce.’ Why? ‘Because we should strengthen families.’ Total non sequitur: as though divorce and measures to strengthen families are mutually exclusive.]
I would really like to see an intelligent debate, and then a vote. Hopefully an enlightened one. Even if it is not enlightened, I would like the vote to be arrived to not because the Church tell us so or some similar non-thinking reason, but because we know WHY we do not want divorce.
[Daphne – Min, I said before that it is YOUR thinking which is fascistic, and this is really it. What can be more fascistic than dragging out the mob to take a ‘democratic vote’ on whether other people might be permitted to terminate a marriage contract? The trouble is that you think of democracy in terms of votes. You don’t seem to understand that the democratic choice in divorce comes AFTER the legislation. The legislation is there and you can CHOOSE whether to use it or not. Yes, you might be divorced by your spouse, but if the marriage reaches that stage then the likelihood is that you don’t much care anyway. But all this is irrelevant, anyway. You have no more business voting on divorce than you have voting on adultery or sodomy. Other people’s marriages and sex lives are NONE OF ANYONE ELSE’S BUSINESS. To spell it out: a vote on divorce is something to which you intrinsically have no right. You have no right to have a say in other people’s marital situation. You only have the right to a say in your own marital situation. And that’s why democracy in divorce comes AFTER the legislation and not with a vote before it. Interfering in other people’s marriages is fascistic, not democratic.]
Having to follow a debate based on whether we should be like the rest of the world or not is depressing. It means we are still grappling with our identity.
We seem not to be able to think out of the box. Our box is the sea which surrounds us; it is the mental bastions behind which we live. We need to build bridges with the ideological mainland; we need to dismantle those bastions. Not import ideas while taking comfort from the institutionalization syndrome instilled by the sea; not import ideas to consume them behind thick bastions and walls.
The walls and the sea are our challenge! Cannot we tear down the walls? Cannot we not import but manufacture ideas to become normal people, less complex, less introverted?
If we keep importing ideas without understanding the know-how behind their manufacturing process, we will always remain a backward people, living a spiral of vicious circles of self-fulfilling prophecies.
Only a public debate – sincerely conducted – will help us grow out of our cocoon.
Otherwise we shall transform ourselves into a backward people with modern “tools of life”: a backward people with divorce and all the other modern solutions to life’s problems.
[Daphne – TRANSFORM ourselves into a backward people?]
The evolution has to take place in our heads, not only in our statute books.
Evolution is a painful process – like the chrysalis who grows into a colourful butterfly. If we avoid the sense of loss – of losing the comfort of our mental bastions (I have in mind Norbert Attard’s beautiful lithographs) – we will never emancipate ourselves.
Muscat is offering us only marketing (buy Western idea-products); Gonzi is offering us only toned-down demagoguery. We need real debate.
Where are the intellectuals in this country? Are they all busying themselves with their little kitchen gardens, growing self-serving turnips and beetroots?
You say: “And while we’re about it, we could try our hand at reinventing some other wheels.”
I say: “Perhaps, I didn’t make myself clear. I am not saying we should reinvent wheels; I am saying we should understand how wheels turn, not merely import the mechanism which turns wheels.”
You say: “That’s a nice piece of sophistry.”
I say (after I laughed heartily): “Actually it is not mine, but lifted from a school of thought which studies post-colonialsm.”
You say: “We are backward, Min, because we are STILL discussing this, when the discussion is long over.”
I say: “I agree. But still I think we should go through the process – to emancipate ourselves. Remember, our nation state has existed for only 50 years – whereas other nation states have existed for 500 years. We cannot condense their experiences and accept them ready-made. Instead we have to climb the same mountains, cross the same deserts, sail the same seas… only then shall we really – and not merely nominally – join the Western world.”
You say: “Divorce in Ireland or Italy or France or Germany is no different to what divorce would be in Malta, so why are we talking about it as though it is something new or as though we are a special case with a different brand of people.”
I say: “I agree. But I was once impressed by a small book published in 1989, authored by Guzeppi Schembri (now Bonaci). It was about the Common Heritage of Mankind. It opened with a quotation from Vernadsky, saying (I don’t remember the exact wording, and at this unholy hour don’t have the energy to get up from my desk and look up the book) that a people who merely imports is not mentally alive (or something to that effect.)”
