An army of conscientious objectors
This is my column in The Malta Independent today.
It’s a damn shame we have all this fuss right now about MPs and their conscience, with the prime minister leading a sort of Dad’s Army of conscientious objectors. It sets the most dreadfully bad example to others.
Call me a pessimist, but I think I can see what’s coming up next: judges who voted No to divorce legislation telling us that they will refuse to preside over divorce hearings because their conscience – armed to the teeth with threats and weapons, no doubt – will not allow them to do so.
This is not far-fetched. It chimes perfectly with the stance of those MPs who will neither vote No nor Yes to divorce legislation but will absent themselves from the parliamentary chamber instead. If they can do it, and justify themselves by polishing off their conscience and bringing it out for a show ‘n’ tell, then so can judges. They will argue that if MPs can abstain on matters of divorce, then so can they.
Monsignor Said Pullicino’s unpleasantly aggressive homily, at a mass said to mark the opening of the so-called forensic year last October, has prepared the way for this kind of fuss-pot thinking. And it’s already a bad sign that even our courts of justice can’t separate church and state and must mark the start of their year’s work with a religious ceremony, which is completely incorrect and sends out entirely the wrong message.
“Those who cooperate in any way in the introduction of divorce, those who apply the law and those who use it….will break God’s law and commit a grave sin,” the judicial vicar said that day at St John’s Cathedral.
So, may judges refuse to apply the law on grounds of conscience? What happens if they press on and refuse to cooperate regardless of what is said, given that they are answerable only to parliament in matters like this?
Not only did parliament fail to impeach Judge Depasquale, now retired, for staying home and refusing to work at all for years – because of conscientious objection to something or other – but MPs cannot in good conscience (that word again) attempt to impeach a judge for doing exactly the same thing they have done.
Sometimes, when you fail to take the absolutely correct step, the wise decision, the repercussions haunt you or others for decades. This is one such time. Instead of thinking of their selfish ego and their all-consuming conscience, MPs should think of the country, and what their conscience and their ego stand to cost us in terms of up-ahead trouble and strife.
If they don’t want to have to deal with judges kicking up a fuss, then perhaps they shouldn’t be kicking up a fuss themselves, and should lead by example instead.
What we are enduring today, 35 years down the line, is the direct consequence of Dom Mintoff’s behaviour in taking divorce off the agenda when, under his watch, parliament legislated for civil marriage. That was the time to do it, for the glaringly obvious reason that all civil contracts, marriage included, may be dissolved.
What Mintoff’s government did was introduce a system of civil contracts – marriage – without introducing the parallel system for their dissolution.
Why he did this is anybody’s guess, though perhaps Karmenu Vella, one of the oldest surviving dinosaurs from that period, might know. Was it simple cowardice (even overbearing men have their weak points) or was it a trade-off with the Archbishop’s Curia – “If you don’t kick up an awful fuss about civil marriage, we’ll drop divorce”?
For all this time we have lived with an anomalous legal situation, and what is stranger still is that none of the individuals who say they have been agitating for divorce for years have challenged it at the European Court of Human Rights. If two people have signed a contract and wish to dissolve it, the state cannot come along and say: “No, ta, you’re not allowed.”
But that is what has been happening for all this time.
It didn’t help that every government since 1975, Labour and Nationalist alike and for very different reasons, has been hamstrung by a mixture of fear and religious fervour, making divorce the Great Big Elephant in the room. But as every psychologist will tell you, serious problems which are not talked about or dealt with don’t just disappear. They grow and become ever more complicated.
The prime minister and some of those around him were clearly taken aback by the overwhelming vote in favour of divorce legislation, and the considerable indifference of those who didn’t even bother to vote. But this is because they have been in denial for all this time.
They had decided that Malta is ‘different’, that we Maltese have no need of divorce and most certainly do not want it, when the reality is that we just got so tired of being an international freak show, the Andaman Islanders of marital law.
50 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
And what about the consciences of those poor people at the public registry who annotate foreign divorces?
What if they refused?
