What next – asking the Chamber of Commerce to take a stand against divorce?

Published: May 20, 2011 at 12:39am

The anti-divorce movement chief, Andre Camilleri, today made his representations to the General Retailers Trade Union (GRTU) in an attempt at persuading it to take a formal stand against divorce.

He doesn’t seem to be aware that there is a bit of a difference between a referendum on divorce legislation and a referendum on EU membership.

The GRTU is a stakeholder in EU membership issues, but not in divorce.

I cannot imagine why the GRTU agreed to meet him on this basis, unless it’s because he is also DG at the Malta Financial Services Authority.

The GRTU’s president (not Vince Farrugia; he’s secretary-general) said that the union will not take a stand on divorce, and then felt it necessary toadd that he will vote No because “family and valuri” are important and because many GRTU members are family-run businesses which suffer when the families involved break up.

It gets worse every day. Roll on 28 May.

81 Comments Comment

  1. El Topo says:

    ” … and because many GRTU members are family-run businesses which suffer when the families involved break up.”


    The Mafia must have taken a big hit when divorce was introduced in Italy.

    • john says:

      Will they be asking for the support of the Gay Rights Movement next? While they’re at it, they should go after the Farmers’ Co-Operative, and what about the Hunters’ Union? There is also a pig-breeders’ association. You can never tell.

    • Steve says:

      You could argue that when a family breaks up, you end up with two households and thus potentially two businesses! More members for the GRTU!


      • H.P. Baxxter says:

        AND prezzies for the kiddies from both daddy+his new bombshell, and mummy+her new new hunk. Double the domestic consumption in a critical market segment.

        Baxxter’s Report concludes that divorce is good for business.


  2. Ronnie says:

    Unless the guy GRTU was misquoted he argued that he was against divorce because he has been married for 38 years, so I guess he is also anti-gay because he’s been straight for so many years; can’t get the logic really.

  3. el bandido guapo says:

    I’ve always been fully convinced that 60% of the population are incapable of logical reasoning.

    I think I’ll up that to at least 70%.

  4. Etil says:

    At this stage we will soon be having witch hunts – and also tar and feather those who think that Malta should enact divorce legislation. . I always thought that the majority of the Maltese were hypocrites and am now convinced.

  5. Etil says:

    Now hear this – now hear this – the Bishop of Gozo is the guest on Radio 101 at this hour. The NP are going all holy and their radio is increasing the bombardment regarding discussions – if they can be called such – no further comment from my side.

    I am thoroughly disappointed and depressed and fed up at the whole situation as are, I think, most of the Maltese. Thank you Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando for this hornet’s nest. This whole situation could have been avoided by just waiting two years and including the divorce legislation in both parties’ electoral manifesto.

    • Jo says:

      I stopped tuning in to Radio 101 since the turn the programmes took re the divorce issue.

    • Kenneth Cassar says:

      [Etil – This whole situation could have been avoided by just waiting two years and including the divorce legislation in both parties’ electoral manifesto].

      That would never have happened.

    • A. Charles says:

      I think that in a week’s time I will be put into the category of apostate as I will be voting YES but deep down I will still be a Christian.

    • Pete says:

      I am also one of those who stopped tuning in to Radio 101 and also NET TV. I will be back again to these stations when they start discussing the evil attempt to hide the 500 Euro weekly increase + other hidden allowances which the Prime Minister and the bunch of arrogant ministers gave themselves when we only got a misery of 1,16.

      So guys let’s unite and give these people the lesson they deserve. SO VOTE YES and give them something to chew. YES TO DIVORCE.

  6. kev says:

    An important email is doing the rounds on the European Parliament webmail. It’s very popular with pagans, agnostics and atheists.

    Here’s why:


    Our Lady Apparations at Borġ in-Nadur , Birzebbuġa ,Malta , every Wednesday at 7.00pm .

    (P330) Message of 18th May 2011, given at Borg in-Nadur

    My dear children and my children – the ones of my heart! This is for Fr Hayden and Fr David to pass on to the people.

    A dialogue between the Lady and Jonathan Cassar Torreggiani by means of Angelik ensued.

    The Lady: Jonathan, if you happen to put it into your head to import a new item, what would you do then?

    Jonathan: I would first check whether there is a demand for the item on the local market and then I would search for what I have in mind.

    The Lady: What would you do in case your brother or associates happen to disagree with you, and yet you remain adamant, being convinced that there is a demand for the product on the local market?

