Malta: you don't have to be crazy to live here, but it helps
The Times (London) today carries an interview with Jeffrey and Marlene Pullicino Orlando, highlighting the craziness of the no-divorce situation in Malta – though of course, it doesn’t say that.
You just reach that conclusion yourself – that is, unless you are Maltese and think the situation is normal, and that it avoids problems rather than creating them.
The reaction this newspaper article elicits is: “BUT WHY? WHAT IS THE POINT OF NOT ALLOWING PEOPLE TO DIVORCE AND REMARRY?”
People who don’t live in Malta can’t see the point because there’s no point. When the issue is boiled down to its essence in newspaper pieces written for The Times (London) and in conversation with people outside Malta, it becomes obvious that it is all about controlling others.
Yes, that’s right: the power and pleasure of control, and better still, the curious and rather unsavoury satisfaction that many people get from denying others what they want, even if it’s no skin off their nose.
The Times piece highlights the irony of a legal situation which is identical to divorce – separation of the spouses with the division of assets and agreement on maintenance, child custody, access and visiting rights – except for one thing: it does not dissolve the actual marriage, so that spouses cannot remarry.
Even though they are de facto no longer married, de jure they remain married still.
The article describes how Jeffrey is married to Marlene and they have children together, how Marlene has lived for years with Godfrey, who is married to another woman with whom he has children, and how Jeffrey lives with Carmen, who is married to another man with whom she has a daughter.
There are three marriages involved here, but none of them can be dissolved through divorce. The six people in those marriages (and there might be more because we haven’t factored in what Carmen’s husband and Godfrey’s wife are doing, given that they are strictly private persons) operate ‘outside the system’ because that system has decreed that they should – you know, just for the hell of it.
Whether you like Jeffrey and Marlene or not, whether you approve of their way of life or not, is beside the point. There are no reasons why they should not be allowed to divorce.
It is nobody else’s business.
The rest of Europe reached that conclusion long ago (I say Europe because you have to compare like with like). But we Maltese still think we have the right – nay, the duty – to interfere in what people we don’t even know are doing.
A couple of days ago I read in The Times (Malta) an article by the leader of the No campaign, Andre Camilleri, who gave us the reasons why we should vote against divorce.
1. Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando is disloyal and we don’t like him.
2. The debate in parliament was ridiculous.
3. The question is not what we would have chosen.
The bunched-up non sequiturs are frightening. I was grateful for the first time that the proposal that he be made a judge did not make it through the approval process.
How can a man be a judge when he reasons like that? We have enough of those already and we don’t need more.
People should vote for divorce legislation – which is not the same thing as ‘voting for divorce’, which suggests that we like marital breakdown and approve of it – because they know that Malta needs it, because they know that 400,000 people can’t reinvent the wheel and that when Alfred Sant tried it with VAT it was an unmitigated disaster that led to chaos.
Tried and tested laws are just that – they are tried and tested. Four hundred thousand people (far fewer if we’re talking only of electors who are voting No) are not going to come along in 2011 and invent an alternative or bury their heads in the sand and pretend that what the rest of the world needs, Malta does not.
Whether they like Jeffrey or not, whether the question is exactly what they wanted it to be or not, whether the debate in parliament was stupid or not, are all irrelevant. People who think rationally keep their eyes on the ball.
It is people who think out of the seat of their pants who reason like this: I don’t like Jeffrey so I will vote No. I don’t support Joseph Muscat so I will vote No.
We are not voting on Pullicino Orlando or Muscat. We are voting on divorce legislation. If Andre Camilleri’s No vote is based on his dislike for Pullicino Orlando, then so be it. But I’m glad he’s let us know at the 11th hour that this is how his mind works.
67 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
“We are voting on divorce legislation”
No we are not. We are voting on a specific type of divorce that allows the abusing spouse to divorce the abused spouse. If the referendum question was “Do you agree with divorce?” I would have voted YES. ,But I will vote NO because the abused spouse should not be forced into a divorce by the abusing spouse, as proposed in this referendum question.
Bullshit – every comment you ever posted was against divorce albeit without ever mentioning separation or annulments.
To rebut your comment – you do not need to force the abused spouse to file for divorce, s/he are begging for that option to be available.
as proposed there will be no difference between separation and divorce, one will automatically lead to another..
Regarding the abused spouse, like I said, the abused spouse should have the choice to choose for divorce, but the abuser should not have this same right. If the referendum question was a simple “Divorce – yes or no”, the result would have been an overwhelming YES.