You say… quite a lot of things about fascistic thinking. You are mostly right, because Fascism was (also) the exasperation of the notion of state. But where I don’t agree with you is where you say: “people’s marriages and sex lives are NONE OF ANYONE ELSE’S BUSINESS. To spell it out: a vote on divorce is something to which you intrinsically have no right. You have no right to have a say in other people’s marital situation.”
I say: “It is other people’s business, because we are a community. We are not a haphazard group of individuals; we form part of the one and same community. (In the case of Malta it is a deformed sense of belonging because of our geophysical circumstances, namely we are on an island.) I subscribe to that school of thought which views community as being a capillary system of collective interconnectedness.”
[Daphne – This is one point I really have to answer (I’ll let the others go; we’ll agree to disagree). The idea that the community (through its elders/popular vote) has the right to interfere in and control the sex lives of members of that community is not just dangerous but regressive. Europe and its New World cultural descendants have moved way beyond that in the last 300 years. Your argument is the very same one used in the past (and still used in the present in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria, to name a few societies which have yet to go through this process) for the public and cruel punishment of adulterers and men caught in the homosexual act.
Through a slow and painful process that ate up a few centuries and the lives of many thousands (if not actually millions), the larger society of which Malta forms part – albeit at its outermost edges – came to understand that when the ideal of community life is made reality only through the suffering and punishment of individuals within that community, then it is not the ideal at all, but a sham. And that the punishment of ‘deviants’ pour encourager les autres in the end creates more problems for the community than it solves, apart from making it a thoroughly unpleasant/fear-ridden place to be.
This is, in fact, what the ‘ideal family/community’ situation was in Malta, in what our politicians and churchmen like to portray as the Golden Years. Those perfect families were built on a great deal of misery, usually that of the wife and children, but also that of men burdened with far more responsibility than they could humanly handle. Archaic laws and fear of social opprobrium and hellfire kept the unit together, but at what price? The sexual shenanigans, child abuse and shirking of responsibility were probably greater then than they are now. There were thousands of children abandoned in Malta’s orphanages, and many men literally ran away from their family duties – disappearing into the depths of North America, Australia or Britain never to be traced again (with the few exceptions tracked down by Rachel of Tista Tkun Int).]
You say: “Interfering in other people’s marriages is fascistic, not democratic.”
I say: “I am agree with you. Completely. But, the point is not relevant. The creation of the option of divorce should come as the result of an explicit mandate. This is the lynchpin of my argument. You seem to argue – and here I disagree completely – that divorce is a natural right. My argument is that divorce could be viewed as a civil right.”
You say: “TRANSFORM ourselves into a backward people?”
I had said: “Otherwise, we shall transform ourselves into a backward people with modern “tools of life”.” Meaning: “We would still be backward in terms of mentality, despite having modern social amenities.”
Laws do not change mentalities. Mentalities change with experiences and the analysis of those experiences.
““It is other people’s business, because we are a community.”
Incredible!
@ David.
Please compare your reaction to the reaction of others.
I don’t know whether you get my point…
Daphne, if – as you seem to be arguing here and there in your commentary – divorce were a human right, we would have had a human rights action on divorce since the ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights in 1987, wouldn’t we?
[Daphne – No, it’s not a human right and I’m not saying it is. It’s a civil right.]
PS
The Tista’ Tkun Int parting shot was pure genius! :)
@Min Weber,
No, I seem to keep missing your point, but that’s OK, I’m part of a community so you can think for me.
@ Daphne: OK, re: human right. Then I misunderstood you. Sorry! I’m glad we agree on this. Many of your readers seem to mix the two types of rights.
@ David: Ah, finally a witty comment! Made me laugh, really! Was it your Opus Dei friend who gave you the cue?
PS I am not a social Luddite, mind you!
“You don’t seem to understand that the democratic choice in divorce comes AFTER the legislation. The legislation is there and you can CHOOSE whether to use it or not.”
You can stop right there, Daphne. This is what our politicians have to understand. If they don’t want to upset the Catholic Church, their grandma, etc, don’t get a divorce but leave others to make their own choice.
Whilst agreeing with Min that we Maltese have a tendency to be copycats and followers rather than creators and leaders, I don’t think that we can apply this argument to this subject. As Daphne says there is really nothing to discuss.
The flimflam about safeguarding the family is a load of conservative hogwash, the sort of pious nonsense thrown up by politicians who really have no idea how to handle an ever evolving and complex social situation, and who are trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator among the electorate.
