That position against divorce has to go before it takes the Nationalist Party down with it

Published: June 21, 2011 at 7:38pm

The comment beneath has just been posted on my comments-board by John. I know John. He is far from being a Malta Today groupie. He is a respectable Sliema type – though he’ll find that description amusing – and is exactly the sort of supporter the Nationalist Party has grievously upset.

The point he makes about the absolute necessity of the Nationalist Party undoing its position against divorce (before its position against divorce undoes the Nationalist Party) is a crucial one, which is why I am highlighting his comment.

If the Nationalist Party does not change its position against divorce, it may feel comfortable declaring after the general election, should it win, that The People voted against divorce. Then it would be back to the drawing-board.

This is obviously what Eddie Fenech Adami hopes for, as he lets us down by sinking to the level of Alfred Sant and justifying himself by saying that it’s OK to do that because it’s about morals not politics. I’m a little tired of people who think that morals only come into play when sex and marriage are involved.

Ignoring a Yes vote in a referendum, plotting to undermine it, is thoroughly immoral. It’s time to have a long, hard think about that.

——-

A vote for a Yes candidate is still a vote for a No party. Beware Fenech Adami et fil et al.

I entertained the thought in a previous comment that, if the PN is re-elected still with its official anti-divorce clause in place, then some dumbass MP from Mosta could claim that the party had a mandate to not implement (or to remove any existing) divorce legislation.

Lo and behold – none other than Eddie Fenech Adami is now seriously inciting the party to undertake this course of action. I would never have believed this of him.

The current prime minister is also being inconvenienced by the divorce issue, to the extent of making nonsensical statements.

What is it that makes otherwise reasonable men act in this way? No prizes for the answer. The legal profession, the PN and the church have long been a menage a trois. The times they are a changin’, it’s true, but these two individuals are remnants of this unholy alliance – membership of which, it seems, appears to cloud the mind on occasions such as this.

As long as the PN is an official anti-divorce party (utter madness) I can’t see my conscience allowing me to vote for it.




55 Comments Comment

  1. MikeC says:

    “What is it that makes otherwise reasonable men act in this way?”

    Here’s a simpler answer (not mine, but I agree completely):

    Good people do good things and evil people do bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.

    • Frank says:

      Spot on MikeC! Now expect some religionist to have the usual frightened knee-jerk reaction and tell us how intolerant and redolent of blind anti-clericalism we (unbelievers) are.

  2. silviofarrugia says:

    Well, Eddie Fenech Adami said that the Catholic Church was not hard enough in its opposition to divorce. I have a feeling he wants this divorce debacle to be decided in an election so that we will have another same replica of the Sixties. Then we will have more talk of mortal sin. Has he not realized that the Maltese have changed so much since then and it will backfire? The Archbishop of Malta understands this.

  3. trevawaqeva says:

    Dr. Fenech Adami and Dr. Gonzi have really let us down. Bil-Malti vera waqqawlna wiccna l-art. It feels like having been betrayed by someone you trusted and believed for 25 years and having to face up to all the people who told you so all along without a leg to stand on.

  4. wrangler says:

    Eddie is doing exactly what Dom did to Sant. The difference is that Sant had the courage to call an election, and did good for the country and what a man should do in those circumstances . Gonzi not only has no courage, but to keep his Prime minister job he is making a fool of himself.

    [Daphne – The last thing this country needs is a general election. It needs those politicians to simmer down, take some quiet time and KEEP THEIR EYES ON THE BALL AND THE BIG ISSUES. Right now I’m thinking that every time I log onto an online newspaper, I’m being told that this country’s biggest issue is the buses in Bisazza Street (most people in Malta haven’t a clue where that is, but the reporters write like everyone is from Sliema) and the (albeit horrible) death of a dog.]

    • Anthony Farrugia says:

      Eddie is NOT doing what Mintoff did to Sant. I’m sure the last thing on his mind is an early election. Let’s not mix up issues.

      I don’t agree that an early election is such a bad option though. It is obvious government cannot govern efficiently with a 1 seat majority.

      It’s not a different party in government I wish for but a stronger government with a 3/4 seat majority to be able to reform this country once and for all! Perhaps it’s late and I may be dreaming but if it’s what we need we are looking for it’s this.

      Oh…… I forgot……. perhaps a clean sweep of the cabinet (bar a few) could do as well. Make way for a competent lean technical cabinet and we’ll all be much happier. Gonzi and Muscat should both think about it.

    • John Schembri says:

      Eyes on the ball . Probably we survived another Lehman moment!
      http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110621/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_greece_financial_crisis

    • John Schembri says:

      The difference is that unlike Dom, Eddie is a toothless tame lion, with no axe to grind against Gonzi. He’s not in parliament and holds no position in the party ranks. He can preach as much as he likes and I must say that his ‘advice’ has its influence on the party and the people who support it.