[Daphne – It appears that the result IS an overwhelming Yes.]
53% is hardly overwhelming.
@ Lino Cert:
I would think that in “Malta Kattolicissima”, 53% is overwhelming.
Right on the head, Daphne. Brilliant work.
Amen to that. Let’s all do our part and hope for the best.
I agree with you about how grateful we should be that Andre Camilleri did not make it to become a judge. On the other hand we have Arthur Galea Salomone who heads the Stock Exchange. I hope that his financial reasoning is sounder than what he came up with in this debate.
These three marriages were all ended by mutual agreement. What is your opinion on divorce that is forced upon the abused spouse by the abusing spouse? That is what this referendum is about. Inflicting more pain on the abused.
[Daphne – They were not ended by mutual agreement. Marlene left Jeffrey for Godfrey, Godfrey left his wife for Marlene, and Carmen left her husband (for no one, but later met Jeffrey). Marriages are NEVER ended by mutual agreement. By the time the situation reaches the courts or lawyers – for we forget that this is what happens with separation – both parties must have reached that way of thinking, but it wouldn’t have been that way to start with. You will notice that it wasn’t even that way with the personal experience of the man who wrote the guest post on this site. It was his decision, not his wife’s, to end the marriage. But then it was his wife who filed for divorce because when it’s over, it’s over.]
[Lino Cert – What is your opinion on divorce that is forced upon the abused spouse by the abusing spouse?]
What is your opinion on separation that is forced upon the abused spouse by the abusing spouse?
Oh, I know. Let’s have a police officer on guard, ordering the deserter to get back into bed.
[Daphne – By the time the situation reaches the courts or lawyers – for we forget that this is what happens with separation – both parties must have reached that way of thinking, but it wouldn’t have been that way to start with].
Precisely. When my ex left me, my greatest frustration was that she didn’t even want me to meet her to discuss things. She just left and wouldn’t speak to me.
Gradually, as the months passed on, I realised how lucky I was that she actually left.
Kenneth, I assume you don’t have kids. If your ex took your kids, without reason, and didn’t let you see them, you would see things differently. With divorce she could take your kids to Australia and you couldn’t stop her. How is this just?
[Daphne – That’s not how it works and you know it. Custody and access are no different in divorce from separation. Separation involves all the legal niceties of divorce bar the actual dissolution of the marriage. Separation, like divorce, regulates care and custody of the children, access by the other spouse, maintenance of the children and the dependent spouse, and separation of assets.]
It takes two for a real marriage (bil-Malti zwieg, now there’s a clue) to exist. Whether one or both spouses want out, it’s over.
And who’s to say that it won’t be the abused spouse filing for divorce? What then?
Divorce that is forced upon the abused spouse by the abusing spouse? Good riddance, I’d say.
My opinion is that the abusing spouse very rarely applies for separation because abuse is directly linked to control. The abusing spouse loses control and the law takes over with the separation of assets and maintenance allowances.
The large majority of separations are initially filed by the abused partner.
Again Lino Cert’s argument does not make any sense. Divorce is not ‘forced’, any more then the end of a love affair is forced. However there are many stories of jilted lovers hanging on desperately. Fatal Attraction anyone?
“What is your opinion on divorce that is forced upon the abused spouse by the abusing spouse? That is what this referendum is about. Inflicting more pain on the abused”
Surely a divorce ‘forced’ on an abused spouse can’t be that bad? If any of the partners finally decides to end an abusive relationship then isn’t that something to be grateful about?
Irrespective of any attachment anxiety a person might experience at the mere thought of being separated from a perpetrator, why would you want that marriage to persist against all odds?
And more to the point, what difference does it make if they are allowed to remarry (instead of co-habit) in a future relationship (whether it be an abusive one or not)?
I’m gobsmacked someone would even propose such an argument publicly let alone use it to oppose the introduction of divorce legislation.
It seems to me that divorce is already prevalent in Malta; there’s so many people who are in such a relationship status with reality – introducing the legislation for it ought just be a formality.
That’s like saying a burglar reporting his own robbery and turning himself in.
Read the article in The Guardian, too, if you have not already done so.
I didn’t vote today.
So that’s one less No than there would have been.
What kind of law would allow one party to a contract break that contract with no penalty at all and leave the innocent party homeless, ruined and deprived if contact with his/her children? That is what you are voting for. Please think of the consequences to hundreds of innocent fathers and mothers should you vote yes.
