Don't quote Marie Louise, Arthur
When Marie Louise Coleiro's biological clock began to tick, she had a baby with the married father of two children, destroyed his marriage, and left him for yet another married man, whose wife fought her off. Now she speaks about strengthening families and why Malta shouldn't have divorce.
“Were I an MP, I would have done things very differently. Firstly, I would have told my constituents that I would have been presenting a private member’s bill. Then, I would have done as Marie Louise Colerio Preca and Justyne Caruana and discussed ways to strengthen families and whether separation and annulment procedures could be improved.” – Arthur Galea Salomone, the Anti-Divorce Movement
———
Labour MP Marie Louise Coleiro Preca should not embarrass herself by speaking against divorce and about how best to strengthen families, and Arthur Galea Salomone should not demean himself by citing her as a laudable example of how to do things.
Perhaps he doesn’t know her long and chequered history of strengthening families and respecting marriage, in which case, I had better explain.
Marie Louise Coleiro, who was secretary-general of the Labour Party and apparently too busy to find a husband of her own, instead found somebody else’s – three times over. First, she had a long affair with the married father of two children and, when her biological clock began to tick really loudly (as she described it in an interview, without specifying the circumstances), got pregnant by him and had his child.
Inevitably, this destroyed the man’s marriage and left his wife and children – who are now grown-up – distraught. Having shattered his marriage and four lives, she left him – for another married man (he is currently involved in the leadership of the Labour Party, but we won’t go into details). His wife managed to fight her off, so perhaps she managed to strengthen that marriage, who knows.
At a loose end and with what the Divorce Movement calls a bastard child in tow, she then she found herself another married man, but this time she struck lucky because he managed to get his marriage declared null and void and so was able to make an honest woman of her.
And that’s how Marie Louise Coleiro became Marie Louise Coleiro Preca.
As long as she was unmarried, she showed scant respect for marriage and wasn’t much bothered about strengthening families. But when she finally married, she discovered a new respect for the institution, and thinks it needs protecting from adulterers and divorce laws.
Better late than never.
In campaigning against divorce, exactly what is Mrs Coleiro Preca afraid of? Karma?
Mrs Coleiro Preca’s private life was never any of our business, and certainly not a subject for discussion. But her vociferous stance against divorce has suddenly made it just that: our business.
When she speaks about strenghtening families, and when Arthur Galea Salamone and his Anti-Divorce Movement quote her admiringly, it is in the public’s interest (and Dr Galea Salamone’s) to know just what her history with strengthening families really is.
Enough of this disgraceful hypocrisy. It is truly sickening.
56 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Allura inti trid tghid illi jekk jien ghamilt il-hazin iffisser illi jekk ikolli it_tfal inhallihom jaghmlu il-hazin ghax jien kont hazin? Jew nikkoregi lil dawn it-tfal biex ma jgaghmlux il-hazin.
[Daphne – No, Pippo, I said something else entirely: that politicians with a long history of adultery, breaking up marriages and having a child by a still-married man should have the common decency to stay off the preachy front line, and should certainly not go on about strengthening marriages because they are in no position to talk. What Mrs Coleiro Preca tells her own daughter is another matter, and that’s between them. Marie Louise CP speaking out against divorce is like Marlene Pullicino telling us that she models herself on the Virgin Mary and is against divorce. Please.]
Jekk m`louise qalbet id-dinja ta’ taht fuq meta kienet zghira ma jfissirx li ma ghandiex tghid illum li dak mhux hazin.
