Muscat won't say how he'll vote if a divorce bill comes before parliament
The beard has gone but sadly, so has the bit up top. Ah, the stress.
Can you credit it? On Bondi+ tonight, Joseph Muscat refused to commit himself to a decision on how he would vote if a divorce bill comes before parliament. He repeated that he is in favour of divorce but, when pressed by Lou Bondi, wouldn’t say whether he would vote Yes or No to a divorce bill.
Instead, he repeated that old chestnut of how he will allow his party a free vote. Not being the sharpest knife in the drawer, he can’t see that his stance on a free vote dovetails perfectly with Monsignor Said Pullicino’s warning to judges that if they apply divorce law they will be in a state of sin.
Just as it is a judge’s duty to put all thoughts of sin aside and apply the law, so it is a legislator’s duty to put all thoughts of sin aside and legislate where necessary.
It had to be Eddie Fenech Adami, of all people, to point out in large letters in The Sunday Times yesterday that there is no room for talk of sin and conscientous objection where applying the law is concerned.
64 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Doesn’t his wife collect rosary beads blessed by popes, as well as teddy-bears and gay professors from the Sorbonne?
You don’t need much imagination to see what Joseph Muscat’s problem is here: speaking in favour of divorce might not be a sin in his wife’s mind because no priest has told her so, but voting for divorce after Said Pullicino said what he did?
Muscat made it very clear that he is in favour of introducing divorce. His actual vote will eventually depend on the actual wording of the bill.
Better still is that we came to know who Lou’s mentor is. You’d expect our own Larry King to have a mind of his own.
[Daphne – Who is Lou’s mentor? I missed that.]
X’naqbzu ghal Muscat.
He did no such thing. If you’re going to vote for divorce, then you’re going to vote for divorce. If he votes against ‘the actual wording of the bill’, he’ll vote against divorce.
Ridout – Would you vote for a watered down bill that has no real effect?
Kev, sorry to intervene. That was not Bondi’s question.
What you could have added is that we now need a definition from Muscat of “Divorzju responsabbli.”
Kev, would you vote to keep the issue forever in abeyance?
It’s not a difficult word. Look it up.
Frankly, Ridott, I find all this such a non-issue I could hardly be bothered. The quicker it’s over with the better, so we can move on with the ‘real’ world.
You were bothered enough to post comments here in Lilliput. Or was that just a ruse to attract some badly needed attention?
Kev, before the programme, Joseph Muscat had already claimed he was in favour of divorce but when it came to saying whether he would actually vote for it to happen he hummed and hawed himself into yet another corner.
Far from clearing up the situation, the episode clouded a commitment that had previously seemed clear. At this point we are not even sure whether Joseph Muscat would support divorce legislation.
Yes, Antoine, it did not do any good to clouded minds. Try a new duster, it might help.
Just out of curiosity, kev, did you have photos of Dom and Lorry on their chargers in your office? Or was it just Stalin and Kim il-Sung?
So did I.
Yes, I nearly missed it too.
Ok, Kev. Put the entire audience here out of their misery. Who was it?
Isn’t it frigging obvious, Ridott? Ciccio2012 is aware – check his missive below.
[Daphne – Kevin, please stop playing the troll.]
In the internet world they do a hat-tip – that is, they acknowledge the source of what they’re offering. On TV this would translate to something like: ‘Nixtieq ukoll nirringrazzja lil DGC talli ghamlet hafna mill-analizi li fuqhom qed nibbaza dawn id-domandi…’
Clever boy, except you don’t seem to notice that you’re not taken seriously.
As a matter of interest, do you also say ‘infradig’?
I would hardly want to be taken seriously, Ridott – not when I find myself defending politicians.
@ Antoine – I had a signed photo of KMB b’xharu spikey. That’s the prime minister who preceded Kim il-Sung.
Besides serving his wife, Sharon Ellul Bonici, in Brussels and having a noble second surname (Bonici), who is this Kev?