    Jonathan: I would attempt to expose all the reasons in favour of the product.

    The Lady: And naturally, you would try to convince them, would you not?

    Jonathan: Yes, I would persist in trying to get them to see my point.

    The Lady: Besides your arguments, would it not help to have it advertised on the media so as to have good sales?

    Jonathan: It is important that people get to know about the item, otherwise I would have brought it in vain – were no one to know about it.

    The Lady: Jonathan you have answered well. Well done!

    My children and my own little ones! Are you still not seeing it? Are you not realizing, observing and experiencing? Indeed, my children, at present what is taking place in your country is similar to a sale by auction of something.

    My Son Jesus sent me years before, for me to foretell these happenings in your country. And by way of making it clear to all: it is not only these last few months that I have been delivering these messages to Angelik. I have been telling you about them for years. There might be those who paid attention to me, while in the case of others, nothing happened.

    Such is today’s situation, my children: marriage is not simply a contract. Marriage is a sacrament. Indeed, I repeat it: marriage is not just a contract, but also a sacrament. You may not play around with marriage. It is not a game, nor a joke. You may not stretch it at will: lengthening or shortening it. Remember that it is a sacrament.

    Maybe the ones who are bringing this about are at present enjoying the applause – because within the population a number are found who are in accord with them. No, my children, do not rejoice in this. Rejoice when they give you a clap after having faced problems or difficulties or doubts within your marriage and emerge from them of one accord through prayer and physical intimacy. It is then that you ought to rejoice, since you would be the ones to have emerged victorious.

    My children, I am pleading with you tonight: do not cast away the beautiful things you hold within your country. Take care of your belongings – or rather, make them even better. Be exemplary for other countries. Be exemplary for Europe, my children. Do not be weak. Do not be cowardly. Be yourselves the ones to take the first step. Be exemplary for Europe.

    Thank you for having listened to my call.


    I don’t usually mock religion, but this is getting ridiculous.

    The Philippines in the Mediterranean and proud of it!.

  7. Rover says:

    The dishonesty in this so-called debate leaves me speechless.

    Anyway I got my cheap flight to do my bit.

    • ciccio2011 says:

      Which bit, Ronnie? Ruining Airmalta’s financial position further?

      I hope this thing about cheap flights will not show up in the business plan submitted to the EU Commission, otherwise we will soon have to swim to European destination – unless we bring back SeaMalta.

  8. Kenneth Cassar says:

    Have family pets been consulted yet?

    • Fenech M says:

      Ma nafx kif ma giethomx f’ rashom tal-Le li ser ikun hemm mohqrija tal-annimali bid-divorzju.

      Ahjar ma taghtihomx ideat, Kenneth, ma jmorrux jikkonsultaw lil ghaqdiet tal-annimali wkoll.

  9. Magrin says:

    Divorce does not destroy marriages. Divorce only facilitates the legal responsibility of both partners towards their offspring and each other, when the partnership irremediably falls apart.

    In Australia, where I live, a divorce is not granted willy-nilly and without financial constraints on and to both partners.

    Even de facto partnerships have to be dissolved legally and the financial gains acquired through the partnership have to be split 50/50.

    This should be made clear by the proponents of the Yes Vote and not let the forces of darkness dictate, whether they come from the left or right.

  10. Kenneth Cassar says:

    Quote of the week:

    “(Divorce) can be imposed by a husband, who has committed a fault in the marriage, on his wife even if she does not want it for reasons of love, for example.” – Arthur Galea Salomone.


    [Daphne – I really do not know why these well-meaning gentlemen insist on portraying divorce as something men do to women, while portraying men as cads and women as Madonnas. That is so far from reality.]

    • Fenech M says:

      I think that if the husband betrays the wife, it would be the wife and not vice-versa who seeks a divorce.

      At that is what happens to normal people.

      • Moggy says:

        NOT according to Zwieg Bla Divorzju, it seems, Fenech M. Only yesterday we had Joyce Cassar telling us (or rather yelling at us) – on Xarabank – that the least likely persons to look for remarriage are those women who have suffered a separation because they just cannot ever trust (a man) again.

        Men, it seems, are the source of all evil: they leave their families, find new lovers, come up with – and open – cases for divorce to get rid of their wives, and so on.