As to where the intellectuals might be – well, certainly not at the university, an institution which still prides itself in threatening writers with jail, and with professors and lecturers who couldn’t understand the code of civil liberties if it was turned into a Ladybird book.
Oh Christ. More debate. A circle-jerk of intellectuals. For heaven’s sake, what’s to debate? It’s 2010 and we’ve accumulated a 200 year-lag.
And Weber, no one is forcing you to choose divorce. If you’re happily married, it really shouldn’t concern you.
Dear Baxxter, you are right. Nobody is forcing anybody to choose divorce. But the coming into existence of divorce itself requires public debate.
Are you against public debate?
Public debate is the essence of democracy!
[Daphne – Min, that public debate happened between 450 and 40 years ago across Europe. Been there, done that. What next? Are we going to be discussing the rights and wrongs of greenhouse gases 60 years from now?]
@Min Weber,
Seriously, why should ANYBODY debate on whether I can divorce?
Oh right, the community issues …..
@ Daphne – The debate, if conducted honestly, will – even in Malta – result in only one direction. The inevitable, ineluctable, unavoidable, inescapable … introduction of divorce. But – please! – let us do it for the right reasons: because we understand what we are doing, not because we want to imitate foreigners at all costs!
@ David – do I hear a noise? Ah yes! It’s a cog-wheel! Some oil would help… if more cog-wheels move, you’ll understand more things, and better. Don’t give up.
In the meantime, as Raul Cremona says (he’s not Opus Dei)… “Go, go… go play on the railways…!”
The Catholic Church is against divorce, but under Canon Law allows for annulment.
[Daphne – It doesn’t. It allows for a declaration of nullity. This means that there never was a marriage to start with. Annulment is a misnomer: if you are to annul something then it would first have to exist. Of course, the consequences for the couple and their children are exactly the same as they would be with divorce, but when you are dealing with matters of conscience, reality flies out of the window.]
If Malta was to introduce divorce, it is a given fact that the well being of the children will be looked after, whereas, under Canon Law the well being of children is not even considered.
Under Canon Law one can ask to have his marriage annulled by claiming that he/she was immature and/or lacked judgement at the time. In a marriage where there is no children, and both partners want to have their marriage annulled, all they have to do is for one partner to claim that the other partner never intended to have any children and had hide the this fact from him/her.
Under divorce law a marriage is ended once a decree is issued, unlike annulment where the marriage is deemed that it never have taken place regardless if there are any children born into that marriage. On this issue, one can only call the Catholic Church position hypocritical.
[Daphne – Not really. It’s pretty consistent with its dogma. It’s not the Catholic marriage tribunals which shock me – religions are religions. It’s the people who go to them to have their marriage declared null because they have somehow convinced themselves that they were never really married. It’s a state of denial that is typically Maltese: instead of doing the mature thing, accepting the situation and moving on, people wipe out whole chapters of their lives and try to pretend that they never happened.]
” It’s the people who go to them to have their marriage declared null because they have somehow convinced themselves that they were never really married. It’s a state of denial that is typically Maltese: instead of doing the mature thing, accepting the situation and moving on, people wipe out whole chapters of their lives and try to pretend that they never happened.]”
Wrong. they are simply forced to do so since there`s no divorce.
Tal-misthija! We are in the 21st century and nullity of marriage is still under the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts. Think it’s time for divorce to be brought under the power of the state.
There is a fine line between separation and divorce; in both cases husband and wife will opt not to live under the same roof, the difference is the entitlement of the parties to remarry.
This shows that in Malta religious authority is still strong. Christianity totally forbids divorce for Catholics.
Yes, unfortunately many now separate for the most trivial reasons however not granting divorce will not change anything.
“Under the new law that overruns the 1884 marriage code, a couple may divorce a year after separating if both partners agree to split up. If one partner disagrees, a divorce is allowed after three years.”
Does the bill proposed by JPO include some provision similar to this one? I think it is quite unfair that one party can postpone (or threaten to postpone) divorce proceedings for two years, practically without the need to provide a valid reason; anyone would have the right to refuse to give consent to divorcing, irrelevant of the arguments that s/he may bring forward justifying his/her action.
The Chilean law may be flawed but it’s by far much better than nothing at all. Why is it that we keep on wanting to impose our ideas on the lives of other people?
The introduction of divorce will not impose on anyone but will be available for anybody who wants to make use of it like in the rest of the free world and the not so free as well.
