It’s time to let the No campaign hang itself
This is part of my newspaper column, adapted from The Malta Independent on Sunday, yesterday.
Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and Evarist Bartolo have found another reason to become agitated.
This time it’s because they used Father Charles ta’ Cana’s face, voice and name in television advertisements which promote the Yes to Divorce vote – and this without having had the common decency and good sense (but then, what do you expect) to obtain his consent.
Fr Vella immediately dispatched a ‘cease and desist’ letter through his lawyers to the Broadcasting Authority, which pulled the advertisements.
The over-excitable Jeffrey and Evarist are not content with having made utter fools of themselves by their self-important claim that the security services are spying on them (because there’s nothing more central to national security than a hot conversation about how to spell ‘bghula’).
They have now said that they will go to the Constitutional Court, presumably because their right to use Fr Charles Vella for advertising purposes, without his consent, has been breached.
It strikes me that they are a little confused. It is Fr Vella who has the right to sue here, and the Broadcasting Authority has worked this out – no doubt having sought the legal advice that Jeffrey’s and Evarist’s colleague, the lawyer Deborah Schembri, was not in a position to give them because she specialises in marital law and not matters of this nature.
Evarist Bartolo, however, teaches communications at the University of Malta, so he should be well up to speed about what happens when people are used in advertising campaigns without their permission. A law suit is the usual consequence, as when Carla Bruni-Sarkozy and her husband went after Ryanair with the legal equivalent of a chainsaw.
Communications expert Evarist and dentist-politician Jeffrey don’t appear to know that there is a distinction – and not a fine one at all – between quoting somebody in a newspaper article or when speaking on television, and actually using that person in your advertising campaign to help sell whatever it is you happen to be selling, whether it’s cheap flights or divorce legislation.
The only words of advice I can give Jeffrey and Evarist right now – not that they’ll take them – is that with less than two weeks to go to the big day, they should calm down, keep quiet, dampen the hysteria, and let the No To Divorce campaigners drive out the Yes vote with their inane and maddening arguments.
We have now reached the point where otherwise sane and rational people almost lose control of their car when they hear, for example, Beppe Fenech Adami say on Radio 101 that we should not have divorce because men can’t afford to support two families. I say this with great regret because he is otherwise a decent man – and one of only two MPs who had the spine to show up at an anti-Gaddafi demonstration in Valletta – but that statement is insulting and patronising, mainly towards women.
The tomfoolery of some of the Yes To Divorce campaigners, and their idiotic billboards, irritate the hell out of us, but this is as nothing compared to what we feel when we hear the undiluted rubbish pouring out of the No campaign and see their smug and satisfied faces on television, glowing with the belief that God is on their side while the rest of us are destined to dance with Satan for eternity.
It is the No campaigners who have galvanised the Yes vote over the last few days. Their desire to control the behaviour of others is now stark naked and undisguised, and it is frightening and oppressive. The reality of what they wish to do, and how mad and unreasonable it is, is now staring at us in the face.
It is, put simply, crunch time. The Yes campaign’s irritant factor – its patronising billboards of daughters with black eyes and bastards and ‘pogguti’, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando’s hysterics – fades into insignificance next to the magnitude of the Taliban wishes of those who believe, just like the Islamic mullahs they hold in contempt, that they have a hotline to God and must force everybody to live that way.
At the start of the campaign, the No people’s credibility and respectable standing in society, especially when compared to some of the circus-acts on the other side, served to knock holes in the certainty of many of those who had planned to vote Yes. But over the last couple of weeks, as they have spoken more widely in the media, their infuriating opinions and arguments have begun to reverse that trend.
28 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
But the main thrust of the article as it appeared in The Malta Independent is lost here: that a No vote would be terminal for the PN government. That the “liberal” faction of the PN support, the support of whom is vital for the PN to stay in government, would be seriously alienated from the PN and, come next elections, would punish it severely, so severely the PN will lose. A YES victory, on the other hand, will help to secure a renewed “peace” between the liberal and the conservative factions of the PN, which coalition has guaranteed the PN a place in government for a generation. This is the first time that the Sunday article was not reproduced in full on the website. I wonder why.