        Women, it seems, are another kettle of fish. They are usually the victims who get left “bla raġuni”, sit forever with the kids waiting for their husbands to come back to their loving arms, suffer all the psychological and repercussions and trust issues and hardly – if ever – look for divorce.

        Someone, please, tell these people that – all over the world – it’s mainly women who look to commence proceedings because most of them, having gone through a rotten marriage, want to close a door on it and get on with their lives.

        Why are women being depicted as helpless victims?

      • Kenneth Cassar says:

        [Moggy – Why are women being depicted as helpless victims?]

        Because to the religious right, the ideal woman is a helpless one.

  11. Luigi says:

    A bunch of physically weak klutz

  12. Steve Forster says:

    Has Malta really become this parochial?

    I truly give up. How did we ever manage to get into Europe.

    Seriously, the calibre of politician has dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. A lot of the MPs could really do well in Nigeria.

  13. Interested Bystander says:


    His reputation is worth less than a decent sofa.

  14. el bandido guapo says:

    Saw Joyce wossername-no-to-divorce on Xarabank.

    As with the rest of the antis, for lack of logical reason, she ended up getting rather hot under the collar.

    What came across bigtime during her stressful moments was that her number one bugbear with divorce, even though she probably would not ordinarily let on, is the possibility of an unfaithful / abusive / “bad” husband having the right to remarry after leaving his first “victim” wife.

    In short, her “argument” was that it was not right for this to happen, at all costs.

    It5 seems she has a lot of pent-up anger (I don’t know her background, but she did let on a teeny bit) and as long as an ex did not get his way then that’s all that matters.

    She repeated this point, indeed that was about all the point she made.

    At all costs, must not the roving ex-husband remarry – her anger was such that she never once considered that the victim wife might very well wish for a second chance with someone decent. L’aqwa li tpattihielu, hekk. Cutting off one’s nose to…

    Deborab Schembri’s performance was somewhat less than scintillating, but hey, you either have it or you don’t, and the “Christians for divorce” fellow started off surprisingly well but fell headlong into the divorce-abortion association trap, whereas “gran parte” of the antis were nothing but clowns.

    • David says:

      I must say I’m impressed with Deborah Schembri on the whole. She’s what saved the face of the IVA campaign, while Pullicino Orlando was its Achilles’ heel.

      Her debate on TVM was ace! In spite of pressing questions from NET, RTK and a seemingly anti-divorce PBS journalist, she was calm, friendly, kept her cool and left no stone unturned from the questions asked.

      However, if you put Deborah in a Xarabank jungle debate you can’t expect her to be scintillating. How can she cope with logic and reason, when confronted by the bunch of Neanderthals on that programme?

      I think the live poll during the program, whether or not one intends to vote, was pretty much a pulse of the debate though.

      During the lacklustre performance by IVA in the first two debate slots, Yvonne vs Anna and Nikita from StandUp vs young guy from LE, less than 48% were saying they were going to vote. As soon as the fanatic from Kristu Iva Divorzju Le came on, followed by Dr. Bernard Whatever and Joyce Cassar’s tantrums, the people claiming they were going to vote started increasing.

      While this may not determine exactly the result of the referendum, it’s pretty much a barometer of how much Maltese people, in spite of being a tad conservative, do not feel at home with the loonies and what their knee-jerk reaction is to such obsessives and control freaks.

      • jb says:

        I didn’t watch the whole programme but from the parts I did get to see, I got the distinct impression that the LE speakers were wiping the floor with the IVA people, at least until the final section with Deborah. And even she managed to score a couple of own goals.

        I’m amazed that an experienced politician like Michael Falzon should let himself be hoodwinked so easily by his opponent. I suppose it’s because he retired from active politics before the Xarabank era.

        The clause that says ‘children should not be exposed to third parties’ is a common one in separation agreements, and the IVA movement should have been prepared to discuss what would happen should one of the spouses remarry.

        The Alternattiva lady gave the best answer by noting that the situation would be the same as after an annulment, but I still haven’t heard a complete explanation.

      • jb says:

        And by the way, does anybody else think that Deborah Schembri is a political star in the making? She’s still quite young and has done well in her baptism of fire.

    • ciccio2011 says:

      Dear David, Ghaziz Hija fi Kristu, I must say that in my view, it was a real TV moment when that gentleman from the Moviment-Whatever-Divorzju-Le came up with that picture of Jesus Christ. Actually, he was very informed about the Church teachings.

