The Anti-Divorce Movement, announced today
Published:
January 12, 2011 at 2:07pm
I welcome the launch of the Anti Divorce Movement (which I suppose, strictly speaking, is actually the Anti-Divorce-Legislation Movement) because it is led by people whose opinion we can respect and take seriously, a prerequisite for proper debate.
I don’t imagine there will be anything in the way of hysterics coming from Andre Camilleri, who is director-general of the Malta Financial Services Authority, and Arthur Galea Salamone, chairman of the Malta Stock Exchange.
70 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
I don’t welcome anything that tries to eliminate freedom of choice for human beings.
[Daphne – You can’t silence opinions because you don’t agree with them.]
I am not not silencing them at all, just not welcoming them.
..but don’t they get the freedom of choice too. They choose NOT to want divorce legislation.
“I don’t imagine there will be anything in the way of hysterics coming from Andre Camilleri, who is director-general of the Malta Financial Services Authority, and Arthur Galea Salamone, chairman of the Malta Stock Exchange.”
Talibans with a diploma. Not impressed.
As I have been saying for ages, all government has to do is amend the Civil Code, giving separated people the CHOICE to remarry.
The rest of ALL divorce legislation already exists in our separation laws.
Divorce is such a non-issue, it shouldn’t even be debated.
Does one see the beginnings of hysterics here, Alan?
Nope. Talibans with a diploma are above that.
But Talibans they remain.
You may say that you are not silencing them, but you are certainly being offensive (Talibans with a diploma).
It’s what I feel about them.
That’s freedom of speech for you.
Totally agree with you there Alan. Well said.
knowing Andre Camilleri, I have to say that he’s anything but a fundie. He is a practising Roman Catholic who takes his beliefs seriously but not the right-wing fascist moron you’re implying.
I’m atheist and pro-divorce as it streamlines governance. My feeling of the Roman Catholic Church’s stance has more to do with sacraments and other church voodoo than post-enlightenment reason.
That’s why I’m interested to hear what Dr Camilleri has to say on the subject. Pick his brains on the subject if you will…
If anything the underlying issue is going to be about the nature of laws passed in this country. Whether parliament passes laws for better government or to bolster some partisan ideology…
Divorce is such a non-issue, it shouldn’t even be debated
It is an issue if a sizable part of this country’s citizens don’t want divorce to pass.
Era ora!
I don’t like the way the anti-divorce movement is called “pro-marriage” instead of “anti-remarriage”. That tries to – or inadvertently does – obscure the fact that divorce legislation is for enabling remarriage, and not for breaking up marriages.
Like the way the anti-abortion lobby calls itself pro-life, as if anyone who agrees with the legalisation of abortion wants to kill everybody around them
It is people who break up marriages, not the law. Relationships break up all the time and without love there is no marriage. It is not the law or any movement that can be held responsible for that. But the law does make it possible to remarry. So yes, it does make sense.
You are not enabling remarriage. You are diluting the marriage concept to mean nothing at all.
Am I to understand that the major concern of these gentlemen, who are involved in the financial sector, is to do mostly with the monetary cost to the country?
If so, perhaps they would research what the cost is now with thousands of separated couples and what the cost might be when some of these couples remarry after the introduction of divorce. Just out of curiosity not that cost has anything to do with it.
It seems to be same arguments, but in different words.
I get told I’m in a flimsy commitment because I’m married with the possibility of divorce.
People are very good at compartmentalising rational thought. They can apply it brilliantly in their everyday work, but then they go home, form an anti-divorce campaign and let the erratic side of their heads take over.
[Daphne – Well, the fundamental mistake they usually make is to think that marriage makes the commitment, rather than the other way round. It’s lack of commitment – not even lack of love – that makes for a flimsy union, because the individuals (or one of them) have no hang-ups about walking out, marriage, divorce, or no marriage or divorce.]
I would say ‘fanatic’, not ‘erratic’.
Perhaps both :)
But what I can’t understand is that these things are so apparent and so simple, yet these people, with good education and good jobs – jobs which they could not have unless they could think clearly – yet the second it hits at these compartments of their head they just shut down.