[Daphne – The crucial point, Pippo, is that she is not preaching at the electorate from the standpoint of a reformed sinner, but from that of a perceived saint. She did not stand up in parliament and say, “Look at me, I slept with married men, destroyed one marriage, almost destroyed another, had a child with someone married to another woman, then finally married a man who managed to have his earlier marriage declared null. And I can tell you from experience that it is all bad and that is why I say we need to strengthen families not have divorce legislation.” Instead, she’s coming at the unknowing electorate like a serious married mother who’s been on the straight and narrow her whole life. And that’s deceitful in these particular circumstances. A politician can’t talk about strengthening families when s/he has a history of doing the opposite, unless s/he comes clean with the electorate first. Another thing – she wasn’t young when she did all that. She was in her mid-30s, hence the quoted ‘biological clock’. Young women aren’t constrained to hunt for sex among married men, because they’re spoiled for choice among unmarried men their own age. It’s when a woman reaches her 30s that she finds she’s only got a market of married men to pick among.]
Jien wkoll kont hazin u iva ma naqbilx mad-divorzju ghax jien inhares lejn il-pajjizi fejn hemm id-divorzju u ma narax hlief tahwid fil familji.
Hawn Malta diga hawn bizzejjed tahwid. Ma ghandniex bzonn id-divorzju biex iktar nithawdu.
Jien l-idea tieghi hi illi ahna hawn Malta diga qieghdin f`xifer is-sur bit-tahwid li hawn u id-divorzju jkun buttattura ghal isfel.
pippo, I think the point Daphne is making is that Marie Louise is not only a bad example, but an exceptional one at that.
If we were talking about making drugs legal, the equivalent would be somebody who used to own a drug cartel, but then stopped, because he/she got too old for that stuff, and then began to preach against legalisation of drugs without making his prior involvement clear.
She’s a hypocrite, and the very last person to talk against divorce, because she was reponsible for not one marriage failing (which is more than enough), but at least two. She has no credibility in the area and now we know she has no integrity.
She has no reason to campaign against divorce, because she’s in a party which is supposed to be a mix between progressive, liberal, socialist and moderate (divorce as a civil right is a no-brainer). As far as Roman Catholicism goes it doesn’t matter whether she votes Yes or No, because she’s in trouble anyway. If she thinks voting against divorce is a mortal sin, then what did she think adultery is? Maybe she went to confession and repented, so she’s square with God now.
She could try doing the same with her referendum vote. Vote Yes, Marie Louise, and then repent and ask for forgiveness.
Please, Please, Please someone explain to me why divorce will lead to, in your words, “iktar nithawdu”.
I don’t get it.
If anything divorce regularises those situations which are already messed up. As things stand, the mess is left in limbo.
Anyone who thinks for one minute that the introduction of divorce will lead to even one good marriage being split up is truly naive. Good marriages will stay just that. Bad ones will undoubtedly end up in divorce, but they’d have ended up in separation or worse, abuse in the current system.
X’cwiec kienu Dallas, Dynasty u The Thornbirds fit-tmeninijiet? Holier-than-thou Malta has more muck than all three rolled into one.
None of what is being alleged indicates it happened in the eighties! If anything, it would be more likely to have happened under a Catholic PN administration!
Looks like it’s not only Angelik, Marlene Pullicino and Tonio Fenech have seen the Madonna recently. By any chance, has She moved her appearances from Borg-In-Nadur to the House of Representatives?
This beggars belief. It seems that Joyce Cassar, the TV host and frontline preacher of zwieg bla divorzju, seems to have had a similar history.
I think it is better to look at yourself before you judge others. Do you honestly have no life? So much so that you must insist on accusing others? At least she was honest unlike you who are you? A nobody.
Grezz,
It tahwid minn dejjem kien hawn Malta u Ghawdex. Ma nahsibx li dan beda dawn l-ahhar snin. Forsi int ma kellekx ghajnejk miftuhin bizzejjed.
Li gara issa hu li dan it tahwid qieghed jsir fil-berah u mhux bhal qabel, mistur specjalment minn familji ta certu stoffa.
Ghal dawk li qed jghidu le ghad divorzju ghax hawn hafna tahwid u id-divorzju jzidhu, nghidlihom li mhux ahjar li fl’ahhar jkollna xi haga li twaqqaf dan it tahwid, almenu ‘zomm il-velocita ta dan it-tahwid u trazznu x’ftit?