      And I liked it when Dr. Bernard-Le-Ghad-Divorzju put Michael Falzon in difficulty when he stated that when a ship is sinking, it is men who make it to safety. If you did not watch that bit, I suggest you watch it again. I do not know if he increased the likelihood of the No vote, but he surely trapped Michael Falzon with his answer.

    • jb says:

      ‘At all costs, must not the roving ex-husband remarry…’

      Yes, that was her main argument. And I think this will resonate with the thinking of many Maltese. We all know of one or more cads (and whatever the female equivalent is) who have dumped their spouse for (apparently) little or no reason.

      The referendum will come down to whether the majority of voters want to give the abandoned spouse an opportunity to rebuild their life with another person, or would rather stop the errant party from remarrying, thus regularising and legitimising their position.

      Well, that and the Catholic question.

  15. Carmel Scicluna says:

    Il-Mama’ ghaziza taghna bassret ir-referendum fuq id-divorzju sa minn Novembru, 2010 fuq l-Gholja ta’ Borg in-Nadur, B’Bugia. Dan kien kliemha preciz :

    BORG IN-NADUR: 17 ta’ Novembru, 2010:

    Uliedi, illejla tajtkom prova ċara. Iva wliedi, għalhekk Ibni Ġesù qed jibgħatni hawn, fuq dil-gżira. Għalhekk għażilt dil-familja kważi ħames snin ilu. Għalhekk ridt lil Angelik u lil Catherine. Iva wliedi, Ibni Ġesù ma riedx jara żwieġ imfarrak. Għalhekk ħames snin ilu bagħatni hawnhekk, nerġa’ ngħidilkom. Ġejt inħabbrilkom minn qabel x’se jseħħ fuq dil-gżira. Kien hawn min fehemni u oħrajn lanqas biss taw widen.

    Ftit taż-żmien ieħor se jkollkom għażla f’idejkom intom stess. Oqogħdu attenti x’tagħżlu wliedi. Iġġibux il-gwaj fuqkom.

    Fejnhom fil-familji l-imħabba, l-għaqda, il-maħfra, is-sinċerità u t-talb flimkien? Fejnhom? Għalhekk illum kulħadd qed ifarfar minn fuq spallejh mal-ewwel intopp li jinqala’.

    Iva wliedi, il-qalb tiegħi u l-qalb ta’ Ibni Ġesù muġugħin minħabba fikom. Jiena muġugħa għax jiena omm li nħoss għalikom.

    Akkost ta’ kollox uliedi, jiġri x’jiġri, ibqgħu għidu: “LE GHAD-DIVORZJU, LE GHAD-DIVORZJU!”

    U għidu r-rużarju u ġiegħlu lil ħaddieħor jgħid ir-rużarju.

    Grazzi talli smajtu s-sejħa tiegħi.

  16. Carlos Bonavia says:

    This is a heart-felt, honest cry from the tortured soul of father Montebello. Please read and spare a thought for a truly besieged learned gentleman :
    May he find peace

    • ciccio2011 says:

      Did this reverend get an early cheap flight on Airmalta from Mexico?

    • jae says:

      This ‘besieged learned gentleman’ is an egocentric constantly yearning for public attention. This piece of teatrin is meant to impress people like you, Carlos.

  17. P Borg says:

    On a similar note, I don’t understand how a newpaper like Malta Today boasts of “the company’s belief in independent journalism” (as per below link) when in fact it has taken sides on the divorce issue.

    No self-respecting newspaper editor would utter those words when the newspaper is openly supporting the Yes Movement.

    It’s simple: a newspaper is free to take sides on an issue which is dividing the Maltese population but then you cannot promote yourself as being independent, you simply cannot have both.

    [Daphne – I don’t think you understand what editorial independence means. Yours is a common misunderstanding. An independent newspaper is free of control by vested interests in OWNERSHIP. Il-Mument and It-Torca are not independent, for example, because they are owned by two political organisations with distinct vested interests: the Nationalist Party and the General Workers Union. Editorial independence is not the same thing as the absence of an editorial line. All the best independent newspapers have an editorial line on major issues, and all independent newspapers should have one if they want to be taken seriously. The editorial line is the stance taken by the newspaper on certain issues: in favour of divorce legislation, against EU membership, that kind of thing.