For those who are dead set against divorce for moral or whatever reason the outcome is simple. Do not make use of the law. Keep on going with your merrily married life, or do as Marlene Pullicino does.
The ones who want to get divorced should have a right to do so and let them worry about their morals and if they would be going to heaven or hell. It is not anyone else’s business.
Beyond doubt, in the years to come, the ones against will find themselves in a situation where their sons and daughters will want a divorce. What a shame!
“Why is it that we keep on wanting to impose our ideas on the lives of other people?”
It must be because those who impose their ideas do not understand the simple term ‘civil liberties’.
In fact, the question the Maltese people need to answer should not be “do you think Malta should have a divorce law? (yes or no)” but “do you believe in civil liberties? (yes or no)” .
It is the latter question that I would like to see posted on timesofmalta.com, and I would like to know if the Maltese majority will answer that with a yes or a no.
I am puzzled at something. As one of the basic tenets of human rights is the right to marry and found a family (Article 12), could the absence of divorce legislation, which in turn inhibits my right to found a family unit, be construed as an infringement of my rights as laid out in the the said Article?
Check out the link below. This makes relevant reading even if it is an opinion regarding the state of marriage, not divorce, in the United States.
I believe that with or without divorce, the reality of more cohabiting couples, more children out of wedlock and less need for marriage is unfortunately unavoidable. Divorce helps regulate this chaos to an extent. Legal separation and legalised cohabitation adds to it.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/11/i-don-t.html
We should ask Paul the octopus to decide the divorce issue.
Have to be quick, though. It is reported that octopuses live for just three years, and Paul is fast approaching the end of his life. Unless the Germans get their hands on Paul and put it in the pan beforehand, that is. I hear that they are very upset Paul predicted Spain’s victory in the semi-finals.
So long as the state is moored and firmly anchored to any religion, in our case, the Roman Catholic Church, we who have moved on beyond superstition and medieval thinking will continue to be hampered and shackled by totalitarian and fascistic mindsets.
These, unfortunately, still control the unenlightened minds of a big number of the Maltese people who could and would be used to impose their will. That is one other reason why a referendum on the divorce issue would be undemocratic.
It does not help that several of our politicians are obscurantist in their limited worldview, and that even those who are not continue to pussyfoot around issues like divorce, lest they incur the wrath of their ecclesiastical bedfellows.
We know of times when the simple threat of excommunication from the Catholic Church had Emperors whimpering on their knees for forgiveness. This was put a stop to by Napoleon quite a long time ago.
Here in Malta we know from our ‘mortal sin’ experience and excommunications of the 1960s what pain that caused to our society. I would not say that the Curia here will try that one again. But I can assure you that it can still whip up “crusades”, in spite of denials, especially if it starts threatening Catholic MPs with moral obligations to vote against divorce.
Every time the divorce issue crops up we all start talking about how important it is that we should discuss this issue seriously and like adults, and how families ought to be strengthened first and how divorce can lead to abortion and euthanasia.
Daphne, you and your readers on this blog know this only too well and I need not remind you. In this very blog you had a debate going in 2008 and basically the same things were said until something else cropped up and the whole issue was buried once again.
Than, like the phoenix, the issue rises up from its ashes we start hearing things like…. oh, this was a bolt from of the blue (as against, from the red) and oh, this was not in the party political manifesto, we do not have a mandate, the people must decide, a referendum, oh, we must think this through seriously, oh yes, our main interest is to strengthen families and so forth.
I like the fact that you are calling the bluff of these politicians who have been elected to legislate and make policy and for no other reason.
I’d say if they claim to strengthen the family they should do so and stop talking about it. But they still have a duty to take care of minority rights and, in this case, there are people whose marriages have utterly failed, who have been separated for years and because there is no legislation to regularise another commitment for stability they end up in this ridiculous co-habitation situation.
Daphne, your statement “You don’t seem to understand that the democratic choice in divorce comes AFTER the legislation. The legislation is there and you can CHOOSE whether to use it or not” says it all.
If you are Catholic and are against divorce, the fact that a country ALLOWS you to divorce doesn’t mean you have to. If you believe that by not getting divorced, you have a better chance of going to heaven, fine. Just don’t impose your beliefs on me! Can’t these people get that one single fact into their dumb skulls?