Why the ruffled feathers in all these comments? Is the appearance of a credible organisation that is counter to the pro-divorce lobby that disturbing to the latter? Suddenly lost their sense of conviction in validity of the pro-divorce argument?
Stupidity is no less annoying when it comes from more well-educated quarters.
Not really – the validity has been proven to me by all the nations, Malta included, and over decades in modern times.
I do not want to place my freedom and civil rights in the hands of others.
Because, Bus Driver, it is, at least to me, extremely irritating to see 300,000 people, who happen to be my co-nationals, think they know better than the rest of the 6 billion on this planet.
I’m not counting the Phillipines. At least here we don’t crucify ourselves on Good Friday.
Yet.
Sorry, I don’t agree with you, not because I am against the right of anyone to freedeom of expression – just the opposite – but to me this smacks like the Church doing something vicariously.
Though I do not know Dr.Camilleri personally but am convinced of his integrity, I do not swallow the declaration that the motives of the movement are not religious.
Dr. Camilleri, if I am not mistaken, was president of Azzjoni Kattolika at one time and this speaks volumes. He is in good company in that respect.
Everyone agrees about strengthening families but, if a marriage is over, what is there to strengthen? The movement is talking of “studies from abroad”. What studies? About divorce?
We already know of the social effects of divorce and these are exactly like those of separation. Now they will show us the statistical harmful effects of divorce and tell us “look, this is what will happen if divorce is introduced”. This is dishonest, because the effects are already with us with divorce Maltese style, i.e. separation and annulment.
My feeling is that some members of the government are in cohoots with the Church to do their damnedest to thwart divorce legislation.
They want to continue denying this universal civil right to Maltese. The hand of the Church is behind this and it is becoming increasingly obvious that the Church does not want divorce because it will diminish its power.
The absence of divorce legislation is the last manifestation that the Church wields power in Malta. When divorce is introduced, as it must be sooner or later, it will mean that the Church no longer has any say in the running of this country.
I do hope that government supporters who are in favour of divorce will not now change their stance for party political reasons. If pro-divorcists are going to let their political allegiances get in the way of ensuring that civil rights are given to us, then we are truly a country with no backbone.
We have no right to silence opinions when we do not agree with them, but we do have a right not to welcome them. A bunch of fanatics with some spare time on their hands, if you ask me.
It is already ridiculous to discuss the legislation of divorce in the 21st. century, when the rest of the world acknowledges it. What I could never understand was how married couples, with children, are able to get their marriage annulled by the Catholic Church, but could never get divorced. How can you say that there was never a marriage, when the children were borne out of that union?
It`s very sad, but we won’t have divorce in Malta, at least not for the next 10 years or so. Here in Malta we always wanted to give the impression of holier than thou, and will refuse anything that will tarnish that illusionary reputation.
It`s obvious, when you look at statistics, that more and more couples are getting seperated, and they go on to co-habit and have more children out of wedlock.
But I guess that`s fine as long as the dreaded word is kept out of our dictionaries. Both political parties and the Catholic Church prefer to sweep the dust under the carpet than face reality and react. The easiest way out. Hypocrites.
Have you quite exhausted your repertoire of charming epithets?
Couldn’t agree more. We are obsessed with projecting this holy image, as if Malta is the last bastion of morality in an evil, evil world.
Very similar thing is happening with the porn-screening issue. Ridiculous to even debate it when we have access to all the filth in the world through the internet.
Also remember that we had a debate about phallic monuments when the Pope was coming. His supporters even covered it with banners, as if the Pope never saw a penis in his life.
Divorce and separation are the beginning of a war. I prefer peace.
In dangerous situtions there should be a better solution, so I think everybody should learn self-decipline, respect and honesty.
GOOD LUCK TO ALL
I see the final cog of the PN media machine has now fallen into place with Daphne’s green tick for the anti-divorce debate. Shame, as I didn’t think you would be on that side of the discussion.