How does Lino assert that it leaves the ‘innocent’ party homeless, ruined and deprived? Incidentally why are you even talking of innocent and guilty? This black and white thinking is not helpful. More importantly, it is not true.
Worse still, Lino is willing to ruin the lives of perfectly ‘innocent’ parties who are not permitted to start afresh because of these odd scenarios of abuser and abused where the abused wants to keep the partnership going. Go figure!
[lino cert – What kind of law would allow one party to a contract break that contract with no penalty at all]
A kind of law that deals with complex human relationships, and which does not treat humans as goods or commodities.
[lino cert – and leave the innocent party homeless, ruined and deprived if contact with his/her children?]
A law that exists only in your imagination.
I think I can understand why all this started. I recall Godfrey feeling offended on Xarabank about this papal mass on the Granaries in Floriana. Google search and look what popped up:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ejW5NCxr6QsJ:stocks.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100412/local/partners-at-papal-mass-restrictions-only-for-formal-invitations-curia+Church+tells+cohabiting+MPs+to+attend+Pope+Mass+without+partner&cd=5&hl=mt&ct=clnk&client=safari&source=www.google.com
“The Church’s decision did not go down well with separated MPs from both parties, including Labour’s Michael Farrugia and Marlene Pullicino and her former husband, Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando. Although Dr Pullicino Orlando said this was a decision in the hands of the Church and he was not offended by it, he said it would mean he could not attend the Papal Mass. Just as it is the Church’s prerogative to make such a decision, it is my prerogative to say that I am not in a position to attend if my partner is not in attendance.”
Another idiotic comment in The Times. I won’t bother to attempt a reply there, of course. Not until The Times raises its amateurish and agenda-ridden “moderator” service.
“Jessica Debattista
May 26th, 09:28
Domestic violence is a criminal offence and one hopes that the victim is protected by law.
But divorce as proposed is not there for those who are in an unhappy marriage but for those who opt out for purely selfish reasons. Selfish – because it is not consensual!
Selfish, because it is there for those who are separated and cohabiting and who want to regularize their union with the new partner without taking into consideration the wife and children from the first marriage.
Selfish because it is planned to give a second chance at happiness to the one who opts out and ignores the heartache of the one who is left behind.
Divorce is traumatic primarily to the one who is abandoned. It is not unlike grieving for a person one has lost. It is in fact worse, for where one can recall the beautiful moments spent together with the person who had passed away; with divorce one recalls the painful memories.
It is traumatic – to say the least – and the abandoned party will go through periods of bitterness, regret, anger or even emotional depression. The person will start feeling culpable, thinking that he/she could have been the cause of the other party leaving.
It is worse for the woman who is abandoned later on in life for a younger woman would probably re-marry if only to have someone to help raise the children, but the older woman will have to adjust to the loneliness, especially if the children are grown up and living in their own homes.
These are only a few of the maladies that divorce can cause not to mention the lower standard of living and the overwhelming cost of getting a divorce.
Most of the negative situations I mention could be revealed in the aftermath of separation, but nevertheless, do we want to introduce yet another scourge to our society?
Marriage should remain the revered institution that it has always been. We ought to be proud to be able to maintain the existenceof marriage as a lifelong commitment. Besides, we would be unfair to all those who still want to have marriage to be the traditional institution that had served society so well.
We talk so much about the right of those who want to remarry but we fail to give importance to the right of those who want to feel relatively more secure in a marriage that requires commitment for life. Is this democracy?
Democracy should not be seen as an emulation of what is happening in other countries but it should be seen in the context of our own nation. After all we have so much that is different from other countries, our size for one; our limited population that is so close-knit either through familial ties or through the proximity to our neighbours.
As I see it, we have an endemic fear of lagging behind other countries. It has been drummed into our heads as a negative consequence from the fact that our little gem is so tiny.
A gem is always tiny and it can have flaws but one would be an utter lunatic to have it and throw it away”.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110525/blogs/a-no-for-a-quick-fix.367188
Kenneth Cassar, can you please explain why you consider this comment to be ‘idiotic’ ? It may be that Jessica Debattista, I and many thousands who are voting No today are too mentally deficient to understand the eminent wisdom coming from the Yes camp.
Being a person of such superior intellect, Mr. Cassar, please, go-ahead and explain.
I do not necessarily agree with everything Ms. Debattista says but she is right in the main thrust of her argument.