[Daphne – It IS reproduced in full, Albert. The other part is in a separate post, because it is a separate subject, even in my column. So exhausting.]
Are you optimistic at all that the Yes vote can win, Daphne? I must admit I’m quite disheartened watching survey results swing the way of the No vote.
[Daphne – Not optimistic, but not defeatist, either. I don’t take the line that we’re going to lose anyway so majtezwel not vote, rather the opposite.]
Not only do I intend to vote, but I’m also trying to swing any undecided voter I know the way of the Yes vote.
There isn’t a single family that doesn’t have problems of one kind or another. Where there are people, there are problems. But it takes this sort of antiquated Catholics to call them ‘crosses’.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110516/local/Couples-lay-stress-on-unity-sacrifice-lifelong-marriage.365547
In all truth, no ever said that being a Catholic is easy.
Divorce should have never gone to a vote in a referendum.
You might be right in that the No camp is irritating the undecideds. On the other hand, in a deeply conservative country, I suspect there is a genuine majority against divorce.
Rights are rights, not given by a majority vote. Our politicians should have borne the responsibility to decide – that’s why we elect and pay them in the first place.
It was risky to lob back the decision at an electorate two-thirds of which does not feel strongly about the issue and thus prone to scare-mongering.
Labour’s non-position and Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando’s messing up every time he opens his mouth (yesterday’s ‘I shall register in the UK and get divorce via internet’ was a classic foot in the mouth) are damaging the Yes campaign.
Joseph Muscat (who said he would campaign) has all but vanished – his polling probably indicates a No vote.
If No prevails, the referendum will have removed the divorce issue from the Maltese political scene for a decade as Joseph Muscat does not have spine enough to make divorce part of his party platform.
A No vote will have shown that someone needed to sit down and think strategy at the outset, not excite themselves prematurely at the prospect of embarrassing Gonzi.
Many referenda campaigns abroad, including both divorce referenda in Ireland, start with a majority for change in the opinion polls but end up with the status quo answer gaining through the campaign.
If we believe divorce is a right – and it is – a referendum was a risky strategy.
Daphne I agree with your article that the referendum will mean a landslide victory for Labour in 2013, however I think that this will happen irrespective of a victory for the Yes or the No camp. I feel that the damage has already been done. How can people forget Tonio’s sad Madonna and all the rest of the rubbish that has been uttered but supposedly sane Ministers.
There was a time when one could be proud of saying they supported the PN and had no qualms saying it out loudly; many people don’t feel that way any longer.
I second Ronnie…
Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando is on a bizarre crusade for the divorce legislation. Now he tells us that he wants to establish a residence in UK to obtain his cherished divorce document.
Daphne, I surmise that this man just loathes his wife Marlene.
He wants to have nothing to do with her.
If he has to establish a residence in UK does he have to resign from an MP? Is he trying to threaten the government again?
Oh, how I loathe this man.
[Daphne – Yes, he would have to resign. He would also have to pay tax in the UK. I imagine he hasn’t sought legal advice on what ‘residence’ really means. He appears to believe it means merely registering a flat in your name and paying rent.]
He can take advantage of the double taxation relief agreement between Malta and the UK.
…and neither is it mandatory that he would have to resign. Residence is not a requirement of an elected MP. It may be required to get elected, but that is an entirely different kettle of fish. Besides, if he were to leave the PN, at least as presently constituted would breathe a sigh of relief.
[Daphne – And the government would collapse. Isn’t that what it’s all about?]
The government would not collapse on Jeffrey’s resignation Daphne. A by-election would be held to fill in vacant seat.
[Daphne – I think we were speaking about resignation from the party, not parliament. So yes, the government would collapse.]
Why is the divorce issue being mixed with victory or loss in the 2013 elections? – Let us hope that whoever wins the 2013 election will not be further burdened to solve the huge problems that divorce will, unfortunately, bring to our beloved Malta
I tend to agree with you. I know of people who do not care for what the Roman Catholic Church or anyone else may say on the matter, but are voting NO. They feel that a YES vote will be a further burden on the national coffers, irrespective of who may win the next general election.