[Daphne – And once more I ask: is it necessary to be uncomprehending to vote Labour? Note that I didn’t say ‘bloody stupid’.]
“It`s very sad, but we won’t have divorce in Malta, at least not for the next 10 years or so.”
You are being very optimistic, Pat.
It takes time for blind religious zeal to be weeded out of a culture. Moreso when many of them occupy the highest echelons of politcal power as I speak.
I’d say more like a generation.
Daphne, why do they allow divorces obtained abroad to be registered? If they are against divorce then they should surely ask to have that scheme scrapped.
[Daphne – Divorces have to be recognised here because otherwise the situation would be anomalous. But yes, this fact severely weakens the arguments against divorce legislation.]
From what I see around me all I can say is that divorce sometimes resolves a problem but many times it also creates many others.
Divorce may resolve a problem between a married couple, but what if one side falls into a mental depression because the other side wanted and gained the divorce?( Daphne, I avoided the word ‘partner’).
[Daphne – The word you wanted is ‘spouse’, not partners, in any case.]
Do children have rights? Wouldn’t we have more children with social problems?
No matter how tough the proposed legislation is, divorce laws always tend to be eased along the years. If we solemnly promise that we will support and love each other for life how can there be a proviso that we can free ourselves from such a commitment?
If we are ready to introduce divorce I would rather have a free-for-all/do-as-you-please situation where people just start living together and leave when they please.
With or without divorce, people still do whatever they like.
“… it is led by people whose opinion we can respect and take seriously, a prerequisite for proper debate.”
Messrs. Camilleri & Galea Salamone maybe … but I’m not so sure about Mr. & Mrs. Cordina!
My esteem for both gentlemen nosedived.
After obtaining more information from the PBS news about this movement, I am even more horrified.
The chairman, apparently, said that things are not as bad as pro-divorcists paint them.
Of those cohabiting, the majority are happy as they are and only a small percentage wants divorce, he was reported to have said! I can’t believe someone who is a lawyer, a respected member of the community and chairman of MFSA to boot can come up with such…pardon me…crap.
So, even if we take what he said as fact, that small percentage are dispensable and can go on living their short lives in misery. I couldn’t help being reminded of the inquisitors.
As long as it was for the good of your soul, you could be sent to the stake and they were quite heartless in their conviction that they were right. Is this the Catholic faith which is supposed to preach humaneness, to put man in the centre of all things?
The divorce issue is really serving to show Maltese Catholics in their true colours. You may disagree with me but I am against people in such key national positions like chairman of MFSA and chairman of the Stock Exchange being on the board of this movement.
For me, it’s obscene.
Malta is a country like no other and not only because it has no divorce. What a sad place to live in…but no, I’m mistaken, we’re number 1 in the world to live in.
Unfortunately, I have only one brief life to live. If I had a second chance, I would rather not be born than be born in this place and, especially, in these times of promiscuity between Church and Power.
You can always go some place else; no one is stopping you.
Very enlightened answer Mr. Farrugia. Right. Go some place else to escape the local Taliban. Now that would be a good solution.
How about instead if the local Taliban choose not to divorce while leaving other adults to do as they please with their lives? I cannot believe that top civil servants espouse such retrograde/inquisitorial beliefs.
I just hope that in the performance of their official jobs, they are far more enlightened than in their personal beliefs about the rights of others.
“Another John”, try to moderate your use of epithets if you do not wish others to call you idiotic.
Now that settles it.
Dear traveller, you are right about our misuse of the Catholic religion. Paraphrasing what Cruise O’Connor, the Irish politician said, when speaking about the religious sectoral killings in Northern Ireland, we are Catholics but we are not Christians.
Hi Daphne
sorry to litter this post, but gave up trying to find the right post. Remember Super 1 harassing you and your sisters in Valletta? Remember them harassing you, your sister and your son at the university?
Now look at this, please:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110112/local/mp-raises-privilege-complaint-against-net-tv-journalists
two wrongs don’t make one right
And Joe Mizzi was vulnerable as he wasn’t carrying a missile-powered handbag.
