Paul Vincenti is back, and this time, it's not abortion
Please, sir, may I have some more? My daddy ran off with that tart from the corner shop and bought her a maisonette in Fgura.
Here’s Gift of Life’s Paul Vincenti, on the timesofmalta.com comment-board, this afternoon, reacting to former cabinet minister Michael Falzon’s views in favour of divorce legislation.
I consult many businesses in my profession. None of the successful ones I know will invest even a single euro into a venture unless they study what returns they may get from their investment.
No study at all has been done on the impact of divorce on society. We have no idea what the social and financial implications may be.
Will we have to pay more taxes for example?
Will divorcees have tap into social services when their ex husbands apply to courts to stop paying maintenance to their first marriage to support their second one?
Will we create a second poorer segment in society?
Who will care for them? What impact will divorce have on the education of these children?
Will there be more crime?
JPO’s divorce idea sounds like a leap into the unknown to me. I am very willing to listen to research but not to Falzon’s empty claims..
The common refrain among those who are campaigning against divorce legislation is that poor women and children will be left to suffer from the grievous financial and other consequences of nasty, horrible, selfish men who abandon them.
This is was to be expected, because the Religious Right has the little woman as victim, mother and financially dependent housewife and the man as protector and provider.
They seem to take it for granted that men have a natural desire to abandon their wives and children and must be thwarted, while women are so grateful that somebody has married them that they will never, ever divorce willingly, still less initiate proceedings themselves, which tends to be what happens in much of Europe and North America.
This might be ridiculous and old-fashioned, but I imagine it plugs into the fairly recent historical reality in Maltese society: as late as the 1960s and 1970s, Maltese men disappeared in untraceable droves, to Britain, North America and Australia, leaving their wives and children behind in Malta. Some of them said they would emigrate ahead of the rest of the household and then ‘send for’ their families once they had settled and found a job – but never did, making new lives alone and eventually with a new family instead. Others were in the merchant navy and just kept right on moving.
It was easy in those days. But the circumstances were different, and so was society. And some people in Malta like to think, and try to persuade others, that it was somehow more moral.
Maybe they didn’t know about these things, or about the thousands of children abandoned to the care of the religious orders because they had been born out of wedlock, or because one of their parents had run off and the other couldn’t cope, or because their parents had 10 other children already and didn’t want more.
The way Paul Vincenti and these other campaigners argue, you would think that Malta runs the risk of being the first country to introduce the Great Unknown Divorce, rather than being quite literally the last to do so.
All the questions he asks have long been answered already. And those same questions apply to separation in Malta anyway. Separation by contract or by court judgement sorts out matters of who gets what and who pays for what and when, where the children will live, access and the works. Separation is exactly like divorce, but you can’t remarry. In all other respects – property rights, maintenance, child custody – it’s the same.
And so is the likelihood that a separated person who is still fairly young will form another family. I don’t see anyone in that position sitting around and waiting for marriage to do so. They just go right ahead and do it.
Where do the No campaigners get this touching belief that people – sorry, MEN – who leave their spouses will not have more children unless they can get a wedding ring on their new woman’s finger? Nothing in my experience bears it out, and nothing in their experience does, either.
43 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Some time ago he also said that divorce is only the beginning of the story…abortion will follow because, according to him, the same arguments are being made for both abortion and divorce.
I will immediately concede that SOME of the arguments are the same. But that tells you nothing about the soundness or otherwise of those arguments. All it tells you is that if some arguments for divorce legislation are sound, that might make similar arguments for abortion equally sound.
But as happens with all people who surrender their minds to prefabricated dogmas, there is no grey in Paul Vincenti’s mindset. Its all black or white. Pathetic.
What is sadder, that these gits can’t understand the difference between divorce and marital break-up, or that they can but are determined to mislead?
Surely if hell exists intentional deceivers like this will fry there for eternity. There are times when I truly regret my extreme scepticism about the existence of hell.
In the situation where the first wife has not worked till pensionable age she will not be eligible to receive any financial support (maintenance or pension) if her former husband passes away before she does.
His second wife will however receive his pension. Alas, most likely the wage earning tax payer will once again be asked to bear the brunt and chip in for some new form of arrangement.
[Daphne – I have another solution: how about we get out of the 1960s and stop thinking that women have a divine right to be financially dependent on men – or that we are incapable of earning a living? The woman who thinks she has a right to be dependent on a man deserves everything that’s coming to her when it doesn’t work out. The past was another country. Women had no choice and their own wishes and desires for independence and a life and money of their own were often thwarted. Today it’s a different story.]