    Your mistake about the independence of newspapers and what it means is exactly the same mistake some people make about me. Because I openly support the Nationalist Party in general elections, they say I am not independent. I am perfectly independent. I would not be independent if I were paid by the Nationalist Party, which I am not and never have been.]

    • dudu says:

      One thing came out clearly in this referendum ‘debate’ – that Malta needs a collective crash course in the basic principles of democracy and its proper functioning.

      • H.P. Baxxter says:

        There’s an obligatory 100-hour course for permanent residency applicants from non-Schengen countries on precisely this subject.

      • ciccio2011 says:

        HP, Gaddafi is likely to be interested in this when he makes up his mind to transfer to Malta.

      • H.P. Baxxter says:

        I’ll make the necessary arrangements, Ciccio. The lectures are held at ETC, Hal Far. Please welcome our new student, Muammar from Libya. Muammar, will you sit between Oxana and Jamal, if Goodluck will move to that desk there, please.

  18. pippo says:

    Iva, John, veru u anke hemm certu sezzjoni ta’ nies hawn Malta li huma bhalma kienu jghidulna l-Inglizi “Maltese goats”, ghaliex, ghax hekk ser jaghmlu fir-referendun ghax il-bodbod taghhom qal Le allura jghidu le huma wkoll.

    Dawk huma il-moghoz ta’ zewg saqajn, John, li ghandna bil-bosta hawn Malta, ikbar minn dawn il-unions u l-ghaqdiet.

  19. pippo says:

    Etil ghaliex qed tinkwieta fuq l-isqof fuq Radio 101?

    Mintoff qabel kull elezzjoni li kienet issir kiem immur jiehu ritratt mal-papa.

  20. Matt says:

    I watched Xarabank yesterday. For the life of me I couldn’t understand how intelligent and academically accomplished people get so wrapped up in a heated debate on an issue that is so unimportant in life.

    I was embarrassed for them. What a waste of time and energy.

    There are currently many legal means for the new couple to make their relationship viable.

    If divorced people find love again they can make a nice home for themselves and to hell with the divorce legislation.

  21. ciccio2011 says:

    Daphne, regarding your question in the header, is it of any consolation if for the time being we settle with the stand taken by Malta’s Gay Buster, I mean Pastor Manche, on the subject of divorce as disclosed to the Times?


  22. red nose says:

    All those “really” interested in holding balanced thoughts on the introduction of divorce law, should carefully read Adrian Vassallo’s piece in today’s (Saturday) The Times – really food for thought.

  23. Pat Zahra says:

    Daphne dear, my comment below contains bad language because I’ve had it up to here with the issue of marriage breakdown. Clean it up as you see fit.


    Edwin Vassallo wanted to ask teachers about the effect of divorce on children. You told him off because children are badly affected by any form of marriage breakup, whether separation, annulment or divorce, so he had no right to imply that divorce is somehow worse.

    I am a teacher, and since nobody’s asking, I’m going to tell you: IF YOU HAVE CHILDREN STAY TOGETHER. I couldn’t give a half ounce of fermented rat droppings how unhappy you are, it’s nothing to how unhappy you make your children. You’re adults, you made your choice, now damn well live with it and stop whining.

    Every separated parent I meet always tells me how much better off the children are now. Balls! Children in tattered uniforms and dirty sports gear because no one mends or washes the clothes; children with no lunches and no homework because ‘I slept at Dad’s and his girl friend doesn’t do lunches’ – and apparently Dad can’t figure out how a sandwich is made either.

    Children sleeping out while each parent thinks the child is with the other. There’s one insane arrangement where BOTH the parents moved out and they take it in turns to babysit the children who now, effectively, live alone.

    Subject option time comes and goes, O level time comes and goes, no one at home offers any guidance, or a bit of pressure to make them realise that education is important.

    Parents wrangling over who pays while, months later, the child still has no books.

    Children who answer back, threaten, foul mouth, won’t listen to reason and who are unresponsive to adult authority because both parents are too busy trying to buy their love with piercings and tattoos. Fourteen- and fifteen-year-olds getting pregnant on purpose so that they can form a family of their own to replace the shattered mess theirs has become.

    I have had pupils whose fathers died in accidents at work, in firework factory explosions, whose mothers died of cancer . . . time eventually heals this sort of loss, but the effects of marriage breakdown never heal.

    And if you want proof that parents who separate are just arseholes playing at being grown ups get this: once they get what they want and separate they NEVER STOP FIGHTING. Years and years later they’re still bitching and back-stabbing and quarrelling.