Hahaha, jae; you just don’t know the first thing about this guy who is a consummate master in spinning, weaving, twisting, and equivocating. What’s more he is into insults big time and then has the gall to protest against being served with his own medicine. He has now moved into Hecate’s bosom from where he can issue anathemas against the Times where he was previously handled with kids’ gloves. Over here he feels comfy-like trying to rubbish the comments of a lady who is perfectly entitled to her views; really speaks volumes about his tolerance levels and utter lack of fair play. But some of us are used to this – he is eminently hilarious.
I was too generous in calling it idiotic. I actually believe it is maliciously deceptive.
She explains in detail the consequences of SEPARATION, but because it suits her fundamentalist agenda, she calls it divorce.
She is not right in the main thrust of her argument, unless she is arguing against separation.
I would suggest she campaigns for a law that forces deserters to return to their matrimonial beds. Such would be the conclusion of her absurd argument.
jae, the answer is simple: if you disagree with divorce, then don’t avail yourself of it. Disagreeing with it does not give you the right to interfere in the lives of others.
Read Jessica’s piece again, and replace “divorce” with “separation”, and you’ll get my point.
Mr. Cassar, Thank you for your amplification.
What really annoys me is the way those favouring the introduction of divorce legislation talk as if those putting forward an argument in favour of NO are either stupid, brainwashed, crazy, interfering busy-bodies, fundamentalist, deceptive, incompetent or all of them put together.
The truth is that there are strong arguments against the introduction of divorce legislation as much as there are strong arguments in favour. There are people who stand to gain with the introduction of divorce as much as there are people who stand to lose.
There are many people who are hurting. For some of them, divorce legislation will make life better; for others it will increase the hurt and the problems.
Whatever the outcome of the referendum, I hope that people will listen more carefully to the arguments being made by all sides without trying to belittle and being insulting.
More important, whatever the outcome of the referendum, there needs to be concerted efforts to find solutions to those who are suffering while at the same time trying to minimise negative impacts on the wider community.
@ Andrew Farrugia:
You have a habit of saying that I am a “master of spinning, weaving, twisting and equivocating”. You also have a habit of shying away from substantiating your allegations with evidence when being specifically challenged. You throw mud, then hide or run away.
Everyone is entitled to his/her views, even prejudiced liars and bigots like you. Yes, I call you a liar since I have proof of that. Remember when you said there are eminent professors who challenged a Barna research’s findings, and when challenged several times to name just one, you persistently refused?
But when I say that everyone is entitled to his/her views, this means that everyone is entitled to have views on the views of others, and to express them freely.
What no one is entitled to do is to lie about others, like you habitually do, the lies about the Barna research group being just one clear example.
Equally, everyone is entitled to ignore challenges asking for one to substantiate slanderous comments and allegations about other people – as you persistently and habitually do in respect of secularists, humanists and atheists. But this also means that everyone is entitled not to take you seriously, or to see you as an immature spiteful individual who sees no problem with telling lies about other people just as long as it serves a fundamentalist agenda.
Some people might not know the first thing about you, too. But I certainly do. And I’ll expose you for what you really are, every time I am presented with the opportunity.
As for my supposed lack of fair play, I was not commenting on a private comment. The comment was a public (published) comment. Everyone is entitled to comment on published opinions, on whatever medium. You should know, and she likewise is free (by right) to reply back in whatever medium she chooses). At least here, no one will be censored unless what is written is clearly libellous. You might have a problem in that area, seeing your history of (later) deleted libellous comments in The Times.
[jae – What really annoys me is the way those favouring the introduction of divorce legislation talk as if those putting forward an argument in favour of NO are either stupid, brainwashed, crazy, interfering busy-bodies, fundamentalist, deceptive, incompetent or all of them put together].
I can only speak for myself and only on individual cases (I don’t like to generalise). If I see an argument as stupid, I’ll usually call the argument stupid (and not the person). The person making it might be an expert in other fields, for all I know.
[jae – The truth is that there are strong arguments against the introduction of divorce legislation as much as there are strong arguments in favour].
I am yet to read one.
[jae – There are people who stand to gain with the introduction of divorce as much as there are people who stand to lose].
You still don’t get that the only difference between divorce and separation is the chance to remarry instead of cohabit.
[jae – There are many people who are hurting. For some of them, divorce legislation will make life better; for others it will increase the hurt and the problems].