So by removing the entitlement of married women (mostly) to their husband’s pension you will solve their financial problem. I think that half of the married women in Malta are stay at home mothers.
[Daphne – That’s their problem. Time to enter the real world that everyone else left in the 1960s. You might not know this, but many separated women in Malta are not entitled to a share of their husband’s pension. If you accept a lump sum in settlement instead of a monthly maintenance until pensionable age, or if this is considered impractical and crazy (if you separate at 30, for instance, you can’t reasonably expect to be maintained for the next 31 years by a man who doesn’t live with you), then you have no entitlement. I know many women in this category. You seem to believe that women actually WANT to be maintained by a man they’ve left or who has left them. Wrong. Some women do, others have more dignity than that. ]
Our social security ‘packet’ is what it is …the good things and the downright unfair things.
I tend to agree with you that the ‘stay at home’ spouse should not be entitled to a widow’s pension, but first we have to remove the injustices which are in our pension system.
Women live longer but reach pensionable age before men. Why shouldn’t men reach pensionable age at the same age of women?
Correct me if I’m wrong: women who worked for ten years and stopped working for fifteen years, lose the ten year contributions for pension purposes and their pension is calculated from when when they re-start working.
[Daphne – That was the case, but I believe changes have been made. I’m not sure how or what, though. It was certainly a grave injustice, and a real disincentive to women. It didn’t apply specifically to women, of course, because that would be discrimination – but it’s women who take a ‘child-rearing’ break of some years, not men.]
If two married people worked up to pensionable age, do they get separate pensions?
[Daphne – Yes, of course.]
If say the husband of a 55-year-old stay-at-home wife wants divorce, how would she support herself if she is not entitled to a pension (like you’re suggesting)? If she starts working at 55 for six years, would she survive on the pension she worked for, if she gets one?
[Daphne – She wouldn’t survive on half her husband’s pension, either, if they separate rather than divorce. Please don’t forget that we have long been facing these situations already. People in their 50s separate, and very few of the women work or have worked. In that case, the husband is either obliged to maintain her or make other provision for her. If she accepts a lump sum instead of maintenance, then she loses entitlement to his pension and also to a widow’s pension. Some separating couples find a way around this by agreeing on token maintenance of say EUR5 a week. That way, the husband doesn’t have to pay maintenance but the wife doesn’t lose entitlement to his pension. Bottom line: women should never put themselves at anyone’s mercy because you really never know what might go wrong. The mothers who raised their daughters to ‘find a man to live off’ have done them the greatest disservice possible. In exceptional cases, things work out fine, but it’s been my observation that these cases are really exceptional and with everyone else there is always some degree of dissatisfaction or unpleasantness, everything ranging from ordinary low-level boredom, lack of autonomy to being dumped and floundering or wanting to leave and not having the financial independence to do so.]
There are also spouses who would not care a hoot about dignity and WANT the other half to fork out the maintenance money periodically, and take pride that they are living off their ex-partner’s back.
As things stand we will be creating more poor people.
[Daphne – I very much doubt it, John. You overlook the fact that the financial arrangements for divorce are exactly the same as they are for separation. Divorce law does not permit husbands to cut loose without financial provision wives who are past the age where they can find work. Another point you miss is the one I go on about constantly: the fact that many, many Maltese women are kept in poverty in their own homes by their own husbands, but are too proud to disclose the fact. You will, however, notice lots of clues to this if you bother to look. Many have no access to the so-called ‘communal income’ and must account for every cent of the housekeeping money, which is literally just enough for the grocery bill. Then they are subjected to the humiliation of having to ask, like a child, for ‘pocketmoney to buy sweets’: can I have EUR10 to get my hair done; I need to buy some tights – that kind of thing. Awful. Lots of marriages break down precisely because of this sort of thing: the women work out that they’re better off with court-mandated maintenance than they are begging for cash and being refused. They look for work as soon as they are able to.]
Besides, this happens in annulments as well but I have never heard anyone complaining about this before. This may be due to the fact that annulments are holy therefore supposedly infallible, unlike divorce which is evil, apparently.
Granted, women should work. However, the misfortune is that we are stuck with a leftist 1970/80 welfare ball and chain tied to our neck.
First and foremost this country has to understand that the Swedish formula does not work in a Latin context, get its house in order and place a few Chinese crackers under some shapely bottoms before moving on.
Uhm, the Swedish formula is built around a leftist welfare ball and chain. That is what made it happen. It is not designed to encourage women to stay at home, but to work and still have children.
It’s the conservative elements that tend to favour the female baby machines sitting at home while being supplied for.
High taxation created proper child care facilities, educational support for adult women etc. A strong feminist movement, especially through the 60s and 70s should certainly be lauded as well.