[Daphne – The thing is, Steve, that they see it as a holy crusade. Preventing divorce legislation and protecting society from hellish divorce is seen as a religious duty. If they are Catholics and don’t do whatever they can to stop divorce legislation, then they have failed in their obligations. I think they should all sit down and read Peter Serracino Inglott’s interview in The Sunday Times: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100711/interview/the-splits-on-divorce ]
Haven’t you ever heard some people saying that MUSEUM should be compulsory for all “Maltese children”?
And how about the fact that “religion” is compulsory for all state schools, church schools (obviously perhaps) and at least some independent schools?
In my time you HAD to get a pass in religion to go to sixth form.
[Daphne – Actually, religion is not compulsory – at least, not at secondary level. Children are allowed to drop it if the head of school has the parents’ consent in writing.]
“Children are allowed to drop it if the head of school has the parents’ consent in writing”
Well that’s one blessing!
“In my time you HAD to get a pass in religion to go to sixth form.”
Must have been in the 1930s, Tubbigieg – unless you’re speaking of a particular school, in which case you’d have had a choice.
@”Husband of the one who failed miserably to keep us out of the EU”
A pass in the religion matriculation exam was necessary to get into the state sixth form in 1988, along with physics, maths, Maltese and English.
Obviously one could go to the higher secondary, church-run sixth forms, or an independent sixth form instead.
David, are you sure you needed Religious Studies?!
To my knowledge you needed 6 subjects, and Religious Studies was NOT one of them!
And by the bye, do you know why today people cannot get civil annulment if one spouse decides that they want a church annulment? Do you know anything about the Malta-Holy See agreement of the early 90s?
The same agreement which that luminary of Toni Abela considered unconstitutional but never had the “opportunity” to take to Court. (Toni Abela, the other bookend to Anglu G. Farrugia.)
“And by the bye, do you know why today people cannot get civil annulment if one spouse decides that they want a church annulment? Do you know anything about the Malta-Holy See agreement of the early 90s?”
Yes I DO know, and it’s utterly ridiculous and probably could be challenged!
Did they have a mandate for that? They still did it!
@ David B.
And they were not democratic!
(It was your beloved PN which did, eh!)
@Min
I agree. Plus, they are not my “beloved” PN, but seeing the alternative they are far and away the best option. I have yet to see a true change in Labour.
Yes, the PN screw up sometimes, but when looking at the big picture there is no comparison between the two.
Fr. Peter is SPOT ON. His views are almost entirely parallel to mine, and from a Christian obligation perspective.
The political concern Fr. Peter mentions about care to be taken for the PN not to split the party on this issue is also incisive. Joseph Muscat has the same problem with the PL.
Ideally, the political parties could mutually agree to go forward with a joint-formulation of divorce law, on the basis of its nature as a civil right. Both parties could share the credit or blame, and the political status quo is maintained for the PN and PL.
But then there might be a split in the parties. The fundamentalists in both parties could form their own Conservative Reactionary Party (CRP), while the remainder would be forced into a coalition Social Democratic Party (SDP), with AD maintaining its independence with a chance for seats in parliament, or with AD deciding on mainstream integration with the SDP, the only remaining political movement for Progressives and Liberals.
Behold, no more PN and PL duopoly! Hurrah! A political earthquake at last! But is there enough political strength and courage among 65+ parliamentarians to retain a majority for SDP? If not, stay tuned, as Malta slides into 1798 before Napoleon.
We need a good Bastille Day type revolution in Malta, more than 200 years late. But I don’t know who to blame for its absence – Catholic Church, politicians, the people? Judging from the referendum proposal, it seems that the powers of Church and State believe that a fascist mob will help keep divorce at bay. Viva 14 July! Viva the Enlightenment! Viva Malta!
In a referendum, more than 50% of the people will vote YES for divorce.
I am sure of this as I am sure my real name is not Min Weber.
“and protecting society from hellish divorce is seen as a religious duty. If they are Catholics and don’t do whatever they can to stop divorce legislation, then they have failed in their obligations”
And history repeats itself. Fervent Catholics had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the Age of Enlightenment. Were it for them we’d still be carting around on dirt roads with a glorious Vatican acting as purifier of human thought.
Then they had the cheek to promote themselves as the instigators of the Enlightenment. I bet Galileo and Giordano would beg to differ.
After all, the fundamental paradigm shift occurred when the great minds of the time (Hobbes, for instance) started focusing on empirical evidence, not mystical philosophies.