How so? If your spouse leaves you, what benefit do you get by refusing him divorce and remarriage? If revenge is what one seeks, that is one’s own self-inflicted problem.
[jae – Whatever the outcome of the referendum, I hope that people will listen more carefully to the arguments being made by all sides without trying to belittle and being insulting].
Criticising absurd arguments, and calling them absurd, is not insulting. Its being honest.
[jae – More important, whatever the outcome of the referendum, there needs to be concerted efforts to find solutions to those who are suffering while at the same time trying to minimise negative impacts on the wider community].
Of course. Divorce is only one tried and tested solution. There are, of course, others.
@jae
There is not even one strong or weak, for that matter, argument against divorce. An old proverb says it all:
You can take a horse to the water but you cannot make it drink.
In simple language, once a spouse does not want to share his/her life with the “beloved other half”, there is only one possible option for the jilted – cut your losses and move on. Guess what? Your other “half” is already way ahead of you and s/he is not coming back.
Any argument against divorce without including separation and annulment is moronic at best.
@Andrew Farrugia – back to ad hominems? I’m disappointed – for a while I thought you had given up on these type of comments.
[Stefan Vella – @Andrew Farrugia – back to ad hominems? I’m disappointed – for a while I thought you had given up on these type of comments].
For a while I had thought he had changed his name to Andy, too. Old habits die hard.
Posturing for a socio-anthropological piece in The Times must be fun.
Just arrived yesterday to vote and I am dismayed to say that most of the people I have talked to have taken the referendum question as a test on their moral fibre.
No amount of reasoning or logic would budge them because any discussion soon took an unpleasant personal turn.
And that’s not counting the “confused” faction who agree in giving people the possibility of divorce in principle but (a) can’t stand the smirk on Pullicino Orlando’s and Joseph Muscat’s faces and/or (b) they feel they are risking sojourning in hell for eternity by going against il-kapillan.
I have a feeling there will be no photofinish this time but a clear and strong refusal.
The problem is as Tony Blair would have said: education, education education! In a society where critical thinking is the exception not the norm, indeed where critical thinking is frowned upon, the mentality is that of a kindergarten class where issues are thought of in terms of good and evil, where justice can never have shades of grey but must be absolute and where people prefer to be sheep and led then shepherds and leaders.
Having said that I live and die an optimist that reason will ultimately prevail.
DCG: sometimes you infuriate me with some of your political views and I vow never to visit your website again. But then I know that you are capable of gems of reasoning like this article and I find myself coming back.
Congratulations on this article not because it is saying anything new but because it says it clearly, objectively, rationally and succinctly.
As to Lino Cert, once again what applies to divorce applies equally to separation. Any party may leave the other without mutual consent in separation. It has happenend to me. So what’s the difference? How many times have the same points to be repeated ad nauseam and the no-campaigners fail to grasp even the simplest arguments?
Let’s see what the outcome will be tomorrow. Either way, the discussion will remain open for a long time and the situation will be undecided. If the No vote wins, the question will stay wide open. If the Yes vote wins, we’ll have to see what our MPs decide.
Meanwhile, Maltese society will continue to waste time on unnecessary, unproductive and fruitless schisms.
This bit about “divorce that is forced upon the abused spouse by the abusing spouse” is the silliest thing I have heard in a long, long time.
IT IS (excuse my caps) THE ABUSED SPOUSE WHO WILL BE SEEKING DIVORCE – THE ABUSER WILL NOT.
The people who will have most to lose when (not if) divorce comes in are the philanderers who will not be able to hide behind the usual excuse “Honey, I’d love to marry you, but **smug smirk** I’m still married to my wife ad we have no divorce in Malta…..”
And how well-timed was the Eastenders episode yesterday?
Mercy calling off her wedding a few hours before the appointment at the registrar’s – please, people, don’t get married unless it’s for the right reason.
Masood dropping the d-word bomb to his wife – you can try and try but sometimes there simply is no other way.
Christian proposing to Syed, who’s also in the process of getting divorced from Amira – it has to get worse before it can get better….even if your mum and dad don’t like your new life because it’s supposed to be a sin.
If I recall correctly, the vox pops showed that a majority of men wanted divorce (legislation) whilst most women don’t. Again, if I recall correctly, you seemed to think that it was more likely for women to want divorce than men. If my recollections are correct, could this be because women tend to follow church leadership more than men do, do you think?