Paul Vincenti is so pro life that he thinks life begins at erection.
“Paul Vincenti is so pro life that he thinks life begins at erection.”
Quoted for posterity.
Super like!!!!! :)
Arriba! Arriba!
The problem with these people is that they still hang on to the pre-scientific idea that the sperm is a miniature human being. That is why they also oppose contraception and masturbation. To their pre-scientific minds, contraception and masturbation kill sperm (which, to them, are miniature humans).
Sperm ARE miniature humans. It’s been captured on film.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djQ7WZlb140
I told an Italian friend that I am flying to Malta, courtesy of the Maltese government, to vote in a referendum for divorce. He laughed his head off, saying that Malta must still be in the Middle Ages! I felt embarrassed.
How can the ‘No’ campaigners justify themselves when the whole world has divorce and Malta does not? There must definitely be something wrong with the Maltese way of thinking.
That’s no justification. Many countries have legalised abortion. Does that mean we ought to do likewise?
@ Etienne Calleja:
True, it’s no justification. Then again, for someone to say the rest of the world is wrong and we aren’t, one should be expected to back that claim with at least some valid arguments that necessarily do not rely on faith.
I’m still waiting.
Why not ?
I never said I am not in agreement with divorce, and I am a strong proponent of empiricism.
[Etienne Calleja – I never said I am not in agreement with divorce, and I am a strong proponent of empiricism].
I never said you are not, either. Two can play at that silly game.
Yesterday I watched one of the best interviews on Maltese TV: Professor Peter Serracino Inglott being interviewed by a sober-looking and well prepared Lou Bondi’.
I was tired but didn’t doze off.
Where can I watch it again?
[Daphne – Go to di-ve.com. ]
Fast forward please by two weeks and let’s get it over with .
I was just wondering whether or not Paul Vincenti would change his opinion were Dominique Strauss-Whatsit his son-in-law.
Good point, Guza. The pro-divorce movement should use DSK on one of their billboards. Instead of that lady with a black eye, where they ask “Kieku din bintek,” they can put DSK with the words “What if he was your son-in-law?”
Daphne, I’ve mentioned a few times on your blog that I love waking up on the rock, since I know that I will have a laugh each day.
Now, I still do, due to your recent satirical comments. However, the ‘laughs’ I now have come from inbred idiots who have derailed the progress of this promising country. My laughs have turned to tears, dismay, and disgust. So sad.
Yesterday I heard the most ludicrous question so far in the divorce debate.
Brian, who hosts NET TV’s Quadro, asked Deborah Schembri how it could possibly be guaranteed that divorce, as voted for, will not be made ‘more liberal’ five years down the line. The line of thinking being that the parliament is there not to represent us but to lump us with laws that we don’t want, in this case ‘liberal’ ones – x’biza.
If these are the standards at NET then they are not better than Super One’s before the EU referendum.
Dudu, that line of reasoning follows the used-car-salesman tactics of Joseph Muscat and Pullicino Orlando who insisted that the referendum question should not be a simple ‘do you want divorce to be introduced?’ but should have a lot of ifs and buts.
Deborah Schembri said on tv that she would have voted No had the referendum question been the former. She’s in favour of a Yes vote only because of the four-year separation period and the so-called “guarantee” of maintenance.
It is, therefore, fair to ask her whether she would change her mind if the separation period were to be shortened.
What’s wrong with having ifs and buts when the referendum is based on a specific divorce law as proposed by Pullicino Orlando and Bartolo?
On the other hand, how on earth can anyone guarantee that down the line parliament will not change any given law?
Let me reverse the argument. How can the No lobby guarantee that if the proposed ‘conservative’ divorce bill is not enacted, then parliament will not in years to come legislate without a referendum?
Dudu, I agree that no one can guarantee that parliament will never change any law. That is why we should have had a straight question about whether we want divorce to be introduced or not.
After that we should have let parliament get on with the job of approving Pullicino Orlando’s bill or some other divorce law.
If Joseph Muscat (the question was his idea) wanted us to vote on a specific law then the referendum question should have said so.
The divorce referendum should be an eye-opener to the government and so we, especially Nationalist voters, should push the government to change the way it sees people. Ministers gave themselves a pay rise of 500 euro weekly while we got only 1.16 weekly apart from other benefits.
So it is time to VOTE YES for Divorce and so we will be telling the government to either leave and go or else change the way they are governing this country.
[Daphne – Well, that’s a non sequitur if ever I saw one.]
Well Pete, what about the roofless theatre and the tritons fountain? Two other reasons to vote Yes?