Why? Because inevitably, there will be repercussions to all the gobbledegook we have heard uttered by various people on the PN side (they won’t get away with having exposed what makes many of them tick), and people will be even madder if the NO vote manages to win, that’s why.
http://daphnecaruanagalizia.com/2011/04/10/divorce-were-all-talked-out/
What made you change your mind and come out again with all cannon firing in the final stretch to 28th May? Have you put Libya, Osama bin Laden on the backburner until local hostilities cease?
[Daphne – I have not changed my mind, and I am in tune with my readership.]
When the “No” vote wins (I’m voting “Yes” for the separation of Church and State), as for the hypocrites, why not a pox on both of their (PN & PL) houses? The conniving of the current duopoly deserves sinking.
Can the AD attract enough former PN votes to win seats in Parliament? (Hardline “No” voters in the PL would have to vote PN on the divorce issue, but the craving for power among PL supporters may restrain such defections). The electoral mechanics may not allow AD seats.
With the current lot, I’d never be able to vote PL. As a liberal democrate, I find the PN disgusting. The greatest risk to the PL would be a “Yes” Referendum victory.
But, after the divorce issue, my eyes and ears are more attentive to Labour media and spokespersons, another definite loss for the PN (if others are doing the same).
Is the man going crazy? I know of a dozen people who were going to vote YES in the referendum and have changed their mind as soon as they heard this news. Madonna tal-hniena, kemm jiflah ikun injorant dar-ragel?
Qed jipprova iwaqqa’ d-divorzju ghar-redikolu; qisek qed tixtri minn fuq l-ebay.
Imma hadd ma jghidlu biex jaghlaq halqu u hekk jaghmel hafna aktar gid?? Mhux ta’ b’ xejn martu ma ssaportitux….
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110515/local/jpo-to-apply-for-uk-divorce-online-if-no-wins-referendum.365480
I disagree with your analogy between the use of Mgr Charles Vella’s clips and those of Carla Bruni and Sarkozy.
The images used by the Yes Movement belong to One TV. They have exclusive rights over them. Mgr Charles Vella was not coerced into expressing his opinion on divorce. It is a bit rich now to retract what he said.
[Daphne – It appears that you, too, do not understand the difference between editorial and advertising. Public persons can be quoted (though not out of context), and their image used, in editorial, BUT NOT IN ADVERTISING. Advertising requires their specific consent. Carla Bruni did not sue Ryanair because Ryanair did not own the rights to her photograph. Photographs of Carla Bruni can be bought from those who own the copyright. She sued Ryanair because her photograph was used to advertise its services WITHOUT HER CONSENT. To further explain the distinction, One TV can run those Fr Charles soundbites ad infinitum during its news broadcasts and talk shows. It can have them as a constant backdrop to John Bundy. And it would be fully within its rights and Fr Charles couldn’t stop it. But One TV can’t take those soundbites and use them to sell something, or give them to others to use in campaign advertising.]
This sets an ugly precedent where opposing parties can no longer make use of their opponents’ statements as part of their electoral campaign.
[Daphne – You are extremely confused. Politics is a straight fight. What we are talking about here is somebody’s name, face and image being used to sell something in which he is not involved, and for which purpose he has not given his consent.]
I’m sure you will recollect the extensive use of clips of Alfred Sant throwing tantrums at Dock 1, or banging on his drums at the Labour HQ back in 1998. More recently, Michael Falzon’s “Fejnhom l-Iljuni” and Charles Mangion’s “DNA” gaffe featured heavily in the PN’s 2008 election campaign. None of them, however, objected to their use.
One TV were the only ones entitled to prevent the use of the video clips under Copyright Law. The BA’s action is blatant censorship, akin to that of Libyan or Iranian State TV.
[Daphne – I’m sorry to have to tell you this, but you understand nothing. It is not surprising that the media scene in Malta is such a mess, if the difference between advertising/advocacy and editorial has to be spelled out like this by somebody writing a blog because even the politicians and the Super One ‘journalists’ don’t understand it. But then why am I surprised.]