Daph, according to you once a sinner, one is condemned for a life of sin! Can’t there be any redemption? A metanoia? A U-turn, perhaps?
[Daphne – Of course there is. But common decency dictates that you then keep your mouth shut rather than telling others how to live their lives. If you feel that you can help others through your own experience, or do it as some form of atonement for past wrongs, then the correct way to face the public is as a reformed sinner and not as a saint. That is my point. I have known this about Marie Louise for years. I never gave a damn. People do what they like and it’s none of my business. It’s only when she began preaching against divorce and telling others that we need to strengthen marriages that her history as a home-wrecker became an issue.]
you didn’t say nothing because you know this is not true.It,s when she was talking against devorce that you put up this story to make her look bad . Why should an issue turns into a hate campagn ? Is it because you have other believes? Why don`t you get a life and leave others live their’s !!!!!
[Daphne – Not so. I said nothing because I don’t think the private life of public persons is up for discussion unless it has direct bearing on or relevance to their public behaviour and statements. I do think that some politicians are dishonest in not presenting themselves to the electorate with the full facts: that they are separated from their spouse and living with somebody else’s spouse, for instance. You would be surprised to discover that situations we assume ‘everyone knows’ about are in fact not known by the wider electorate, and some electors might not wish to vote for a person in that position. They might have issues with it. Also, you cannot have two weights and two measures. It’s open season on Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando’s private life because of his stance for divorce. He is accused of having a personal interest and so on. Why do you think it should be any different for Mrs Coleiro Preca and Ms Cassar?]
What redemption? It looks like that now that she does not need divorce, she’s against it. No u-turn. Only opportunistic bullshit.
Did you by any chance get such detailed and inaccurate information from some expert of anonymous letters!
[Daphne – Joyce, it’s either detailed or it’s inaccurate. Please decide. It is my belief that unmarried women – not all, of course, but a certain type – think of building a relationship with a married man as a sort of ‘victimless crime’ because they really do not for one moment stop to consider the wife and children. If a married woman has an affair with a married man, his wife and children are going to be foremost in her mind because, in a perverse way, she feels solidarity. Marie Louise did not act in a vacuum. There is no need for anonymous letters.]
People are out to destroy those who do not agree with them.
[Daphne – Yes, I agree, and nobody knows that better than I. However, you cannot class this as an attempt to destroy the people who do not agree with me. I just happen to think that this level of ‘disingenuous hypocrisy’ is intolerable. As I wrote in response to somebody else, I really don’t care about other people’s private life and I do not think it should be up for discussion unless it is relevant to the matter in hand, but Mrs Coleiro Preca was foolish to put herself forward in this debate as some kind of saint. She would have been far more effective – and honest – in the role of a reformed sinner (if we are going to insist on appropriating religious terminology). If she was not willing to talk about her past behaviour, then she should simply have stayed out of the debate and maintained a dignified silence.
When I read your interview in Malta Today – I believe I wrote something about it – the first thing that struck me was how you were described as a ‘single mother’ with absolutely no explanation given as to how you got to be one. Your status as a single mother is completely irrelevant if you are being interviewed about, say, art or literature, but when you are interviewed as a spokesman for the ‘No to Divorce’ movement, then yes, it is extremely relevant. I read through the interview and was surprised to find that your interviewer stayed off the subject and so, didn’t do his job properly. It would have been the first question I’d have asked you, Joyce: is your stance against divorce the result of your lifestyle choices, and if so, why, when those choices would ordinarily make a woman more tolerant and not less so?]
See if at any point from Zwieg Bla Divorzju any attempts were made to destroy people and their families through distorted and erratic details.
[Daphne – This would be a bit difficult, Joyce, even if your movement were so inclined. Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando is open about his situation, and even so, much was said about it by the supporters of your campaign. The same goes for Deborah Schembri. But the point is that you can’t accuse them of hypocrisy. You will notice that nobody has said anything about Arthur GS or Andre Camilleri. You are not being talked about because you are women or because people wish to destroy you. You are discussed because your past behaviour is entirely at odds with your current ideas, and you should have been the first to point this out, or just stayed out of it.]