      The full-time ’nannu’ is watching the battle from high ground and the end result would not affect him much. He’s not carrying the responsibility of the day-to-day running of the country: Libya crisis, Air Malta , oil prices, pensions, the EU PIGS’s bailouts, the new transport system, the dog Star/Buttons and the duo JPO and Mugliette.

      [Daphne – There’s one very important reason why he should know enough to keep quiet about divorce. He has a large family. Members of that large family might divorce. By talking so much against it, he puts them in an awkward position and will be put in an awkward position himself by their choices. It’s the same with people who rant on about homosexuals when they have children and even grandchildren. Does it never occur to them that one of their children or grandchildren might be or turn out to be homosexual? Why don’t they just keep a zip on it. The strongest example I have had of how much better it is to keep your mouth shut on personal matters like divorce, abortion and homosexuality is when I discovered that the sibling of a prominent anti-abortion campaigner, who goes around preaching that women who get pregnant by accident need care and attention and support and then they won’t have an abortion blah blah blah, got pregnant by accident recently and yes, had an abortion. This kind of illustrated the point I had made in a newspaper column a while back, that anti-abortion campaigners and all those writing and talking against abortion should really be a little bit more discreet with their opinions because abortion in Malta is one of those secret things and while you’re blathering on, some of those closest to you might have had or be about to fly to London to get it done. And when they hear how you feel about it, they will be unable to confide in you because they will think that you will hate them for it. It’s the same with homosexuality. How does a homosexual young man disclose his feelings to a mother or father who is forever banging on about ‘pufti’? Unless you’re Han Solo, flying through life alone, it’s best to be discreet. Or just have more balanced opinions.]

      The brazen-faced Mugliette wants more explanations on the honoraria of his colleague ministers when he was one of the ex-ministers who was given a hand-out after the election so that he re-enters his private practice (which according to PL never closed) without hardship. He had to renounce his private practice when he became minister of a ‘crumbling’ bridge which could not be demolished with normal jackhammers.

      [Daphne – I know. I was shocked when I saw him queuing two years ago with all those students in their 20s to get his STEPS scholarship money. I thought he might have been there as a parent, like I was, then I found out that his children are still really young and that the scholarship money was for him. Unbelievable. Really, really unbelievable. I watched him walk up and shake Lawrence Gonzi’s hand and receive his ‘certifikat’ of scholarship funds with this air of unreality about the proceedings, and I thought, what is this country. What brass neck some people have. And not one reporter rang him to ask him what the scholarship money was for – not even from the Labour Party stables because they were buttering him up.]

      • il-Ginger says:

        “How does a homosexual young man disclose his feelings to a mother or father who is forever banging on about ‘pufti’?”

        If any one of them is gay they know to expect hatred and contempt from their dad/nannu. Which is very sad.

      • WhoamI? says:

        Daphne, your logic is bang on the money.

        When people are brought up in that sort of environment (well-meaning, Imust say, but with hindsight, it’s certainly the wrong approach) they end up flying solo and possibly taking the wrong turns as they go along.

        As I always maintain, people do not automatically become parents when they produce a child. Parenting is not just about making sure your kids are well fed and dressed and that they go to the most prestigious schools. It’s also about being there for guidance and support when the kids go against their own interpretation of what is normal and what isn’t.

        Unfortunately, as you say, we still get dining-room table discussions about pufti and divorzju. Without realising, parents are setting the level of thinking skills which very often prove to be outdated. And sometimes, they actually offend people around the table, which in turn results in someone having to act someone else.

        Letting down a parent is something no kid enjoys – ever. All kids want is to make their parents proud. I graduated twice, and on both occasions, the look of satisfaction on my parents’ faces was indescribable. To be honest, at that point, my achievement was more about the fact that I made them proud rather than the certificate itself and what it actually meant to me and my future.

        Why can’t parents be happy to see that they’ve raised kids who can discuss just about anything with them? Isn’t a qualification called “parenting” prestigious enough? And do parents actually realilse that only their kids can actually confer such a qualification to two (or one) people?

        iI was glad to see that Professor Roger Murphy said that our educational system focuses more on the academic side and that it needs to shift towards the development of thinking skills. Sadly though, some teachers simply forgot that theirs is not a career or a job, but a vocation. It means that it is their responsibility to ensure that they transfer their knowledge and life-skills to pupils, and not just the curricular content as prescribed by the education department.

      • Pat Zahra says:

        Actually one of Eddie’s children is married to someone who was previously married to someone else. And who wasn’t widowed.

      • Tongue-very-much-in-cheek says:

        Errrn – Why would anyone want to divorce when annulments come in pretty handy?

  5. Interested Bystander says:

    Does the Catholic Church contribute to PN coffers?

  6. J Abela says:

    Edwin Vassallo’s stand is understandable. His district, which happens to be a PN stronghold voted against. He has no interest pleasing Sliema voters. He has to please Mosta voters.

