Comment of the Day
Published:
June 4, 2011 at 9:10pm
This comment was posted here today.
Hibernating Away From Malta
All MPs should really stop talking about their conscience. It’s being used in the same mode and manner as “the interest of the state” in non-democratic countries.
18 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
RUBBUSH. Read Wikipida on consultative referendum in a democracy. Understand the meaning of the word CONSULTATIVE. Try to understand what children of separated couples go through. Imagine what children of divorced couples will go through. LOVE is the answer to these situations and not telling the child that you will remarry someone else. This egoism in the world has to stop. Let it NOT start in MALTA. No MP should claim to love MALTA for selfish reasons. Understand what people and children go through and vote against divorce. Do NOT reward the party divorcing because he or she is in love with someone else. Do not reward the party who leaves for someone else because of sex. Do NOT reward the party who is contributing to distroying families. To make it easier, read what parliament has done in other democratic countriies based on the Westminster model, to understand how they have voted after the approval of a consultative referendum. Furthermore, read and understand the difference between a consultative referendum and a mandatory one. I am writing about real democratic states and not “the interest of the state” in non-democratic countries. We have experienced that in 1981.
Are you for real?
Joseph Vassallo, imagine if the No had won but parliament enacted divorce legislation anyway (“Oh, didn’t you know? It was only consultative; read Wikipida.”)
What would you have said?
Joseph Vassallo, it is game over for fundamentalist principles that dictate how one should live according to a specific religion. Now have some joy in determining your own life and fate .
Would you have spoken the same had the ‘No’ won? Unfortunately (for you that is) you are clutching at straws. Let us not play with words.
The majority voted for divorce, and consultative or not, it is going to go through – no matter how much you stamp your feet.
[Joseph Vassallo – Try to understand what children of separated couples go through. Imagine what children of divorced couples will go through].
Please explain the difference.
Why don’t you ask our ‘representatives’ how many porn sites pass through Malta on the internet and how many gambling sites are registered in Malta by an act of parliament.
And while at it ask how many of them have bought shares in these gambling sites. When asking exclude no one especially these chest beaters.
“Try to understand what children of separated couples go through. Imagine what children of divorced couples will go through.”
If the parents are already separated what difference at all does it make whether or not there is a legal document somewhere saying that they are divorced? Do the children really care about such legal terms?
If they are young enough to be vulnerable I don’t think they will care about or even understand such legal intricacies.
They are already suffering today and will suffer no more or no less with or without divorce.
That is NOT the point. The parents should care!
Mr Vassallo,
Whether or not the parents should care has no bearing on whether or not there should be divorce legislation, and vice versa. They are two entirely separate issues.
Divorce may happen as a consequence of parents not caring. Not enacting divorce legislation is not going to make them care any more, and neither is enacting it going to make them care any less.
Without divorce legislation there are still all the consequences that are (wrongly) attributed to divorce plus a few more.
Your argument against divorce is equally an argument against separation. Would you say that married people who, for whatever reason, want to separate, should be legally prevented from doing so?
JV didn’t you mention annulment on purpose? Or in your opinion children whose parents get an annulment and contract another marriage go through the whole process unscathed? Ideally there would be no need for annulment/separation /divorce but is that possible?
“interest of the state” – is that like “in the national interest”?
In any case, it surely is not “in the interest of the Nationalists,” many of whom seem to have voted Yes.
All polls published show that about one fifth of Nationalists hace voted yes. What Daphne has said is an assessment of her friends.
[Daphne – Rubbish.]
“The Ten Commandments have lost their validity. Conscience is a Jewish invention, it is a blemish like circumcision.”
Those interested can Google this and see who said it. It was NOT Alfred Sant.
[Daphne – Albert, please explain why, in a land with laws, we are talking about the Ten Commandments. They were in fact the ‘secular laws’ of their time, in a situation where a bunch of people stranded out in the desert could only be knocked into line and prevented from killing each other and coveting their neighbour’s wife (not a sin in itself, but a sin because it provoked men into fighting to the death for their honour, hence the failure to mention coveting your neighbour’s husband, because women pulled each other’s hair and did not stab, strangle, etc) by being told that the laws Moses had written in exasperation had actually come from God. That shut them up and made them put away the golden calf.]
Are you related to the Malta’s very own Mullah known as Adrian Vassallo?
Haven’t we been through all this rigmarole already prior to the referendum?
The Yes has won. Get over it.
Moreover, stop trying to thwart the will of the people through further fear-mongering and justifying the fundamentalist aspirations of those self righteous prudes masquerading as “representatives of the people”.
You’re pathetic
Screw you and those of your ilk.
Easy, easy, Guzeppi. Put yourself in their position. It must be really hard for them to wake up one fine day, and discover that it is no longer acceptable to impose religious belief on others.
Think of the poor souls who honestly believed that it is in black people’s own best interest to be slaves (because the bible says so).
The civil-liberties-deniers of today face similar dilemmas.
Rubbish? What is rubbish is that we had to have a referendum in the first place, simply to legislate a civil right.
What next, a referendum to ban child abuse? Oh, I forgot, it’s already illegal.
So it could be an abrogative referendum…. Hey that’s an idea, how about if they passed the divorce law first and had an abrogative referendum aftrerwards?
Then anybody whose concience gave him trouble could have campaigned to his heart’s content, and more importantly voted against, but using his ONE vote, not the thousands of votes some politicians seem to think they have.
If our politicians didn’t think they had a mandate to introduce divorce, then they didn’t have a mandate to prevent it either.
Since I mentioned child abuse, or as it should properly be known in this context, child rape, the US conference of Catholic bishops has commissioned a study on the subject, and of course this self-commissioned, self-funded and self-vetted study came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church has no responsibility in this matter, and that it has been a simply a result of the ‘libertinagg’ of the Sixties.
I’m not aware of a hippie culture of child rape, but evidently the Catholic Church is.
The report has redefined paedophilia as having sex with children 10 years or younger (the official definition is 13 or younger) so presumably we will be changing our laws to come in line with the church’s teachings?
Oh, by the way it mentioned divorce as a cause too. Apparently divorce leads to more Catholic priests raping our children.