A. Charles, he’s famous for taking shots at our Daphne, alleging she represents the other side of the Lilliputian coin and what not.
He supports such evil men as this decrepit prime minister, who says bad, naughty things about good, noble people:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT28hCyXsLs
A. Charles, he’s also famous for having been schooled by the Russians who thought him all he knows about conspiracies. When it comes to secret plots, kev will believe anything as long as it’s not true.
M’hemmx dubbju li Lou jidhol f’dis-site (jigiferi jaf li Daphne ma tiktibx kotba tar-ricetti biss.
Is Kev suggesting that Lou’s questions in yesterday’s program echoed arguments presented here on this blog?
If so, Kev cannot be credited with revealing some state secret.
On the magazine VIDA (October 2010), Lou told Miriam Dalli (is she not the ONE from One?) “I like to read Daphne Caruana Galizia…” and that “She has a clear mind” and “she has the ability to analyse our society in a brilliant sociological and anthropological manner.”
Ghidilhom, Ciccio2010, ghax qed jilghabuha li ma nafx x’qed nghid.
I think what Kev is trying to say is that the issues put forward by Lou Bondi during the programme have been already raised on this blog and discussed to death; I noticed that too, as I guess most people frequently visiting this website did.
Most probably it is just the saying “Great minds think alike” proving itself to be true, but could it be he is lacking ideas and so he has to resort to borrowing some from here?
Er, could it be that Daphne Caruana Galizia and Lou Bondì, as journalists, both focus on current issues?
Of course it could! But I really hope this was just a coincidence–it was so boring being able to predict what he will ask next.
Baxxter, that’s it. You got it. They are telepathically connected, focusing on the same 10 points. Other points worth mentioning exist on other bandwidths.
Peter Serracino Inglott’s “people’s economics” is almost an exact copy of a report of mine. Should I call him a plagiarist?
It is all a conspiracy. This blog is written by Lou Bondi. The presenter of Bondi+ is Daphne Caruana Galizia, disguised as Lou. Which explains why Lou praised this blog with Miriam Dalli.
It all makes sense. Lou is a renowned gourmand. And Daphne writes cookery books.
I tried to watch Bondi Plus, but after fifteen minutes of beating around the bush on TVM, I found Soliti Ignoti more interesting. Zapped it on again …….and slept on the sofa. Joseph tries to be smart, but he isn’t.
I want to specify ‘the beating around the bush’: he said that it was ‘common knowledge’ that his father is an importer of explosives not a salesman.
Well, I consider myself to know a bit about our politicians but did not know about this until I read it about it on this blog.
In other words “hassejtu jrid jitmghani r-ross bil-labbra’. If instead of ‘common knowledge’ he used ‘open secret’ then I wouldn’t have seen the ‘Soliti ignoti’ participant loose 107,000 Euro tondi tondi.
Bondi+ suppost hu programm serju imma Joseph ipprova jdahhaqna u ix-“Xow” fjakk taz-“Zoo” li jidher wara, suppost idahhaq imma jbikkik.
Kemm nifilhu nikkuntentaw b’racanc f’Malta!
Joseph Muscat, still leader of the opposition, has taken the attitude many times on Bondi+ of ridiculing the programme and Lou. Well, while he does that, he is not fooling the viewers.
In fact, when he does that, it becomes immediately clear that he has no answer to the question and is only seeking to deviate from the question.
I can’t imagine how he will deal with real issues as Prime Minister.
On the subject of fireworks, I believe he said he declared a conflict of interest. Where exactly did he do that? Re-reading the article in the Sunday Times of 12 September 2010, I could not find any of those words.
If one wants to laugh in the evening, one should see Comedy Central.
A.Charles: I like Maltese tragicomedy like Deceduti on Thursdays on TVM and the daily Labour Party ‘Statements’ which should read “PL-Questions-and-Doubts-taken-as-facts”.