Then the bitter churchmen started calling this new age the age of ‘relativism’. All they can muster is a weak “but it’s the truth” when we are discussing facts. Which reminds me…
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/24039/october-17-2005/the-word—truthiness
Rubbish. This isn’t about Catholics or Enlightened atheists but about sheer bloodyminded idiocy and commonsense. The sooner we learn to distinguish between Catholics and cretins, the sooner we can move forward.
Really Baxxter! I had a mild view of religion: mostly the live and let live type. The problem is that when you talk to moderate religionists they’ll invent a thousand excuses about the excesses of their fundies and why things have to remain as they are.
Religious moderates are simple the nice facade behind which the fascists hide. I haven’t seen many moderate catholics speaking out for a more secular government that is inclusive… apart from Fr Montebello. We know how he’s treated by the rest of his ‘family’…
“Moderate” Catholics is a misnomer. They’re really Catholics (practising, lapsed, whatever) who think that religion should be kept out of the public sphere.
Montebello is a tricky choice for an example. Think of the thousands of politicians in the rest of Europe. They don’t go through their political career quoting Christ at every step. Practising Catholic politicians have voted in favour of anything from military intervention to abortion.
I’d like to see our sanctimonious MPs doing likewise.
And on the subject of quotes and Vision 2015, we’re back to the old quote-me-a-Bible-verse game. The report bears a phrase from the Book of Proverbs on the title page, in the true Maltese spirit of “it’s religious, so it must be imbued with wisdom.”
Now honestly, what does that say to any “investitur barrani” reading the report? That we’re a religion-obsessed nation.
you reminded me of this story:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/18/rumsfeld-gq-iraq-bible-quotes-bush
@ Daphne and Vanni
It was in 1987 that Malta ratified the European Convention on Human Rights (Act XIV/1987). That’s twenty-three long years.
If divorce were a human right, it would be reasonable to suppose that at least one couple would have opened a Human Rights action, wouldn’t it?
The fact that no lawyer ever came up with the idea should signify something to people with functioning grey matter, shouldn’t it?
I rest my case.
[Daphne – How does it follow that if divorce is not a human right (which it is not), then parliament is not obliged to legislate for it and we have no right to demand it?]
“If divorce were a human right, it would be reasonable to suppose that at least one couple would have opened a Human Rights action, wouldn’t it?”
In Italy nobody took action against the crucifix in classrooms, despite there being a reasonably strong atheist movement. It had to be a Finnish woman to do so.
My other comment was a reply to Daphne.
This is a reply to David: What did you study at Sixth Form? Religious Studies? Perhaps you were under the false impression that you needed Religious Studies to enrol at University too?
Seriously now.
The Italians are a highly sophisticated people. They understand that Christianity is part and parcel of their national identity. The atheist movement exists within the Christian framework. Atheist Italian authors and intellectuals take the cornice cattolica as a given.
The Finnish woman comes from a completely different culture, where Christianity is less woven into the national weft.
David, do me a favour, eh, will you? If you do not understand what I am saying, just stop and think: it is humanly impossible for me to give you a summary of every single book I’ve read. What I say is usually the result of long hours of reading – instead of watching the FIFA Cup for instance (did you watch it, by the way?) – and I try to condense what I’ve read into short contributions to this excellent blog. Needless to say, I might have misunderstood what I’ve read, or what I’ve read is not up to scratch. And I accept such criticism, because it is only fair. But your attitude of wanting to ridicule what you cannot understand, is a bit rude, if you allow me to be very frank with you.
And rudeness does not befit a good boy like yourself who was sure he needed to study Religion to get into Sixth Form.
So, bear with me, Daviduccio bello, eh, and let me quote Raul Cremona again: Fa il bravo… va a giocare sulle rotaie… http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=292213801085
min weber, may I refine a bit your argument:
Italians are machiavellian. Italian atheists know that, like the mafia, the catholic church is intrinsically woven in italian politics and don’t have the courage to fight it. Remember that Italy had its fair share of intellectuals who fell foul of the church. In Italy it’s better to be corrupt but obsequious to the church than a free thinker and a humanist.
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/international/2009/jan/Atheist-Ads-Implemented-in-UK-and-Spain-Stopped-Short-in-Italy-.html
if anything, the northern countries have followed the Dutch and got rid of the negative influence from Rome centuries ago… with the marvellous ploy of instituting their own national churches.
Machiavellism is really part and parcel of the Italian national character. Machiavellism and Morality (as taught by the Church) are like Satan and God. The one cannot exist without the other.
@Min Weber
“What did you study at Sixth Form? Religious Studies?”