Obviously we could but with good and correct information, but that is not our scope. I suggest that you check well the sources of your information as they might actually surprise you and provide you with ample details to fill blogs. If you wish to have details about my or rather our painful past just let me know and I’ll phone you and give you my details, past and present.
[Daphne – I don’t need them, Joyce. I know already, but Arthur Galea Salamone did not hold you up a model example of how things should be done, so I haven’t felt any need to comment. Believe me when I say that I don’t care what you did, or who with. I only care that you haven’t been honest with your audience. The same attitude that makes me in favour of divorce legislation (the belief that I don’t have the right to interfere in other people’s lives) makes me completely indifferent to your past and present private life. I really hate pointless and nasty gossip. I always think it reflects more badly on those who gossip than on those who are gossiped about.]
For I too was not perfect in my past as many young frivolous youngsters tend to do. The truth is that they are not only aimed at character assassination but to discredit some of us to balance the bill!
[Daphne – Joyce, nobody is perfect at any age. But it is more than a little bit disingenuous to describe certain kinds of behaviour as ‘lack of perfection’. ‘Young and frivolous’ women who have relationships with married men are the exception, not the norm. Most young women, frivolous or not, would run a mile and find somebody unmarried and their own age.]
People can change and this does not make them hypocrites.
[Daphne – I agree entirely. But this centres on being honest about one’s past and facing your audience as a reformed sinner, rather than pretending that the past never happened or demanding that it not be discussed.]
One of the greatest man of the Western World – St. Augustine had much of a same experience but today nobody calls him an hypocrite.
[Daphne – That is because he was quite clear and open about the fact that he was a libertine and a sinner before finding God. He built his credibility and influence on precisely that: I was a bad man and now I am a good one, and it’s all thanks to God. He did not pretend that he was never a drunken fornicator and demand that nobody talks about it. On the contrary, he was quite keen to encourage people to discuss his past and even wrote about it, because the wonder of his new life in God would have meant nothing without the contrast to his old life with the Devil.]
Those who never experience or believe in the possibility of changing are those who only depict anger and despair even if they live in what they claim to be long and happy marriages and relationships. Sorry we were not so lucky.
[Daphne – Nowhere have I read or heard anything that implies you and Marie Louise have not changed. Nobody has said or written anything like this. On the contrary, it is quite obvious to all that both of you have changed, for if you hadn’t, you would not be preaching against divorce and in favour of ‘stable marriages’ which, as you both must know, cannot be enforced by law. People just find it odd and irritating that you are now speaking this way. ]
And that does not mean that it is correct and true that my dear friend M’Louise or any of us took somebody’s (any somebody) man away…
[Daphne – Oh come on, honestly. If I had a tenner for each time I’ve heard that argument from women who had relationships with married men (or men who were seeing somebody else, or living with somebody else): ‘he was going to leave anyway’, ‘they didn’t really have a marriage’, ‘his wife neglected him’, blah blah blah. It’s all self-justification and transference of guilt. Please behave with a little more dignity.]
It seems to me that Joyce Cassar would like to tell others what to do, but would not allow anyone to know what she’s done.
I find this verging on hypocrisy.
Can someone just come out and say it. What did Joyce Cassar do? We have a right to know not because we are curious but because of the pedestal she’s put herself on and the role she’s assumed and defender of the bond. And don’t you love the way she says “Le!” in those horrid publicity spots?
[Daphne – I think she should have told you herself, especially since she took the trouble to write in. Unlike Marie Louise Coleiro Preca, she is not a legislator with the power to help enact or derail divorce legislation, so I have reservations about discussing her behaviour in the context of her spoken attitudes. But as you said, she has assumed the role of defender of the bond, families, and so on. Ms Cassar had a very long relationship with an older married man – quite prominent on the Maltese cultural scene – whose wife then left the country with their children (long since grown up) and divorced him. From what I gather in her arguments that she was not responsible for ‘taking a man away from his wife’, Ms Cassar appears to say that the two were apart already, that the marriage had broken down before she came on the scene. I wouldn’t know, it was a long time ago and to be honest, I don’t even think it’s our business. But claiming that he and his wife had already split up and that she is not – consequently – a homewrecker, undermines her argument that marriage is for life. Incidentally, her child is not this man’s daughter.]