Like:” The PL spokesperson of fish and chips has issued a statement asking about the quality of the food sold in the farmers market at Ta’ Qali and doubts about the future of the middlemen at Ta’ Qali vegetable Market, while supporting farmers, middlemen, vegetable vendors and ‘il-mara tad-dar’ s/he appeals to the government to keep prices of vegetables down.
….. while letting the vendors and middlemen enjoy the status quo.
So the PNWhereseverybody (I dropped out Gonzi because that is only a facade) consortium wants adamantly to turn the divorce issue into a partisan political one. Dream on…
[Daphne – How does that follow, Albert? I think what most people want at this stage is for both parties not to even see this as an issue at all, and to just go ahead and legislate to bring us in line with reality. And this includes, strangely enough, the people who oppose divorce, because they would be really relieved to have somebody take a decision for them and be done with it.]
“Just as it is a judge’s duty to put all thoughts of sin aside and apply the law, so it is a legislator’s duty to put all thoughts of sin aside and legislate where necessary.”
No one whatever his position in society, can ignore SIN. If you are committing it knowingly, than that is more grave for the person. So after all, the Mons is right that people have abondoned all notion of SIN. Everything goes, even those crimes which call for vengeance like what happened in Avetrana. And then after five minutes we succumb to the words “miskin……ma haqqux”. Believing or not, SIN remains a SIN. And by the way, EFA is no moral authority and cannot teach us what the Magisterium of the Church teaches with regard to sin and divorce.
Tiftakruhom is-SIN parties bil-homosekxwils in kejcis?
Iva! Kont ghadni naqa’ ta’ tfajjel u l-genituri se jibdew jimlew rashom. Ghax, incidentalment, f’Malta dejjem nehtiegu Biza’, bil-B majjuskola. Dak iz-zmien kien is-Seks. Hasbuni se nigi fagocitat minn xi orgja.
Imma s-Sin Parties mhux homosekxwils kien ikun hemm, le? As such kienu skuza ghal naqra hetero action. Possibilment ma’ Maltin psewdo-barranin libertini.
Take my word for it: sociologists and dilettante lawyers notwithstanding, the history of sex in Malta has yet to be written. Kwazi kwazi, la Redoute, nesigu coffee-table format. Illustrated.
Summer 1994, around 1.00 am
Police woman calling HQ: Sir, there is a SIN party going on right now at xxx.
Duty Officer HQ: That’s a licenced premises. What’s the problem?
Police woman: It’s a SIN party, sir
Dury Officer HQ: And? Surely they haven’t surpassed the time limit.
Police woman: You don’t understand, sir. This is a S-I-N Party, and they even have candles all over the place…
I ignore any “sinful” act, as taught by the Magesterium of the Church, unless it does not coincide with the dictates of my conscience. Even then I would not call it a SIN – just an act that I perceive as simply wrong or in some cases as evil.
Divorce does not fall under this category. You or the church, on the other hand, are free to disagree but you have no right to impose your opinion on the rest.
“No one whatever his position in society, can ignore SIN.”
Very true. I can hardly help myself indulging in some sinful behaviour whenever I get the chance.
Like this.
This part of the Bondi+ programme dealing, with the divorce question, amply showed Joseph Muscat’s insecurity. He was flustered by a simple question (how will he vote?) and his waffling long-winded protestations made him appear as someone without the courage of his own convictions.
Hardly, Mr Vella. I think you would agree with me that it is blatantly unfair to ask someone to commit himself on something which is as yet half-backed.
Would you bound yourself to sign a contract without even having seen it first? Without having axamined it in the finest possible detail?
I am sure you wouldnt. So why do you expect anyone to answer such a stupid and unfair question? Actually, if you look at the programme again, you will see tt was Lou Bondi+ who was quite nervous at time, using such journalistic languages as “u ejja…” many times.
Muscat could have adopted a different tactic and spelled out what sort of content he would vote for and why.