How did you guess? I specialised in Voodoo!
“David, do me a favour, eh, will you? If you do not understand what I am saying, just stop and think: ”
Oh but I do! In fact I understand you quite a bit actually!
“But your attitude of wanting to ridicule what you cannot understand, is a bit rude, if you allow me to be very frank with you.”
Not at all, be as frank as you wish but I only ridicule dangerous nonsense, such as getting other people to vote what is universally accepted as a right. The only discussions allowed should be how to introduce divorce and not whether to do so.
Whether a referendum will be won by the “pro divorce lobby” is immaterial, the idea that you have a say in whether my rights are respected is ghastly!
“So, bear with me, Daviduccio bello,”
How sweet, sounds like my mummy
” eh, and let me quote Raul Cremona again: Fa il bravo… va a giocare sulle rotaie ”
OK, I’ll drive, you can be the tracks!
“Not at all, be as frank as you wish but I only ridicule dangerous nonsense, such as getting other people to vote what is universally accepted as a right.”
Why are you afraid of a plebiscite?
Ah! You believe you’re part on an enlightened elite and the rest are just illiterates idiots?
Well, let me tell you a secret… that is how many in the ultra-conservative-religious camp view themselves: they are the elite and the rest (including you) are illiterate idiots.
All in all, perhaps in your case they might not be off the mark…
@Min
I am not afraid of a plebiscite. It’s the damn principle: you do not get to vote on rights.
Rights are non-negotiable and should be upheld without the vote of the majority. There’s no need to get so defensive as it certainly isn’t personal, but anyway, let’s face it – we ain’t gonna agree to save our lives so have a beer on me and let’s agree to disagree.
It does not. Because divorce is not a human right, Parliament is obliged to legislate for it. Human rights, on the other hand, can be “discovered” by a Court of Law.
The people have the right to demand the legislation of divorce. That’s my whole point! I merely move the emphasis from “to demand” to “the people”.
The people, being sovereign, have the right to demand the legislation of divorce – and Parliament, if the people makes this request, has to legislate for divorce.
But Parliament cannot assume to know what the people wants. That is the hallmark of dictatorships – the dictator knows what the people wants and he dictates. In democracies, politicians ask the people to express their collective will, and then legislate according.
If a referendum were to be done in Malta today, a marginal majority would vote in favour. The situation is very clear.
This is the correct interpretation of PSI’s lucid analysis of current Maltese society.
The people cannot and shouldn’t be asked to decide on matters that often need a good technical background and aren’t so black and white to decide on. Even parliament ends up deferring to experts. Do you expect Joe Voter to spend too much time trying to understand complex issues when a minority of students take the SEC? Do you want a referendum on the power station as well?
With all my posts here I have no pretension of expertise. I make the effort to understand in layman’s terms current issues. Most of all I’m enlightened by other posts and comments.
The “bestest” possible redeeming factor of the democratic process are: the people have a chance of changing dictators every five years; the citizens are equal before the law and their interests are equally represented in parliament. Failing that the people would have no other option than to rise and re-instate a government. Why is this so strange to many? After all democratic elections haven’t been around that long! Before the vote always happened at the tip of a sword for all of Europe’s history in civil wars, wars of conquest, wars of succession etc… I cannot understand how intelligent locals take the church’s snide remarks at secularism seriously. The principle that all men are equal, including the pope is the only way we can reasonably live together. Live with it.
You are right on the people not having to decide on the details. But at least on the principles.
Re: dictatorships changing every 5 years … that is an interesting, but dangerous, idea.
“dictatorships changing every 5 years”
that’s what you get in every democracy. the exception is places like Italy where the interests of the few trumps the interest of having a strong government that can legislate properly
@ JA Borg (2)
I do not think that in every democracy there are dictatorships which are confirmed/changed every 5 years. But then, we have to agree on the meaning of “dictatorship” – perhaps I’m thinking of one thing, and you’re thinking of something else. The difficulty probably lies in where the line has to be drawn between organized society and chaos, or (to borrow Kissinger’s insightful analysis of the two centrifugal forces opposing one another) between order and social justice.
Let me just say – perhaps hermetically – that the media (usually championed as the guarantors of democracy) serve both to “control” government and to manipulate public opinion. There are even psychologists whose job is to study the collective unconscious and forecast how the collective mood will change. There is a dark side to everything: the media, if the behave ethically, can be a watchdog; if they behave unethically, they can cajole society at will (Dr Goebbels was a master at this). Sometimes the media wheedle, sometimes they stoop to outright abuse. (A book originally published in the early 1990s, Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion, should make very interesting reading in this context.)