[Daphne – No, nothing to do with church teaching. Most Maltese women of the age group that is most against divorce (roughly our sort of age) don’t work, are wholly dependent on their husband, and so feel vulnerable. This doesn’t mean that they think their husbands will divorce them, but that their general thinking is warped and conditioned by this heightened sense of vulnerablity. Women who work and have a life outside the home and family are ranked with men for many policy research purposes. The split is not in gender but in ‘life outside the home and family’ and ‘no life outside the home and family’. In Malta, the split is mistaken for a gender split because the vast majority of women over the age of 35 don’t work outside the home. But if you look at the attitudes of women in work and women under 35 (most of whom work) their views are no different to those of men.]
On The Times (London)?
Weird, that’s what they are.
In reality they ‘Marlene, Jeffrey, Carmen etc….. have no shame’ , they might even think that others are jealous of their situation to tell their story to The Times (London).
I am glad that I am not part of the family.
Daphne commented on only a small part of the article. This excellent article “Malta torn asunder by new move to legalise divorce” is longish and gives a detailed resume on the divorce issue in Malta. It also starts with an beautiful photograph of Marlene Pullicino. One cannot access The Times website unless one pays a fee like I do.
Today I voted. I voted NO with conviction and with determination.
At the start of the referendum campaign I had an open mind. I was willing to listen to the arguments for and against. Eventually, I was most convinced by the argument that divorce legislation, as proposed, will weaken Maltese families and society because it makes it easier for people to walk out of their marriage, to the detriment of the other party and of the children. The social argument made me vote NO with conviction.
The more the likes of Saviour Balzan appeared on One TV with their ‘I know-it-all’ attitudes, the more I was convinced that voting NO was the right thing to do. No amount of accusations against the No camp of being backward, fundamentalist and brainwashed would convince me otherwise. Now I understand better why you, Daphne, find Balzan so distasteful. He has one single driving force in life – his hate for fellow humans.
When I went to vote I could not help remember two families I know where the husband walked out. In one case, he left a wife to cope with three kids between the ages of five and ten. He deprived three kids of a father. He deprived them of the stability that is so vital in the growth of children and teenagers.
Divorce legislation, as proposed in the referendum question, would reward that kind of behaviour. It would even encourage it.
Inevitably, the emotive argument kicked in. I voted NO for the wife who has been left to cope with the upbringing of her three children. I voted NO for the three children and for other children who are deprived of a parent. The emotive argument made me vote NO with determination.
Who am I to judge? True. Who am I, as Daphne argues, to interfere in other people’s lives by depriving them of divorce? Maybe also true. This notwithstanding, for me voting NO was the right thing to do.
All the reasons you gave for voting No are perfect reasons for voting Yes.
Stop trying to justify your faulty reasoning. Is that why you are writing, a nagging conscience?
jae, I today voted “yes” with conviction, because I believe that I don’t have the right to interfere in the lives of others.
I voted “yes” with conviction because I know that the absence of divorce does not keep families together, nor does it prevent marriages from breaking up. By the time people get to divorce, their marriage would have long broken down. I do not believe people get divorced on a whim.
I voted “yes” with conviction for the wife who lived in near poverty with her husband and two toddlers, only to find out one day that her husband led a double life, complete with plush home, fancy 4×4, someone else’s wife and, eventually, an illegitimate child of his own.
I voted “yes” with conviction for another woman whose husband not only left her and their children for someone else with whom he now has two further children, but who turned his elder two children (one of whom is still under 10) against their mother, even coercing them to testify against her in court. He not only deprived his children of a stable family home, he also, selfishly, deprived them of their mother.
I voted “yes” with conviction for the little girl whose father not only chose to leave home, but who also saw fit to literally carry her screaming away from their family home on “visitation days”. I voted “yes” with conviction for the mother of that same girl, who has since found happiness and respect with someone else, who has also proven to be a father-figure for her daughter.
I voted “yes” with conviction for the woman whose husband changed overnight and started threatening her at knifepoint, even with their little child in the house, until she eventually plucked up the courage to leave him. I voted “yes” with conviction for that same woman who has since found love elsewhere.
I voted “yes” with conviction for all the people who have been married by priests, which same priests have left the priesthood to get married – in at least one case, to a divorcee.
I, jae, voted “yes” with conviction, because my children may eventually find themselves in one of the above situations. Have they too not the right to make a clean cut from the old and a fresh start with the new?
All I can say is ‘sad. very sad’. You did not give reasons for voting ‘no’, you gave emotions.