There is a huge difference between exploiting one’s image for commercial profit and using the statements of a public figure in support of a political campaign, whether or not he has changed his mind about what he said.
[Daphne – Whether you are exploiting a person’s image for commercial gain or for votes, you are still exploiting that person’s image and you cannot do so without his or her consent. If the person in question is a politician FIGHTING FOR HIS OR HER PERSONAL ELECTION in that campaign, the situation is different, but then one assumes that if you are on the same side you have their consent and if you are not on the same side, then it is obvious that you are not going to use his or her image to PROMOTE what you are selling. Fr Charles Vella’s point – and mine – is that the Yes campaign has no right to use his image to lend credence to their advertising.]
I beg to differ. Ryanair is a private company not a political party, lobby group or referendum movement. The former has distinctly different objectives from the latter. While Ryanair seeks to create profit for its shareholders, political groupings seek to drive through a political message.
Carla Bruni is not only the wife of the French President, but also a model. Her image has considerable worth. Both Sarkozy and Bruni are entitled to compensation for being used in a commercial advertising campaign.
Mgr Charles Vella is a prominent member of the Church, which is aggressively participating in the divorce debate. Moreover, his role as founder of the Cana Movement makes his views on marriage and divorce particularly relevant. I find the use of the clips perfectly reasonable, in the same way as I found those of Alfred Sant and others in previous electoral campaigns to be within fair and democratic exercise of the freedoms of information and expression. Mgr Vella is to the Archbishop as JPO is to Gonzi.
It is disingenuous to equiparate a political information/electoral ad with a commercial ad. They are distinctly different, both in motives and in method.
[Daphne – Electoral advertising is not different to commercial advertising. All advertising is there to sell, and all selling is done roughly the same way. Advertising is advertising. Full stop. There is no such thing as a “political information advert”. All political advertising seeks to sell the political group’s message. I strongly recommend that you do not press your point home, because you are arguing with somebody who knows what she is talking about. Don’t ask me about car engines or golf, but this, on the other hand…]
Mgr Vella is no infant. He was fully aware of the weight of and resonance caused by the words he pronounced in that interview. He was consciously distinguishing himself from the Maltese Curia, which may I add has much to learn from other Dioceses across Europe including in Italy (where he spent most of his ministry) and Ireland on how to avoid alienating its faithful.
[Daphne – You are obtuse, aren’t you. I trust (perhaps that should be ‘hope’) that you are not a lawyer, because you are clearly incapable of understanding the meaning of context. The fact that one says something does not give others the right to appropriate that person’s words and image to sell something. Carla Bruni did not sue Ryanair only because her image is valuable (and in the same sense, Fr Charles Vella’s image is valuable, too, to the Yes campaign), but because she has a right – guaranteed at law – not to have her image used to sell something. The rights of public persons are, in this context, no different to those of private persons. ‘Public person’ does not mean ‘public property’, there to be appropriated by all without consent or compensation. You cannot use people, whoever they are, to sell your products, services or politics through implied advocacy, unless they have consented. Editorial and news are something else.]
If he felt that his civil rights (the irony!) were being infringed, he should have resorted to the Courts of Law, not the BA. I have to stress here that the BA approved the ad prior to it being aired. It was only repealed following implicit intimidation by the Church authorities, overtly expressed in its lawyer’s warning letter.
Incidentally, the banned ad and full interview have gone viral on Facebook and other social networks as a result of the censorship. Luckily for us, the US Constitution will prevent their removal.