    I’ve had children whose parents separated when they were in kindergarten and who are still bloody at it thirteen years later! Idiots, the lot of them. Stupid, criminally insane fools: put a pink and tender baby in their arms and in just fourteen years they screw it up completely. Jaqq x’nies!

    • jae says:

      Thank you Pat Zahra for being so frank.

      Many genuinely believe that society will be better off with divorce legislation. Your piece should bring them into their senses.

      There are some people who are irresponsible and too selfish to realise that their first responsibility is to their children and not to themselves.

      Divorce will give them an added tool with which to shatter other people’s lives and eventually their own.

      • Dudu says:

        How is the ban on divorce keeping the selfish from acting selfishly, pray tell us?

      • el bandido guapo says:

        You evidently failed to comprehend Pat’s message completely which is not surprising considering that you also fail to understand the very simple fact that the existence of divorce does not cause a marriage to fail.

        Oh, need I add. We don’t have divorce, so the sort of parents that Pat was talking about, WERE STILL MARRIED.

        Something else to think about. Close to me, very close, three couples are very happily married simply because of the existence of divorce. “Ta’ Barra” of course.

        Now, when deciding how to vote, start from logical reason and end up with a conclusion, rather than the other way round, which does not work.

      • jae says:

        In answer to both ‘dudu’ and el ‘bandido guapo’:

        With divorce legislation, there will be more marital breakups because it changes the very nature of marriage.

        I have seen vox pop on TV were some (young) respondents seem to think that they will be spectators in their marriage “we will get married and then see how it goes.” The attitude is almost like tossing a coin – what they are actually saying is “let’s toss a coin and hope for the best.”

        Marriage is a commitment for life. The commitment is not just on the day of the wedding but everyday, every hour and every minute. If one is unwilling to work at his/her marriage, the chances of failure are significantly higher.

        With the introduction of divorce legislation, the norm will become a temporary commitment – “till it suits us”. “If the toss of the coin is unfavourable, we move on.” This is the norm in, say, the UK. Why should one work at his/her marriage, if it is perceived to be a temporary commitment anyway?

        With that attitude, there will be more marital breakups and yes, there will be more selfish and irresponsible people who will use the system, divorce legislation included, to shatter other people’s lives.

    • Patrik says:

      If you are anything to go by, at least we now know for sure why we shouldn’t listen to teachers.

      Let’s take a simple case: Husband runs off with another woman. Now in your head the wife is bound to stay married to that man until she dies.

      • Pat Zahra says:


        What I am saying, loud and clear, is this:


        DO NOT LEAVE
        GROW UP


      • Patrik says:

        You didn’t answer to the case in point. IF the husband runs off, why do you want the woman to remain married? I heard you the first time, you know.

      • Pat Zahra says:

        In my head the mother should remain single. Children often don’t react well to having a new man in the house. Do you know how often we have cases of girls who have been pestered by their mother’s boyfriend? And how often the mother takes his side against the daughter?

        The loss of the father is hard enough to cope with (and the mother’s as well – it’s not just men who run out on the family you know). For the spouse who becomes the children’s sole guardian, a new partner is a complication that rarely does the children any good.

      • Patrik says:

        Pat Zahra:

        A new man in the house can create tension, but with the right man it can be of great benefit. Children do well in having a father figure around. Of course if the guy’s an arse then it’s a different story, but then the problem isn’t having a guy around – it’s having the wrong guy around.

        In Sweden having what we call a “plastic dad” (no idea why it’s called that) – namely another man who steps in after a divorce/separation – has become normative and I can assure you this is in many cases a positive thing for the family.

        You are trying to present a moulded version of a family where everyone has to fit in and when they don’t you prefer to collectively punish. Every family unit is different and the law has to cater for all versions, while still protecting the individuals inside that family unit.

        You voting “no” in a few days inhibits those alternative family units simply because they have chosen a pattern which doesn’t fit your view. That is, in every aspect of the word, intolerant.

    • @ Pat Zahra

      Everything you said has to be true. You won’t gain anything from making up what you said.