That would be too difficult though, wouldn’t it?
Which part of “Jien naqbel ma l-introduzzjoni tad divorzu f’Malta” did you not understand? I take it you were snoozing when Joseph Muscat repeatedly stated so on yesterday’s Gonzi+.
Oh, and once we’re at it, can you kindly ask someone at the PN to send Lou to acting classes. He plays the role of the impartial presenter dreadfully. The mere thought that my TV licence contributes to his dividends gives me the creeps!
I think there should be legislation on divorce. Those (like me) who are against divorce can feel uneffected because they would never dream of having recourse to such legislation. However, those against have the right to voice their opinion and this need not be conditioned by religious consideration. There are several considerations that militate against divorce.
I’m worried. When I see this man, I miss Alfred Sant.
I will only vote Yes for divorce if the main points of the new divorce law are part of the referendum question, as Pullicino Orlando has been saying these last few weeks.
If we are only allowed to say YES or NO for divorce – I will not vote at all.
Hardly, Mr Vella. I think you would agree with me that it is blatantly unfair to ask someone to commit himself on something which is as yet half-baked. Would you bind yourself to sign a contract without even having seen it first? Without having examined it in the finest possible detail?
I am sure you wouldn’t. So why do you expect anyone to answer such a stupid and unfair question? Actually, if you look at the programme again, you will see it was Lou Bondi+ who was quite nervous at times, using such journalistic language as “u ejja…” many times.
[Daphne – That doesn’t mean Lou is nervous. It means he’s controlling himself and thinking ‘What a ……’.]
…..hmmmm…defending Lou…on the draw…
Albert, Lou Bondi has been a television personality for years and must have conducted hundreds of programmes. Why would he be nervous? It’s Joseph Muscat who’s the beginner and it was very apparent during yesterday’s edition.
Because his relationship with Joseph Muscat has gone beyond that of journalist and leader of the opposition, and has crossed over into friendship. “Iltqajt mieghek matul hafna ikliet” and so on. You’d feel awkward too if you had to put a friend on the spot.
‘Asked whether they (university students) agreed that divorce should be introduced 54.4% said yes, 32.4% against and 13.2 said they were undecided.’
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20101012/local/university-survey-shows-majority-for-divorce
I am surprised, but really shouldn’t be, that there is such low support for the introduction of divorce at university. I think that this survey result reflects serious lack of critical thinking, and fear of change.
Malta’s university, including its students, must be the most conservative in the western hemisphere.
Do you remember, a few years back, that EU referendum survey at university? More than 60% of students were against membership. University students. Against the EU. Says it all really. Basta bit-trips Praga mat-tfajla.
Your answer lies in this survey : http://www.il-gensillum.com/news.asp?issue=17&newscat=12&news=1936
Most of our students are living in a family.
Next week it will be the prime minister`s turn on Bondi +. He is against divorce. I wonder how he will answer to the same questions.
Here’s Malta Today, telling us what to think:
http://www.maltastar.com/pages/r1/ms10dart.asp?a=12372
Isma’ ghax se taqbizli, da kif Lou , jew xi veru gurnalist, ma saqsiex lil Joseph x’ried jipproponi fil-private member’s bil-kuragguza tieghu? Mela nsaqsieh hekk hux se jivvota favur?
Ta’ l-inqas Pullicino Orlando kellu il-wicc jghidilna li ikkopja il-ligi ta’ l-Irlanda.
U eh bilhaqq, mhux bir-referendum indahhlu kundizzjoni u wara dil-kundizzjoni titnehha b’ligi.
Lou Bondi isn’t running for government. Joseph Muscat is. Shouldn’t he tell us what he plans to do when he gets there? Why wait for an interview on Bondi+ two and half years after he wriggled his way into leading the opposition?
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/briguglio-slams-pl-leader%E2%80%99s-position-on-jpo-divorce-bill-as-%E2%80%9Cspineless%E2%80%9D