Italy is a particular case, for many reasons, the foremost among which was the conscious effort to avoid another dictatorship. Let us not forget that Italy was the crucible for Fascism – Mussolini claimed that the 20th century would be the century of Fascism… and who knows he wasn’t right? -; Italy was the laboratory all developed countries were following in the 1920s and 1930s to see whether Fascism (which some scholars define as the Religion of the State) was a workable political formula.
After the war, many forces worked together to weaken the Italian State, to avoid a repetition of the Ventennio.
In fact, the only stable governments in Italy have been Berlusconi’s. The reason is quite obvious: his allies are the post-Fascist Alleanza Nazionale (which have fused with Forza Italia into the Popolo delle Liberta’ – even though Fini is at the head of a minority current within the alliance, and for this he attracted the criticism of many, particularly ex-AN and now leader of La Destra, Storace – and the Finiani use a particular Foundation, headed by Adolfo Urso, as mouthpiece) and the quasi-Fascist Lega Nord. (Do not forget that the North of Italy experienced the Salo’ Republic, and that has changed the perception of Northern Italians. The South, on the other hand, can tolerate a party / political current which claims in/direct descendancy from Mussolini. There is a very interesting book on the Italian Right called La Fiamma e la Celtica.)
@ Min Weber (2) very interesting and insightful comment (albeit we’re digressing from Daphne’s post).
I agree with most of what you wrote except for the media and Kissinger. You make it look like the media is an independent entity when in fact “the media” is just a public manifestation of entrenched interests in government, corporations and the rich 1%.
Unfortunately the socialist movement that used to represent the working class either got pummelled by corporate interests or got corrupted by its own wealth. If you want to read alternative views, you have to sift through a lot of garbage, including our local GWU unfortunately.
Regarding books, I was going to read this this summer: “The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism ”
Incidentally did you see Adam Curtis’ Century of the Self:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mojw7DIpu1k
Thanks Joe, for this: Adam Curtis’ Century of the Self.
I didn’t know about the series.
The dominance of the Self is a recurring theme in contemporary literature, which looks at the atomization of society.
David Buttigieg should watch these clips, to understand what I’m trying to say on belonging to a community.
It would be nice if you could share with the readers of this blog your impressions of the book you’re going to read, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.
This summer I intend to concentrate on – among others – Amitai Etzioni.
This too is an insightful comment, Joe: “You make it look like the media is an independent entity when in fact “the media” is just a public manifestation of entrenched interests in government, corporations and the rich 1%.”
My tentative reaction (works-in-progress style) is: yes and no.
To my the media are like one of the estates of the ancien regime.
Those estates were independent of each other and yet enmeshed in the same system.
Would you agree with this analysis?
Dear Joseph A Borg
I do not know who you are – but I am very grateful to you!
I watched the entire 4 hours of Adam Curtis’ documentary – it is a much, much better articulation of exactly what I have been trying to say these past few days.
Thanks a lot!
My layman’s view: in the US, news is controlled by a few large conglomerates: they don’t agree on most things. You get Fox on one extreme and maybe MSNBC and NYTimes assets at the other but in reality they are corporate propaganda machines.
In the US everything is about money, there are no ethics or ideologies. Ironically the government funded PBS seems to be a well balanced source but cable companies effectively control what the masses see. Seems like the rustbelt only gets served Fox for example. The US federal government has a fascist bent and is too tied with corporations. The healthy antagonism between public and private is missing. Then you get opportunists like this http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1007.verini.html
In Europe it’s a bit different. The ideological left-right and cultural north-south divide still permits a relatively healthy debate about issues but with Black, Murdock and Berlusconi hoarding news and media assets it’s becoming more difficult to get a balanced view. There is also a language problem where some interesting media sources are only published in original language.
So, though there is a general pattern of mass betrayal of their audience’s interests the system is still anarchic enough. It can be explained by greed and personal interests more than kevin’s conspiracy theories with Bildeberg, the Illuminati etc… but then again, I want a world-government, so that makes me aligned with the devils kevin denounces, so I don’t see their shadows. We need a pax romana #2
@Min Weber
“David Buttigieg should watch these clips, to understand what I’m trying to say on belonging to a community.”
I’ve seen them, I’ll leave them to you however!
Cheers!