Dear Daphne
I will not get into this further than I should, but as my ex husband can confirm if he wills and is reading this blog, I met him 3 years after he had been separated from his 1st wife from whom he had 2 children and was in the process of a Church annulment. In between he had another relationship. During the time I lived with him he got his annultment but due to discretion not for my sake but for them we could not get married in the Church so we got married civilly…as prognostics on cohabitation rightly claim the marriage after it did not last. I was a broken person, never having cheated on him and made long attempts at having a good relationship. Although divorce was not available a divorcists mentality was still very much a case of some liberals at that time. He might also be very much informed about the experts of anonymous letters when he too stood up to elements of thrash that is smelling out again. My daughter was neither a result of some homewrecking affair and not registered as on an Unknown Father, yet nobody’s business.
Daphne, you try to discredit me with untruths, but documents for all to see can be found at the public registry. [Daphne – I don’t, Joyce. I merely think that your personal history weakens your stance against divorce. I have no moral view about that personal history. And I am certainly not interested in discrediting anyone. I am, however, a journalist, and as a journalist I believe that your personal history is relevant because it is at once at odds with your stance and at the same time might actually have shaped it. There is much else which you have not even touched upon in your comment here, but as you not willing to discuss it, then I won’t either. You are not a legislator, so there are limits. I am uncomfortable with invasion of privacy, in any case.]
That is all I need to say…People who have known me for many many years are aware of this, and unlike what you claim I have often made this public and considering that I have never lived my life as a whore despite attempts and lies to make it seem so. Why don’t I take legal action, is because I truly beleive that if you wish to say anything that you believe in you have a right to do so, but at least I wanted to give you the true details. There will be more and more lies, as I know that are going around even presently, but people know my truths as I never lived hidden.
Never have I betrayed my husband or left my daughter behind me for another man. Not to give her more risks of brokeness I lived my life for her as I was too vulnerable with pains of the past to get into anything else. There are a lot of attempts for discrediting me, but I am not afraid as I have spoken about my past in various programmes and do not feel at any point an hypocrite. Thank you if you decide to publish this, but no matter what further trash is thrown this is the last thing I will write. Those involved in my life past and present know that this is the truth.
Some people are quick to judge such as yourself. You are no perfect woman so stop accusing others of their past mistakes. You aren’t god’s gift to earth and you have faults just like the next person has. This article is completley disgusting as I am very sure you do not know Marie Louise personally and you are just twisting words round. Before you judge others it is best to take a look in the mirror and take a look at yourself and please base your articles on facts and remember that their are others who have hidden stories at least people who are honest are brave enough to reveal the truth.
Listen here Daphne. You don’t know me and have no right to mension me and you have no idea what my life story is. I will defend my mother till the end because I know her I live with her you incidentally do not. You are an outside and know absolutely nothing. As for the situation being your business it is not your business at all. You know nothing of what my mother has been through and I think you would be shocked if you did know the complete and utter truth of how people have abused her. I suggest you keep out of other peoples business that is unless you have nothing else to do with your time. You call other hypocrites but it is people like you who are the hypocrites because you are all for helping the person in need but then you have no idea the damage you do to people by the falacies you say. Takes a hypocrite to know one Daphne.
[Daphne – Your mother is old enough to make her own declarations, Valentina, but both of you are more than a little naive (or self-deluding) if you believe that your existence is not relevant to your mother’s protestations against divorce. No, it does not take a hypocrite to know one: it merely takes information and common sense. As for the suggestion that I keepout of other people’s business, might I recommend that you direct that same advice to your mother. I have no desire to control how other people live their lives. She apparently does.]