Perhaps, but the PL’s hypocrisy and double standards still scream out.
No comment …
Wednesday, 12th January 2011 – 11:59CET
MP complains as 84-year-old is told to refund €1,591 sent to her by mistake
An 84-year-old woman who received a cheque for €1,591 because of a mistake by the Inland Revenue Department should not pay for that error, Labour MP Silvio Parnis has said in Parliament.
In a parliamentary question, Silvio Parnis asked the Minister of Finance to look into the case of the woman, who, he explained, had received €1,591 from the Inland Revenue Department, only to be told after some time that it was a mistake and the money should be returned.
Mr Parnis said he did not feel that an 84-year-old woman should pay for the mistake of the department. A younger woman would be able to work in order to pay the money, but this was needless worry for an elderly woman.
Replying, the minister said the woman and her relatives had been given explanations several times. After realising its mistake, the Inland Revenue Department asked for the money to be sent back.
Mr Fenech said he was sure that Mr Parnis realised that while it would have been unfair for the department to demand money which were not due, it was unfair on the other taxpayers had the woman been allowed to pocket the money she was not entitled for.
The age of the person was not relevant. The fact that the woman was 84 did not mean that she could keep money which did not belong to her, Mr Fenech said.
( http://www.timesofmalta.com )
In my view there are 2 scenarios, each of which requires a different “treatment”:
If the couple is childless or the kids are grown-ups (empty nest category) then granting them divorce should be just an administrative, straight-forward process since the financial and social implications are rather constrained or nonexistent.
If the couple has kids and society or the general well-being start being impacted (financially e.g. social benefits, potential negative emotional impacts on the kids, and hence lower performance at school and in their growing up etc) then a more cautious approach to the proceedings shall be adopted.
My view is that the conditions within the household should determine the process and timings which any divorce proceedings take i.e. if the general environment is one of violence, negligence etc, then this should be given a faster-track than situations which are rather under control, since these might still have some potential to be “re-settle” as a couple – maybe not in love but at least appearing so infront of kids.
Obviously the counter-argument to this is that the more ruthless and violent the relationship is, the quicker the divorce will be…but who said life is fair?
So in summary – yes to divorce legislation, but not a blanket approach across board.
What are you suggesting? Some kind of pre-trial where a committee decides whether there is enough negligence or violence to justify divorce?
Please remember that couples with kids are already splitting up and living apart and giving their kids plenty of “uncles”. We have separation in Malta.
It seems to me that when debating divorce legislation, people tend to forget this fact.
‘not in love but at least appearing so in front of kids’ … wow … what an argument! Leaves you without words.
But Jack, doesn’t this happen when parents separate or when the marriage is annulled?
Why decry how the family fabric has deteriorated and suddenly it seems that this deterioration is a figment of our imagination? Why say that divorce will make the family life much worse?
Anyway, divorce would be resorted to only by non-Catholics so why should Catholics be against divorce legislation? Or is the real reason that many baptised Catholics are Catholics in name only.
It would make for very interesting reading were the statistics to be published for the numbers of separations and annulments obtained in the last twenty years. Another very interesting statistic would be the number of years and the money spend to get either.
It really says a lot (or very little) about Malta when the director-general of the Malta Financial Services Authority the chairman of the Malta Stock Exchange throw themselves in support of a lobby group to maintain Malta’s position in the dark ages when it comes to basic human rights.
This in consort with the right wing elements of the PN and the Church. Their positions have suddenly diminished consderably in the respect stakes.
They certainly have a right to make their views heard – but this view should not in any way be linked to their positions – it should be read as their personal view and left at that. Elevating their views because of their positions is typical snobbery and the power it brings to any debate. Shame Malta Shame
[Daphne – It has nothing to do with snobbery. I would much rather have an anti-divorce-legislation movement led by the chairman of the Stock Exchange and the director-general of Finance Malta than by the anti-divorce equivalent of Emy Bezzina – just as I much happier with a pro-divorce-legislation campaigner like Martin Scicluna than I was with Emy Bezzina, or for that matter, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and Evarist Bartolo.]