Down the line in 1995 there was the agreement endorsed by the Nationalist Administration and the Malta Curia which reversed various decisions taken in 1975.
[Daphne – Yes, and disgraceful ones at that. I suspect that much of the Curia’s antagonism towards divorce legislation is not – as Philip Sciberras claimed – because of loss of revenue (I thought that claim ridiculous) but because of loss of control hard-won in 1995. Divorce legislation renders that 1995 agreement ultimately redundant, because nobody is going to bother going for a civil annulment when they can go for divorce.]
One might suspect that some MPs are actually banking on judges taking that position….
Somewhat like guerilla warfare against the “divorce” occupier of the Holy Land…
The referendum wasn’t binding. What part of that don’t you understand? If the PN sticks to it’s guns and takes its antidivorce stance to the election it would swing the vote to its favour and win the election.
The majority don’t want divorce. Religion has nothing to do with it.
The YES vote was an anticlerical protest vote. Once the dust has settled people will realise that no-fault divorce is an evil we can do without.
Dream on.
Lino, you make some interesting comments, in my view.
“Religion has nothing to do with it.”
I disagree with you that The divorce issue has been declared a matter of conscience at the outset, precisely because it is based on one’s morals, as Edwin Vassallo and Eddie Fenech Adami have been advocating.
“The referendum wasn’t binding.”
In theory yes, but pragmatically, it is a democratic expression and its result is now morally binding. Its result is now another fact on the MPs conscience.
“If the PN sticks to it’s guns and takes its antidivorce stance to the election it would swing the vote to its favour and win the election.
The majority don’t want divorce.”
Now here I cannot disagree with this statement. Because so many decided not to cast their vote, and we do not have enough public information about those voters (I believe the parties do), then it is possible that within the total electorate there is a majority against divorce. I have seen interpretations of that block of voters favouring both sides.
However, I believe that July has already been mentioned as a month by which we will have divorce legislation – if that means legislation signed and delivered, then I cannot see why the PN should stick to its guns. I hope the PM does not have in mind to stretch this process and tie it to general elections – I do not think it is necessary.
Elementary reasoning tells you that the non-voters fall in one of three categories, namely: voters abroad who could not, or perhaps did not wish to make it, voters who wanted to vote yes but were too scared of eternal damnation, and those who couldn’t be bothered.
Anyway majorities are reckoned by votes cast. The last time somebody tried to factor in No voters he was laughed out of the political scene, permanently … far from winning an election wouldn’t you say?
You’re obviously living in cuckoo land.
How is life in a bubble? Plenty of echoes I would presume.
A non-binding referendum you said? Then what happened two Saturdays ago was simply an “ear-to-the-ground”, “feel-the-pulse” exercise according to your certissimu conclusions.
Dream on, Lino.
If the bill fails to be carried, we can only hold MPs responsible for that (all MPs, both side I mean), and calling an election doesn’t solve a thing because one party has taken an official position against divorce, the other is sitting on the fence. who do you choose to make sure that the result of the referendum is respected?
What a sad state the country is in. 400 thousand or so people, and we fool ourselves into believing that our 69 MPs have a huge job. Compare that to the UK for instance, where each MP represents roughly 100 thousand people, but our MPs represent no more than 6000 people each.
Is this guy a troll or does he live in the remotest parts of Gozo? He can’t be all there; he can’t be serious.
What part of the “YES” vote won do you not understand you numpty!
Lino, if the majority didn’t want divorce, they should have voted so. Those who did not vote declared that the issue is of no relevance to them and as such have lost their opportunity to participate in the decision.
I was against this type of divorce and I voted no. The majority voted YES and whatever type of discussion, procedures or voting pattern, the government is “morally and ethically” bound (I hate to use these words but cannot find others) to introduce divorce legislation. End of Story! At least unless someone else raises the issue in the future!
“If the PN sticks to it’s guns and takes its antidivorce stance to the election it would swing the vote to its favour and win the election.”
Geez, the PN should take you on as an electoral strategist.
If that were the case the PN would not only lose the election but would remain in opposition for twenty years. Such stance would not only antagonise Yes voters (including a sizeable portion of PN voters) but a portion of No voters as well. Believe it or not, for some, respect for democracy is even more important then a ban on divorce.