Nobody is judging Joyce Cassar or Marie Louise Coleiro Preca.
On the contrary, we – the ones who will vote Yes on Saturday – are voting this way precisely because we believe that nobody has the right to dictate moral norms and ways of life to anyone else.
We firmly believe that an individual should have the right to plan and manage his life as he or she deems fit. Arguments based on the “common good” are often suspect, abused of and can only be accepted if they are manifestly self-evident.
The fact that there is such a controversy and division as to whether divorce goes against the common good defeats the claim that it is manifestly evident.
Valentina, it is likely that the people who inflicted most suffering on your mother were the sort of people who are today ferociously against the introduction of divorce legislation. It was people of our mindset who fought for your mother’s right to live her life free from judgment and moral bigotory.
This said, your mother and Ms Coleiro Preca should have come clean and clear about their personal lives. Ironically, it would have added more weight to their arguments. But they did not. They may not have tried to hide it (could they have?) but they cetainly did not spell it out clearly either.
This is why voters have a right to know.
This is not malicious gossip – far from it. If your mother or Ms Coleiro Preca thought that they could take on this role (which at this point is highly political) without their personal lives coming under scrutiny, they are either naive, delusional or simply lack the emotional maturity and insight that one needs before waltzing into public life.
Having Dr Galea Salamone is surely an asset to the anti divorce movement. He was brilliant yesterday.
Dr Galea Solomone is highly respected and probably the only asset within the anti-divorce movement. His ability to persuade and influence is evident.
But I do not support his viewpoint because I believe we should be tolerant of the beliefs of others and that everyone deserves a second chance at love.
Did he say anything about divorce being obtained from abroad? I mean divorce is bad wherever it comes from.
If you agree with his parroting of ” Divorzju bla raguni ” endlessly to maliciously impinge on people’s sub-conscious and call that brilliant, then you weren’t giving much attention I should say.
Don’t you think that what this fundamentalist was saying, that people just opt for divorce with no regard and sense and right out of the blue is really the opposite of what actually happens in real life?
His malicious insinuations that people opting for a way out from a dead marriage is a finicky, senseless thing that is mostly done by horny males as soon as they see a newer size 8 model was a venomous piece of misinformation.
Perhaps we all agree there are valid arguements both in favour as well as against divorce. At a decision level the motivations are quite balanced I would say.
The marked differences come out at a macro level. Essentially an increasingly disruptive scenario in civil societies and a marked escaltion of costs to the exchequer.
Everyone wants to have a go at preaching from the pulpit but no one is truly innocent. Before going on with their sermons people on both sides should really take a look at themselves in the mirror, especially those who think themselves holier than thou.
During yesterday’s debate, Arthur Galea Salomone let slip two items on the No Movement’s “points to avoid, points to address” list.
One of the points to avoid is undoubtedly that of religion. The points to address include the targeting of the PL-leaning electorate.
This is the reason why Galea Salomone specifically and with pride quoted from the speeches of Marie Louise Coleiro. This was also made clear by Joyce Cassar during the discussion programme L-Affari Tagħna last Friday on Super One, when she lauded Mintoff’s stance on divorce in the early 70s.
That’s how weak the arguments of the No to Divorce campaigners really are.
Unbelievable! Lost for words …
I feel like pulling my (remaining) hair out. Some people do not like the truth to be told. If you stand up for a cause, prepare to be shot down if you are telling porkies. Enough said.
Din li tghidu li hi demokrazija? Xi hadd ma jaqbilx maghkom tipruvaw thamguh ? !! Daphne I hope you have the decency to publish this comment.
Marie Louise is nothing like you described her. She is honest , loving,she is a beautiful person (inside&outside) By the way I was in favour of devorce till I read this
[Daphne – Sonia, I did not say she is dishonest, unloving and an ugly person. I merely described her history as a homewrecker. True, she may not have realised the full extent of what she was doing, because she wasn’t married at the time and had no children, so was unable to comprehend the hurt and destruction. It is significant that now that she is married herself, she feels threatened by something that might be destructive of marriage.]