There was nothing to withstand. You preferred the medieval power of the state to control the lives of the individual (an individual who you reduce to the position of a hapless imbecile and who you think you have the right to prescribe to). You are protecting no one but your badly thought through ideas. Bravo!
I just hope you won’t ever feel the keen edge of an unjust and thoughtless law!
Apart from the emotive argument I put forward, this is what I said and this is what I re-iterate:
“I was most convinced by the argument that divorce legislation, as proposed, will weaken Maltese families and society because it makes it easier for people to walk out of their marriage, to the detriment of the other party and of the children.”
Sonia, the experience of life has made us arrive to very different conclusions. So be it. I respect your opinion even if I disagree with it.
Johnnytwoshoes and Chris, I suggest you put forward sensible arguments instead of trying to belittle whoever puts forward an opinion different from your own. As for your ‘nagging conscience’ and the ‘sad, very sad’. What can I say? LOL. Amusing, very amusing!
Spot on. It is sad enough when a village bumpkin exhibits such faulty logic, but when the Prime Minister, Finance Minister, Foreign Minister, Chairman of the Stock Exchange and the vice Chairman of the MFSA show such faulty logic I despair.
Dr Andre Camilleri was nominated for the post of judge in 2002 – he was not nominated because of his legal experience.
I do not say this myself.
The Commission for the Administration of Justice had advised the PM (Fenech Adami) that it had serious doubts whether Dr Andre Camilleri had the necessary credentials to perform the duties of a judge.
The article you refer to in The Times of Malta where Dr Camilleri acts as prosecutor and judge at the same time to my mind confirms that the Commission’s assessment was correct – viz. that Dr Camilleri did not have the necessary credentials to be a judge.
His ad hominem arguments do not befit a judge.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110526/opinion/Why-you-should-vote-no.367349
His other position as director general of the Malta Financial Services Authority is at present under severe scrutiny.
I still need to be convinced that he has performed his duties well as director general
Perhaps he has been devoting too much time, as Chairman of the Anti Divorce Movement, to his personal anti-divorce campaign and has been unable to dedicate enough energy to defend the interests of the investors.
And the bishop on behalf of the Catholic Church in Malta has now issued an apology for hurting us.
While the director general of the Malta Financial Services Authority and the chairman of the Stock Exchange wage war on divorce legislation, look what’s happening under their (lack of) watch.
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/stockbroker-says-bov-offer-%E2%80%98morally-dishonest%E2%80%99-and-calls-for-regulator%E2%80%99s-invol
“Perhaps he has been devoting too much time”
Dr Portelli, it is not like you to base your arguments on ‘perhaps’.
You yourself have many interests besides your profession. I never once doubted that your medical career and responsibility suffered because of your other commitments.
Maryanne
Apologies – I will remove the “perhaps” from my statement.
In my view, Dr Andre Camilleri has spent too much time on his activities as chairman of the Zwieg bla Divorzju movement when he should have been performing his duties as Director General of MFSA to safeguard investors’ interests.
He should be removed from his post at the MFSA. I declare I have no shares in any of those funds, nor in Bank of Valletta.
@ Frank Portelli: You really shoot from the hip. How is it that you know that Dr Andre’ Camilleri was not safeguarding the investors’ interests? Which investors should MFSA defend , BOV shareholders or the property fund investors?
The BOV property fund crashed before the No to divorce Movement was formed.
The tangible remedial action on this property fund started at the end of last week, because BOV knows that MFSA will take action by the end of June. Today The Sunday Times features an interview with Joe Banister and there is an article on Finco Treasury Management and its managing director Paul Bonello.
May I add that one of Finco’s directors is Dr Arthur Galea Salamone. Should he be promoted or made to resign?
Arthur Galea Salomone LL.M., (Toronto) LL.D graduated Master of Laws from the University of Toronto and Doctor of Laws from the University of Malta. He is a partner and director of the Finco Trust Group. During the past twenty years he has practiced widely in Corporate and Commercial Law, Financial Services Law, Maritime Law, Real Estate law, Foreign Investment. Arthur Galea Salomone is currently Chairman of the Malta Stock Exchange, Deputy Chairman of the Malta Arbitration Centre, Director at APS Bank Ltd, Chairman of the Risk Management Committee of APS Bank, Director of a number of companies in the insurance and affiliated insurance field. Arthur has provided advice to the financial services regulators notably the Malta Financial Services Authority and the Listing Authority. He was responsible for drafting the Financial Markets Act in view of Malta’s accession to the European Union. Arthur Galea Salomone is a lecturer and examiner in the Commercial Law department of the Faculty of Laws at the University of Malta. He has lectured widely on various aspects of Commercial Law, including Mergers and Acquisitions, Stock Exchange Regulation, Insolvency Law, Financial Services Regulation. Arthur Galea Salomone is a regular speaker at Conferences both locally and overseas.
http://www.fincotrust.com/finco/corporate.asp?AnchID=46&parentanchID=1
You are entitled to your opinion and it is not for me to answer for Dr. Andre Camilleri.