If you really believe that, your head must be buried so deeply in the sand it’s probably sticking out somewhere in Australia
U l-partnerxipp rebaħ, Lin.
Catholic Malta! L-aqwa li nobdu l-isqof billi nivvutaw “LE” ghad-divorzju. Halli mmorru naghmlu abort u l-girien ma’ jafux – http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110609/local/51-abortions-performed-on-maltese-women-in-the-uk-last-year.369790
Not to spoil your evening, but have a peek at Saviour Balzan on One TV, sounding 100% like a Labour spokesman, with his hatred for the PN oozing out of his ears. Any bets on him being the next PL candidate to be announced?
Saviour Balzan will never commit himself to the PL; that would be too straightforward and is not his style. Remember he’s still Dalli’s man and Dalli intends to re-enter the Maltese political scene from within the PN.
In his dreams, Antoine.
Balzan reminded me of Danny Kaye in that old film “The court jester”.
http://www.youtube.com/user/drocktelevision?feature=mhee
What a frightening scenario; Daphne, I hope you are wrong.
[Daphne – http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110609/letters/Members-of-Parliament-s-unabridged-escape-route-2-.369701 ]
I guess Fr Joe Borg would have to call him a “Catholic Shylock”.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110603/blogs/secularist-shylocks-on-the-rampage.368754
If Fr Joe Borg is so interested in respecting minority rights (the Catholic right in this case) then he and his church should respect the rights of all the minorities on this island in all matters by stepping back and allowing us to live our lives .
The solution should be simple. If one’s conscience conflicts with the requirements of one’s job, all one has to do is quit the job.
…or made to quit…in MPs’ case, through our votes come election time.
…..there would be plenty who would agree with you , but not for YOUR particular reason.
Couldn’t agree more.
Wow! Real democracy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/09/iceland-crowdsourcing-constitution-facebook
When I was a child we had a neighbour whose son had won a music scholarship and had moved to Italy.
Gradually, the air there worked itself into him and he shed many of our taboos. I remember particularly the day I arrived home to find her in tears in the sitting room and telling Mum that he had (shock! horror!) stopped going to Mass on Sundays and that he had (further shock, horror) moved in with a fellow student, a GIRL!!
Only later did I understand my father’s wry remark later that evening that at least it was a girl he had moved in with.
What I mean to say is, this government has, as it were, sent us to live within the EU. The atmosphere is changing us and now that inevitable has happened, it should stop weeping on the sofa, blow its nose and accept that things will never be the same.
If there was a vote for the referendum, why did MPs accept to vote for or against a non-binding consultative referendum?
Why didn’t they (especially those in favour of divorce legislation) insist on a binding referendum? I think linocert is making a very valid point here as also I myself have been stating in my previous posts.
[Daphne – No such thing as a ‘binding referendum’. Besides, if we have reached the stage where parliament ignores a referendum result just because it isn’t contractual, then we might as well give up.]
Also, why is everyone labelling ALL the MP ‘no’ contenders as having a religious reason where for argument’s sake they might very well have social or fiscal arguments against the introduction of divorce legislation.
I have half-heartedly voted yes in the referendum for the simple reason that such a sensitive issue, (which once legislated cannot be possibly withdrawn without chaotic consequences), must be presented to the people in all its details, followed by serious informative debates and only THEN the electorate is made to take a binding vote.
This whole saga has been made a mess from it’s very beginning, with a rich mix of unethical, political, selfish,illogical, fundamentalist agendas coming from all quarters of parliament, the media and the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ movements themselves.
All this divorce business reminds me of a joke…
Five surgeons are discussing the best patients to operate on.
The first surgeon says, ‘I like to see accountants on my operating table because when you open them up, everything inside is numbered.’
The second responds, ‘Yes, but you should try electricians! Everything inside them is colour-coded.’
The third surgeon says, ‘I think librarians are the best; everything inside them is in alphabetical order.’