Sonia, if your decisions are so fickle, I’d hate to think what your marriage is like.
[Sonia – By the way I was in favour of devorce till I read this}
Yeah, right.
You remind me of those cretins who used to write “I was going to vote for the Nationalists until I read your article” before last election. Did you honestly think that this writer (or any other for that matter) would say “Oh gosh! I’d better tone it down or next time it might happen again”. Pathetic!
Get a Life Daphne
[Daphne – I have one. And what’s more, it’s my own. I didn’t see somebody’s else life, think ‘Mmmm, I’d like that’ and then set about trying to appropriate it for myself, which appears to be a common malaise in Malta, especially among women. ]
Sonia, get a spell check or stick to Maltastar
Get a Taste instead, Daphne.
So, let me understand, Sonia – you were in favour of divorce but changed your mind after reading this? Rather than use reasoning to come to your own conclusion, you’d rather vote no out of spite because your friend has been outed.
Pretty amused with ‘village’s’ comment! Arthur GS credible? Give me a blooming break!
I’m not going to dig up his ‘letter’ in The Times because even the thought of it just makes me shiver. He lost the plot on this one. A lawyer who doesn’t believe in rights!
Apparently she is not the only one with a chequered history in the NO movement.
Do you know what? In the Labour leadership race in 2008, she sent a letter to the party delegates to convince them why they should vote for her. You know what she came up with? That the Labour Party should have an avant-garde woman leading the party.
Imagine xi progress kieku l-avant-garde campaigning against divorce.
Marie Louise and her friend Joyce are very progressive indeed with their arguments against divorce – or rather, remarriage. Joyce Cassar was on Xarabank yesterday, and I think she should have told her story too, before telling us why she is against divorce.
Now she’s a public person and representing an anti-divorce movement. She should declare her interests and not portray herself as a saint.
At least she admitted on TV li hi l-Madalena. She should declare her past to be credible. I will be at the polling-booth at 6am, before they open, to be the first one to cast my YES vote. Dawk tal-Le ftit minnhom qishom kellhom passat tal-madalena.
Min irid ihhawwad dejjem hawwad u jibqa jhawwad… irelevanti jekk jidholx d-divorzju jew le.
Huma l-vitmi li dejjem batew u dawn huma kem nisa kif ukoll irgiel. Inutli nargumentaw li minn ghadda minn kazijiet ta’ vjolenza domestika ma jridx jidhol ghal zwieg iehor u jkollu opportunita ohra.
Hadd ma jista’ jiddeciedi ghal persuna ohra.
Jekk fir-referendum jirbah il-LE, ser jbghati min huwa l-aktar vulnerabli u jixtieq opportunita ohra jew tal-anqas jaf li hemm il-bieb miftuh ghalieh u jista johlom. Biss min irid jaffeg, jaffeg ser jibqa jigri x’jigri.
Anglu, Anglu what have you done?
Marie Louise Coleiro Preca is a public person, and she asks for our vote in every election, so why did the media keep her lifestyle secret all these years? Shame on the Maltese media. Disgraceful.
If the media did their work Malta would be a far better place. It seems there is only one journalist in Malta.
[By the way I was in favour of devorce till I read this]
U ddahhaqx l’Alla (u lilna) bik, tridx. Bhallikieku artiklu minn artikolista jista jbiddillek opinjoni fuq dritt civili. B’min trid titnejjek, ghid?
I was in favour of universal suffrage until I visited Malta.
It’s obvious that Labour folk are whipping up the No vote so that there can be a backlash in favour of Joseph Muscat at the next election.
Or am I missing something?
Grezz,
Naqbel mieghek mija fil mija. Ahjar inwaqfu dan it-tahwid. Biex? Bid-divorzju? U halluna araw fuq studji li saru barra kemm kien hemm tahwid wara li gie id divorzju.