My argument is that you don’t judge one’s integrity and professionalism on the number of commitments one undertakes.
You run a hospital and you have other commitments. I do not know the first thing about the medical profession or about the management of a hospital. I might think that it takes up all of your time but that doesn’t give me the right to judge your professionalism.
If your opinion can be backed by facts, it is for Dr. Camilleri to explain.
Daphne, God was so kind to humanity that he created Malta small so there won’t be too many of us around.
I did not find this article/interview online?
[Daphne – You need a subscription. The Times (London) online version is no longer free of charge.]
I have read the article in question with great amusement. I love the “staunch Catholic” and “Catholic faith” references. Surely, if Marlene Pullicino and her lover, Godfrey Farruiga, were such fervent Catholics, they would have tried to work through their respective marriages, and, having failed, lived apart, single and celibate? I can’t stand all this hypocrisy, and there’s so much of it around.
But that’s the picture we present. Some poor journalist is assigned to Malta and he finds the place plastered with niches and saints and holy pictures and crosses and Vatican City State flags and ministers with visions of the Virgin Mary. The logical conclusion is that the Maltese are staunch Catholics.
When and where it suits our needs .
Anna Vella doesn’t want divorce because we have a special culture and we don’t want to be like everybody else:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/may/28/malta-divorce-referendum
Daphne, please allow me to differ to the reply you gave to Mr Ripard. I think that being a generation after mine, you don`t really know how we, who are well over 50, really reason things out.
You see, we were all living at a time when only a very small minority of women worked. But it was the 70s, we never really considered ourselves as “inferior”.
It was normal life for us – men went to work, the woman stayed at home raising kids. Full stop.
You might argue that we didn’t feel fulfilled, and maybe so, but not to a great extent, believe me. We did not know better (or worse?). What I want to say is that all my friends and acquaintances, who of course are my age or older, all voted Yes today.
[Daphne – Oh but Pat, you can’t compare. I think you belong to that socio-economic group that is predominantly for divorce legislation. The predominant No vote among women over the age of 35 is in the other socio-economic groups which make up the bulk of the population. A lot of this has to do with education, and the survey results show that clearly: people with tertiary education are predominantly for divorce legislation. A lifetime (or half a lifetime) of taking an interest in the news, current events, the world etc puts a woman in her 50s and over way beyond a new university graduate.]
And the vast majority have never worked outside the home, and all their children have left home too. Yes, we do depend on our husbands to a certain extent, but remember that our spouses, too, were convinced that they had to maintain a wife till death parted them, so it was like a given.
We do not feel threatened if divorce is legalised. Why should we, at this age? If the husband wants to make a fool of himself with some silly bimbo, then good riddance. He was not worth having, anyway.
And these men form part of a small minority again, at our age.
Not to mention the fact that the ones who wanted out, have done so already, divorce or not. Loneliness is a much better option than apathy. And most of the couples married in the sixties and seventies and who have been together for eons, are old and mature enough to reach an agreement for maintenance because for the husband that was what he did for the past 30 years or so.
I am more worried about the younger ones, actually, than people our age, most of whom would never even consider divorce even if they do leave. What for? Age makes you realise so many things, first and foremost how short life is, and the majority want to live the few years they have left in peace not in the courts, bickering about some hundred euros.
Excellent article. It’s not up to a political party, the church or an individual person to decide why someone else should divorce or not. If one is against divorce, don’t divorce.
In fact I think a referendum should not have been called because divorce only affects those people who want to divorce. And those who don’t want to divorce, quite frankly, should butt out.
@ Kenneth Cassar: “Another idiotic comment in The Times. I won’t bother to attempt a reply there, of course. Not until The Times raises its amateurish and agenda-ridden “moderator” service.”
So this is where you were all along Kenneth – spitting your venom at me behind my back!
How devious can one get?
.