The fourth surgeon chimes in, ‘I like construction workers. Those guys always understand when you have a few parts left over at the end, and when the job takes longer than you said it would.’
But the fifth surgeon shut them all up when he observed, ‘You’re all wrong. Politicians are the easiest to operate on. There’s no guts, no heart, no balls, no brains, and no spine
and there are only two moving parts – the mouth and the asshole – and they are interchangeable’.
Brilliant .
So I guess it’s about time to put MY conscience at peace as well, because I feel guilty whenever I work on Sundays. As far as I can remember, the Catholic Church considers working on Sundays to be wrong. Probably I’d have to do away with Saturday night shifts too. My conscience invariably starts poking some time after the stroke of midnight.
I too start the poking some time after midn…..oh sorry. I misread your comment.
Enter the Lone Ranger: http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/sixth-mep-alone-calling-ratification-for-extra-seat
Let’s say Malta goes to war and I’m called up to serve but I refuse, saying that fighting and killing people goes against my conscience, whatever the circumstances. Where would that leave me?
You wouldn’t be in the minority for sure.
It’s divorce we’re speaking about. It’s two adults wanting to dissolve a contract regulating their relationship and be free to set up a new contract with other people. So cut the melodrama with this conscience argument.
Doesn’t their conscience tell them anything about controlling other people’s lives?
It would leave you in the company of Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici, Tonio Borg, Joseph Muscat and Reno Calleja. Would you endure all that for the sake of that undefined thing called ‘conscience’. Think again. Think of KMB, and join the Maltese Fennec Legion. Onwards, on to Misrata!
[El Topo – Let’s say Malta goes to war and I’m called up to serve but I refuse, saying that fighting and killing people goes against my conscience, whatever the circumstances. Where would that leave me?].
You’d either be permitted to quit the army, or else would have to go to war (kicking and screaming, perhaps).
Pacifists don’t join armies.
Yeah. And El Topo is just an extra mouth to feed, a logistical dead weight, as it were.
I don’t know why the Bishop of Gozo got so upset about people who supported the Yes campaign, when he’s got a real wolf ‘in the skin of a lamb’ living in his diocese:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110611/local/Gozitan-priest-s-sexual-abuse-claims-reignited-on-Fox-News.370035
‘[Eddie Fenech Adami] said he believed the church had succumbed to the people’s attitude that they could decide for themselves.’
Truly unbelievable.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110611/local/pn-has-not-lost-its-soul-yet-efa.370058
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110611/local/pn-has-not-lost-its-soul-yet-efa.370058
Fenech Adami should really keep quiet, go away and play grandpa. Do these people ever call it a day and let others do the job?
This is exactly what the MLP needs – internal bickering within the PN.
The champion of democracy in the 80s urging MPs to vote NO to a civil right and against the express wish of the nation. This is a sad day.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110611/local/pn-has-not-lost-its-soul-yet-efa.370058
I am shocked by Dr. Eddie Fenech Adami’s declaration as reported by online news portals today.
How on earth can he of all people, he who fought so hard for democracy and the will of the people to be respected, now advice his Party to ignore the referendum result?
I’m afraid that if the Prime Minister votes NO for divorce legislation many valid people, even those at the core of the PN, will jump ship – and i don’t blame them. And yes, i’m a liberal PN voter and I honestly hope that they won’t push me to the edge.
His battles in those days were more clear cut. The man and his views are the same, only now a particular issue has come up that has exposed ‘Eddie’ in whole new light. To be perfectly honest I do not agree with him yet he is free to have his view.
Daphne, I remember all the fuss against civil marriage by the Roman Catholic Church and the Nationalists! Said Pullicino was on the front too!
It was one of Mintoff’s six points where because of them people were buried in unconsecrated ground, marriages held in the sacristry (when the only way to marry was through their way) and all the strife and mortal sin.
I actually know and think that as soon as priests and bishops mentioned mortal sin people again went back to those times and rebelled during the divorce referendum.
Malta’s bishop started well (did not mention any mortal sin ..as he knew that the 60s wounds are still open) but the less intelligent (or wise?) ruined all for him and his church.