I am sure the majority here in Malta is against divorce
That is neither here nor there. The majority who do not wish to divorce need not do so.
How can you be your sure – did you take a scientific poll?
What about sodomy?
Do you think the majority here in Malta are against anal sex?
Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it compulsory. You don’t want to be f*cked in the a**e, then don’t do it. You don’t want a divorce after you have been legally separated for five years, then don’t do it.
[Daphne – Bit of a flaw in that argument: it takes one person to get a divorce, not two. Yes, it is more than possible to be divorced against your will, and that’s BIG part of the opposition to legislation.]
You can only be divorced after some time legally separated (which is divorce in all but name). Would it matter if one of them then wants a divorce decree? Really?
[Daphne – Yes, of course it would. Very few marriages break up by mutual decision. Usually it’s one person who leaves the other floundering. And if subsequent relationships make for bitterness and resentment, you can imagine what subsequent marriages will do. Girlfriends/boyfriends/partners can be regarded as interlopers, but new spouses can’t. There is no such thing as an amicable break-up. It means somebody is pretending for the sake of somebody else.]
I was taking the piss out of the hypocrites with the sodomy comment.
The problem might be that that one of the spouses intends to divorce whether the remaining partner wants it or not. I am looking forward to some good studies, since when the Church issued a reply based on statistics (For Worse, not for Better), those who criticised them did a poor appraisal.
We can never live in a perfect society, but I wish that someone would place divorce in a larger picture of how young men and women are getting to know each other, the financial pressures involved, the loans, not affording decent houses to start a life (rent and then purchase), if entertainment business exerts influence and education.
divorce is an individual right…no one, not even a majority, should impose anything to the detriment of your individual rights!
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html
That says it all.
Divorce is a civil tool enabling the civil opportunity for remarriage (with all of its personal and social rights and obligations). Whatever one’s personal views may be about marriage and divorce, no one is entitled to impose those views upon others, who in a secular and democratic society, should respect the rights of others (whether a minority or a majority) to exercise their decisions and choices regarding marriage and remarriage after divorce, if they so choose to divorce and remarry.
Despite denials to the contrary, I believe that the “Marriage without divorce” movement is grounded in its oppostion to divorce on the basis of religious beliefs. There is no place in a social democracy for the imposition of “religious beliefs” upon others–which is intrinsically immmoral and against the divine nature.
Whatever “statistics” and “social science” they hope to bring to their cause, so far seems illogical, as far as I can tell from newspaper reports. I believe that they are an intelligent group that wishes to bring scientific evidence into their arguments; and so would I, in support for the introduction of divorce in Malta. But the essential argument for divorce is based upon civil order [and present civil anomaly/disorder] and the right of individuals to dissolve and/or enter into marriage, according to one’s personal choice and social obligations.
I highly respect Dr Andre’ Camilleri and Dr Arthur Galea Salamone. All they are telling us is this: “Let’s put religion and emotions aside and look at facts, experiences and statistics from other countries which have divorce legislation.After evaluating this information we would know for what we’re voting in the referendum.”
After the referendum this group of responsible citizens will bow out from the public scene.
People who write “Talibans with a diploma”, “Shame Malta Shame”, “I would rather not be born than be born in this place”, show that they are not good to put forward sound arguments in a discussion.
My main worry on the divorce debate is this: who shall we put first if someone wants divorce – society, the children, the breadwinner, the father, the mother, the husband, the wife?
My next worry is: who will pay and how much, for the consequences of divorce? The economics of divorce. Many marriage breakdowns have money problems as their root cause, and both sides will sink more in misery with more money problems.Many societies are paying lots of money to support people with problems caused by divorce.
The experience of this fifteen year old boy says a lot:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110103/local/court-considers-wishes-of-the-child-in-abduction-case
Andrew Farrugia: I have no idea who you are and am not inerested in knowing you, whether your name is Andrew Farrugia or not. I respect anonimity because posters may have good reason to remain anynymous, among them to escape victimization by the powers that be.