Nerga nghid illi ahna qieghdin fit tarf u id-divorzju jibbuttghana ghal-isfel.
Qieghdin tajbin hawn erba hawn f`dan il-blogg.
Mela ghax jitkellmu u jghidu il-verita u il-fatti jigu mghajra li huma ma jafux x`hinuma jghidu.
U issa iktar qieghdin tikkonfermawli illi nivvota LE.
I always admired Mare Louise Coleiro as a young ‘Laburist’ in the 90s, particularly because she had a colourful personal life.
As a bit of a rebel myself, with a few chips on my own shoulder, I couldn’t help look up to a woman who did what she felt was right for her, and made her own life the way she wanted.
In some respect, I liked her because in the middle of the Maltese holier-than-thou establishment, she was a breath of fresh air, and an inspiration to ‘go get what you want in life’, a ‘f-u’ attitude so to speak.
Hearing now that she has become part of that same establishment makes me feel physically sick.
Nahseb qed thallat liberalizmu ma libertinagg.
La wahda u l-anqas l-ohra.
Jien kont nammirha bhala l-versjoni Maltija ta’ ‘femme fatale’ u issa ghalija qisa saret Mother Theresa izda minflok tghin lil-fqar bdiet tippontifika fuq il-pulptu. Dizappuntament kbir.
[Daphne – There’s an apt Italian saying that sums up these situations, but my Italian is rubbish, so somebody else will have to quote it. Quando non si..a Dio si …..basically, when you are no longer in the sexual running, you turn to God.]
Min-naha l-ohra qabbatni l-kurzita, ghax fakkartni li Malta il-libertinagg ghad ghandu assocjazzjonijiet fahxija mentri l-impressjoni hi li l-liberalizmu hija haga superjuri u pura. Dik nahseb riflessjoni ta’ kultura li kulhadd irid id-drittijiet tieghu u f’l-istess hin irid jindahal f’affarijiet personali ta haddiehor.
L-unika darba li niftakarni nitghallem fuq id-differenza bejn il-liberalizmu u l-libertinagg f’hajti kien fil-form II fis-‘Social Studies’, u fir-u fil-Muzew, u anke dak iz-zmien kont irrejalizzajt li kull ma kien dan ezercizzju ta ‘behaviour control’.
Why do we have to attack the messenger?
If you do not like the message, then just attack the message, that’s all!
JC.
The hypocrisy on these islands especially of politicians is flabbergasting. Why did not St. Marie Louise stay out of it and for that also some other politicians, who talk of valuri? Hypocrites.
Li jdejjaqni hu li min jiftahar li ghandu principji socjalisti demokratici, imbaghad jahdem kontra dritt-civili li jaghti cans iehor fil-hajja wara trawma ta’ zwieg li jkun falla kompletament, lili ma tghaddilix mill-istonku tieghi!
Aktar u aktar li tipprogetta ruhek fuq quddiem tal- Moviment tal-LE – il-moviment BLA RAGUNI – u thallihom juzawk ghal-propaganda taghhom.
Lesta Marie Louise Coleiro Preca tghid minn issa x’taghmel jekk ma jghaddix ir-referendum, u l-quddiem Joseph Muscat jipprezenta mozzjoni fil-parlament bhala prim ministru, kif kien wieghed li ser jaghmel?
Tivvota favur jew kontra? U meta tkun taf li jekk tivvota kontra l-mozzjoni favur ligi tad-divorzju ma tghaddix? Il-votanti Laburisti ghandhom ikunu jafu qabel jivvutaw x’se taghmel Marie Louise u ohrajn bhal Carmelo Abela, Adrian Vassallo.
Wonder what she thinks on the former prime minister and president’s stance Dr Fenech Adami
Thank you, Mr. Privitera, for driving home the point that anti-divorce PL supporters should be very wary about supporting the party come the general elections. They should tread doubly carefully if the MPs you list are in any way impeded by the party machine in their efforts to get re-elected.