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.]

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

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.

Is that question or a statement, Daph?

…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?]

He can take advantage of the double taxation relief agreement between Malta and the UK.

[Daphne – Do they indeed.]

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 The way in which the ad was repealed does nothing to placate the frustration and disgust of a sizeable chunk of the electorate over the Church’s manipulation of State bodies, including the BA.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.]

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. ]

Ijja, oqghod tkessah! Tghidx li taf x’inhu jigri – cucati biss tkun taf int.