Can anyone tell me what the difference is between separation and divorce? I keep searching for an answer I can’t seem to get one.
divorce (n.)
late 14c., from O.Fr. divorce (14c.), from L. divortium “separation, dissolution of marriage,” from divertere “to separate, leave one’s husband, turn aside” (see divert). Not distinguished in English from legal separation until mid-19c. The verb is late 14c., from O.Fr. divorcer. Related: Divorced; divorcing.
————————
separation
early 15c., from O.Fr. separation, from L. separationem (nom. separatio) noun of action from pp. stem of separare (see separate). Specific sense of “sundering of a married couple” is attested from c.1600. Separation of powers first recorded 1788, in “Federalist” (Hamilton), from Fr. séparée de la puissance (Montesquieu, 1748). Separation anxiety first attested 1943.
————————
I see no difference.
the spelling
I was not after a definition. I meant what are the legal differences between one and the other.
When one divorces one can remarry. When one separates one can only cohabit.
I would have agreed with most of the comments, bar the ‘funny’ one-liners, posted on the blog, and would have probably abstained or even voted in favour, notwithstanding wee Joe’s position – were it not for the fact that Malta is an extreme example of a welfare state which dishes out taxpayer’s money indiscriminately to an ever increasing number of social parasites.
Whilst I agree that women should stand financially on their own two feet we are all aware that the situation in Malta is very particular, in that we have, I believe, Europe’s lowest percentage of working women/mothers.
Divorce will definitely exacerbate the financial hardships of (middle to older aged) divorced women.
[Daphne – Older women who have never worked are provided for through mandatory alimony. Where did this idea come from that a man can just walk out and leave a woman with nothing? The good thing about divorce legislation is that it hammers all these things out. It is IN MARRIAGE that the situation is dire – you have no idea just how many women leave in utter poverty in their own homes and marriages, because their husband doesn’t ‘give them’ money or because he slaps a 50-euro note on the kitchen table on Monday and expects her to keep the household for a week on that. Exactly why do you think so many older women work as cleaners? Because they love it?]
Notwithstanding, I do agree that in the long run divorce legislation should be introduced, however before that the government has to ensure that:
a) the welfare system is streamlined to avoid further abuse;
b) there are concrete ‘working mother’ friendly measures.
As things currently stand, as a wage earner who has to pay taxes to the last cent it is not in my interest to vote in favour of divorce.
Take a look at this, before the Times moderator notices his serious blunder in allowing a highly libellous comment to get through (and then give someone like me hell before a reasonable comment of mine is published – such are journalistic standards nowadays):
“P. Vincenti
Today, 12:53
I doubt that many of you have ever heard of ‘CATHOLICS for CHOICE. Like this group in Malta, they believe they can be Catholic and atill be in favour of the choice to abort a baby. Have a look here, http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/
This anti-family group (Catholics: Yes because it’s a right) is attempting to camouflage itself as Catholic in an attempt to draw sympathy and votes from Catholics’ who are getting very confused. These are shameful tactics more at home in Maltese politics than in an issue of such fundamental importance to the family unit.
JPO started this mess with his rants of being Catholic and in favour of divorce. This paper followed suit by publishing an article about a Catholic family in favour of divorce.
As far as I am aware, authentic Catholics cannot be in favour of divorce or abortion. I think that the Bishop of Gozo is making this point clearly”.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110518/local/Gozo-Bishop-s-comments-on-Eucharist-draw-mixed-reaction.365922
Just in case anyone hasn’t noticed, Paul Vincenti is effectively saying that the group “Kattolici: Iva Ghaliex Dritt” is pro-abortion.
Just as I thought. The comment has been removed.
One has to be in it to understand the hardship families are passing through. Its easy for the NO to say so but what if it hits them or their families – will they still think the same or would they hide themselves for saying NO?
And why is it that in the divorce campaign, men are put in a bad light as if they are always to blame? Why does no one mention maintenance for kids who are in the father’s custody?
I can assure you that kids would prefer their parents to separate than to live for years on end with their parents arguing 24/7 – 365 days a year. I have experienced it and ever since I left home with one of my daughters, she has grown up into a young woman and doing things I never imagined she would be able to do had we remained at home suffering the onslaught we have been suffering in silence for years.
So, those saying NO should think otherwise and rethink what is the real evil.
Is it illegal for a Maltese woman to get an abortion abroad?
If not, why fuss about it.
[Daphne – How can it be illegal? Abortion law is territorial.]
If only more people were like this:
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/%E2%80%98mass-walkout%E2%80%99-in-zejtun-as-church-intensifies-fear-campaign
It also happened last Sunday at a church at Tarxien. I was hearing mass and about a dozen people walked out.