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but I am left with the impression because divorce is bad because all of what you mentioned. I beg to differ. Divorce is not bad because of all the horrendous things you mentioned, rather everything that you said happens because divorce is bad. It is intrinsically evil. (Separations and declarations of nullity are bad too, but that’s not what we’re discussing here)

      Only people who a) do not see the bigger picture or b) see the bigger picture but still do what suits them best can vote in favour of divorce

      • Pat Zahra says:

        I was talking about marital break up in all its forms. Put simply, if you have children stay together – if you don’t have children do as you please.

        The fact of their parents refusing to live together destroys children. This is a fact I live with every single day.

        It suits some people to pretend that children get over it. They don’t.

        As for the vote for divorce. . . to people with children it shouldn’t make a blind bit of difference. Childless couples might (only might, mind you) find it useful.

      • Kenneth Cassar says:

        @ Pat Zahra:

        What if you want to stay with your spouse for the sake of the children, and the other doesn’t?

        @ Reuben Scicluna:

        Now here’s a first! Declarations of nullity are bad? Please explain.

  24. Interested Bystander says:

    Do you agree with the introduction of the option of divorce in the case of a married couple who has been separated or has been living apart for at least four (4) years, and where there is no reasonable hope for reconciliation between the spouses, whilst adequate maintenance is guaranteed and the children are protected?

    I have spent long hours reading this question.

    I do agree that divorce should be an option under our current system when a couple has been legally separated for four years.

    In fact, it’s the only thing missing from the current system and will tidy up the legal side.

    Having been through a legal separation, everything was dealt with and there was nothing left out.

    A divorce dissolves the marriage contract and thats that.

    However, I don’t agree this process can be bypassed by someone moving out of the house for four years and then starting some vague divorce process.

    That’s why I am voting No.

    • xuxka says:

      “I don’t agree this process can be bypassed by someone moving out of the house for four years and then starting some vague divorce process.”

      Interested Bystander – it is very obvious that there will be difficulties there because one has bring proof of having lived apart for 4 years.

      Imagine the case where the wife institutes divorce proceedings saying that it’s been 4 years since they’ve lived in the same house. The husband, not wanting her to get her way, will point out that she’s lying. It’d be her word against his so she’d have to bring reasonable proof and evidence/witnesses to show that it was true.

      On the other hand, legal separation whether ‘bonaria’ or through the law courts, needs no such proof.

      That’s why I am voting Yes.

      • Interested Bystander says:

        “or has been living apart for at least four (4) years”

        This is why I vote No.

        I believe strongly that the current process of legal separation should come first before a divorce is granted.

    • el bandido guapo says:

      IB, the details are unimportant (at this point in time).

      The law as it ends up being written may bear very little semblance to what is being currently suggested.

      And it will of course be subject to revision.

  25. pippo says:

    thallatx il hass mal bass. x`ghandu x`jaqsam nghatu risposta lil tal pn billi nivvutaw iva. tkunx wiehed min dawk li itghalmu kif ikunu “CWIEC”

  26. pippo says:

    dan hu l argument li gab wiehed li ser jivvota iva,
    qal hekk:- bhall meta hemm bicca ghodda ser ingiba biex tkun hemm, allavolja ma ghandiex bzonna, iggifieri dan ser jivvota iva mhux ghax ghandu bzonnu imma ghal li jista jinqala.
    dan ghandu 58 sena, imma wkoll wiehed min dawk li il kap tieghu qed jghidlu biex jivvota iva.
    maaaaaaaaaa x`nies
    xhin nara din il mentalita nithaq jew nikbi,
    nivvota le

    • Carlos Bonavia says:

      It’s called voting to have freedom of choice. Now you go and cry or laugh all you want – you don’t know any better.

  27. denis says:

    I am voting No, just because Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando proposed the bill. I don’t trust him.

  28. Michael Falzon says:

    Hi ciccio whatever,

    Just saw your comment about me.

    I admit Bernard Grech tricked me on Xarabank.

    That’s where LE are much better than IVA – at misleading and tricking people.

    • ciccio2011 says:

      Michael, I meant no offence. I just applauded Bernard Grech for the way he led you into it. I would have reacted in the same way you did, believe me.

      I actually admire you for your years of invaluable work in the Eddie Fenech Adami governments which used to make people like me proud to vote for them.

    • @ Michael Falzon

      I wouldn’t put it exactly like that.

      I’d say he exposed you for what you really are i.e. a clueless amateur defending the indefensible.

    • A.Attard says:

      He did not trick you at all I suggest you view the recording, you were very quick on the draw behaving like a mintoffian

Leave a Comment