What I can deduce with certainty from what you write is that either your IQ is low and your level of culture is correspondingly negligible or else you’re too young and immature.
Divorce will be introduced, tardare si’, scappare no, and all those opposing it are destined to be consigned to the dustbin of history. History will judge the anti-divorcists in the same way it judges inquisitors, as heartless despots ready to sacrifice others in honour of their intransigence, narrow-mindedness and totalitarian beliefs.
Dear Traveller
You flatter me with your compliments and I am particularly impressed with your remarkable deductive capabilities.
Andrew Farrugia.
“Yes, it is more than possible to be divorced against your will, and that’s BIG part of the opposition to legislation.”
Sorry, what kind of argument is this? It is also possible to get separated against your will – so what’s the difference? If the divorce is justified, the court should decide in that sense. If not, ditto. That’s why there are the courts.
[Daphne – It’s not an argument. It’s a statement of fact. Part of reasoned debate is trying to see where others are coming from, and understanding their position and views. Yes, it is a fact that much opposition to divorce stems from FEAR OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF REMARRIAGE. That’s why it makes no sense at all to argue, to people who feel this way, that the effects of divorce and separation are exactly the same. Yes, but with one difference: status. Where there are injured parties, status counts. Even if you think this is odd, you have to at least acknowledge that it is normal human sentiment. If you have been dumped for somebody else, you still retain the status of official spouse while the other is the adulterous poggut/pogguta, and so officially ‘the guilty party’. But bring divorce and remarriage into the mix, and suddenly the dumped party is the ex-wife/husband and has been superseded by a new spouse. Please don’t bicker with me about this: these are not my sentiments but my observations. They are quite easy for anyone who has been married a long time to understand. It’s not about religion or conservatism, but about basic human nature.]
Forgive me, Daphne, I certainly mean no disrespect but have you changed your opinion about divorce lately? If I may ask: assuming you have changed your opinion, is it due to your political allegiance or for other reasons? You are obviously under no obligation to reply, but if you do I’d appreciate it.
[Daphne – I find this all so mysterious. No, I haven’t changed my position on divorce just because I welcomed the entry into the debate of people I respect, even if they hold the opposing view. I am also of the belief that stridency, on either side, doesn’t help in these matters and that Catholicism actually has very little to do with it. My belief is that the overriding fear that underpins the opposition to divorce legislation is of the consequences of remarriage. And that is precisely why opponents of divorce legislation cannot be convinced by arguments that actually, divorce is good because it allows remarriage. That is why they think it is BAD.]
Fair point, Daphne, though it does raise another question. Why are these people not fighting against annulments?
This seems to be a potential “blind spot,” and/or a case of their being more “Catholic” than the Pope, especially if they directly widen their attack or implicitly include (or exclude) marriage tribunals.
Or, perhaps, this even may be a case of their being more orthodox than God, who frequently works with the sins and weaknesses of human beings in crooked lines.
Others (who are not God) nonetheless may insist on being judgmental about the lives of others. Coersion is violence if we inflict it on others. The decision for “divorce” should rest with the “married” couple, and the social consequences should be regulated by civil law. God is the ultimate judge; but civil society should not substitute themselves for God on matters of personal conscience.
Daphne, I believe that your analysis for the emotive basis for opposition to divorce (because of the underlying psychology related to remarriage) is likely quite correct.
It would seem that rational arguments (on either side) pertaining to the “divorce issue” will be eclipsed by emotive fears and defenses “against”, just as voting in elections oftentimes (and not only in Malta) is determined by the personal identity of one’s party affiliations and personal history.
Apart from being a very interesting psychology case study, I don’t see through to how the divorce issue will be concluded successfully (with the introduction of divorce) in Malta, although social justice, I believe, suggests that doing so is correct.
The battle, however, must be conducted, even if the chances of “winning” are now slim. Likewise, I do welcome rational debate from both sides of the issue: because open discussion in civil society is essential to any rational conclusion, if we arrive to it eventually.
DCG thank you for your explanation which I respect and appreciate. I am glad you have not abandoned your stand on divorce.