[Daphne – Yes, that’s called the Streisand effect. On Youtube, however, it is deprived of its context and therefore, impact (television in Malta addresses an audience of those who don’t use Youtube). Also, because it is called a ‘banned ad’ – rather than what it actually is, an advertisement which cannot be broadcast on television because the person being used to advocate the ‘product’ has not given his consent – people expect something thrilling and are disappointed to find only a few boringly general words. This further neutralises the impact. Your talk of banned ads and the US Constitution shows that you do not understand what is at issue here. Fr Vella has not protested at the broadcasting of his words – after all, he said them and they are what he believes. He has protested at being used as an advocate for the Yes campaign, in its advertising, without his consent. I hate to be rude, but really, you don’t strike me as being particularly bright. Another thing you don’t appear to understand is that Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando has here made the classic political advertising error of stirring up a controversy about an advert, which controversy completely obscures the message by forcing public attention onto the battle rather than what the battle is ABOUT. The politically astute (and proper) course of action would have been to seek Fr Vella’s consent in the first place. Having failed to obtain that consent, when he objected and the Broadcasting Authority upheld his objection, the politically astute (and proper) course of action would have been to make both a public and a private apology to Fr Vella, say that the Broadcasting Authority and Fr Vella are right and that this was a lapse of judgement, and then find another way of communicating what Fr Vella said through press communication rather than advertising. But because they are not politically astute and know nothing about this kind of political communication, what we have is a distracting battle a few days before polling-day and Fr Vella right royally pissed off with them when he could have been a useful friend and ally instead. ]
I may not be particularly bright, but I’ve certainly kept you busy this evening. I will go through your lengthy rebuttals in chronological order.
Political ads and commercial ads, at least here in Malta, are governed by separate legislation. I know this despite not being a lawyer. But then again, you aren’t either.
“Selling a political message” may be idiomatically correct, but that is not to say it is equivalent to “selling a low-cost flight”. We’ll see what the Courts have to say on the matter, as I doubt there is any case-law to refer to.
As you wrote in another post, with which I completely agree, this is no longer a referendum on divorce but on the separation between State and Church. The way in which the ad was repealed does nothing to placate the frustration and disgust of a sizeable chunk of the electorate over the Church’s manipulation of State bodies, including the BA.
The Church is an active and open campaigner on the No Front. It is perfectly legitimate to democratically attack your opponents in any political campaign, including this. Mgr Vella, as I’ve said above, is a prominent exponent of the Yes Movement’s adversary. If he didn’t want to join the fray, he should have stayed out of it.
In a sense, therefore, the Church is seeking re-election to govern the State. So I believe my analogy with Alfred Sant holds.
Rest assured, I will not think any less of you if we agree to disagree. Voltaire docet.
[Daphne – The bottom line is this, Eurostar: you cannot appropriate somebody’s name, image or words and use them to give the impression that he endorses a campaign – not unless you have that person’s express permission to do so. This is especially so when you have no idea whether the person endorses your campaign or not. It is totalitarian reasoning to claim otherwise. Inclusion of Fr Vella in the Divorce Movement’s advertising gives the impression that he has endorsed it. THAT is what Fr Vella objects to. He is correct.]
“…(because there’s nothing more central to national security than a hot conversation about how to spell ‘bghula’).”
Ijja, oqghod tkessah! Tghidx li taf x’inhu jigri – cucati biss tkun taf int.
The polls show exactly the opposite of what you are stating.
[Daphne – Do they indeed.]
Is that question or a statement, Daph?
The LE arguments in this pathetic divorce debate made me ill, but listening to the coverage of the LE “business breakfast” on NET NEWS this evening really made me feel terminally so.
I am in no hurry to join my friends in hell, but I will vote IVA.
Yes, I did warn the PN that the stand they were to take on this issue was tantamount to political suicide, but do they ever listen? They will repent at leisure on the opposition benches.
Factors contributing to Divorce
Quote: These socio-cultural trends later came to influence the passage of more liberal divorce laws. In turn,
easier divorce laws, such as those promulgated in 1968 and 1985, are followed by an increase in divorce
(see Table 2). Such laws signal the normalization of divorce: divorce lost its stigma and became
more socially acceptable. These cultural and legal factors have made it easier for people to be less
attached to marriage as an institution and consequently to turn to divorce as a solution.
The type of divorce introduced will influence the incidence of divorce. Thus a no-fault divorce such as this one proposed in malta is one of the causes of divorce
Source : Divorce facts causes and consequences