    And here is the dilemma. It is almost impossible to please both…I think…unless you have different MPs speaking in different ways within a party with no position. Or else a party split (heaven forbid).

    The PN is truly at a crossroads. Whom to please the liberal voters and risk alienating the conservatives? Or the other way round. At the moment, and I’m speaking as a liberal, I think the party should favour the conservatives a little bit longer. They form the core of the party after all. Liberals are the minority within the party.

    • David II says:

      Liberals may be the minority within the party, but they are the minority that make it electable. Think about that J. Abela!

    • Macduff says:

      Thing is, the “conservative” Nationalist won’t ever vote Labour. He may stay at home on election day, but he won’t switch sides. The “liberal” Nationalist would.

      [Daphne – Not me. I always choose, and when I do so, the Nationalist Party always looks better. Funny that – I don’t think.]

      • GiovDeMartino says:

        Labour’s past is so evil, evil in every sense, that I wouldn’t even dream of voting Labour! There is simply no comparision between Malta today and Malta before that glorious May 1987.

        The successes of the PN these last 25 years greatly outweigh the failures. And we must never forget that those in authority have always something to lose. A simple example: Both the hunters and trappers and Birdlife have been critisizing the govt for the way the hunting season was opened. For the former it was too short. For the latter it was too long.

    • J Abela says:

      @David II – I tend to agree. However, upsetting the core supporters won’t get the party anywhere either.

      @Macduff – I think PN liberals should swallow their pride and still vote PN because let’s face it, when it comes to economic issues and other issues, it is the only competent party. No question about that.

      However, they should be smart about their vote and give their vote to the liberal candidates hoping that they will eventually change the party from within. I can give my vote to JPO for example, but I didn’t vote for him last time and I don’t think I’ll vote for him next time.

      I always found him very irritating (well, at least after he cried on TV). I’m hoping for another candidate.

  7. Pecksniff says:

    Cards on table: I voted No on 28th May but once the result was confirmed, I was disappointed but that was it and I accepted it; no ifs or buts about turnout, unclaimed voting documents or what have you.

    Then the bombshell exploded with ex-president Eddie Fenech Adami unable to accept the Yes result and publishing an opinion piece on the morning of the last day of the PN party conference.

    Is he trying to hijack the PN by undermining Lawrence Gonzi, beleagured as he is? A friend remarked that maybe he is trying to plant son Beppe as future PN leader.

    I never thought the day would come when Eddie Fenech Adami would start these machinations to put himself on a par with Alfred Sant post EU referendum. I had held him in high esteem for what he did for democracy in this country but his sore loser attitude going to be his political swansong?

    If so he is damning the PN to the Opposition benches; he will then be remembered for what he did in 2011 and not for what he did from 1977 onwards.

  8. John Schembri says:

    The silly season has already set in, one observes.

    Don’t tell me that people will measure the performance of five years on whether by any chance someone from the PN stable utters a word against divorce!

    If that were the case then we would deserve to have Joseph as Prime Minister with Anglu Farrugia as his accolyte.

    Then our John here has to put up for five whole years with a better Mosta MP and hopefully an elected Prime Minister from Burmarrad.

    As long as John has his conscience at peace we will be fine.

    • Kenneth Cassar says:

      [John Schembri – Don’t tell me that people will measure the performance of five years on whether by any chance someone from the PN stable utters a word against divorce!]

      No. People will measure MP’s suitability for parliament on their democratic credentials.

      • John Schembri says:

        Agreed , people would vote for the candidates who won’t change their positions regarding divorce: for , neutral or against.

      • Kenneth Cassar says:

        [John Schembri – Agreed , people would vote for the candidates who won’t change their positions regarding divorce: for , neutral or against].

        No, we haven’t agreed.

        In the referendum, people voted on the referendum question (or whether they agreed with divorce legislation).

        In parliament, MPs will not be voting on the referendum question (or on whether they agree with divorce legislation). In parliament MPs will be voting on whether to legislate for divorce (as the people have decided in the referendum). Essentially they will be voting on whether to respect a democratic vote or not.

        MPs who voted NO in the referendum but vote YES in parliament, would not be changing their position. It’s an entirely different question.

      • Fenech M says:

        Then JPO would surely not be re-elected. He was against divorce in 1996 but is now for it in 2011 (for personal reasons).

  9. Tim Ripard says:

    Don’t forget the other plonkers – Austin, Tonio B and Tonio F.

    • H.P. Baxxter says:

      Even Simon Busuttil is saying that MPs can vote any way they like as long as the bill goes through. What have we come to?

      [Daphne – So let’s see. Everyone can vote as he likes, but if we see that we’ve got one No too many, the weakest and most easily manipulated No gets pinned up against the locker-room wall with his arm in a Chinese twist until he squeaks ‘Yes’. My, it sounds really similar to the way Joseph Muscat got his seat in parliament. And again we’re missing the point. It’s not that MPs should be bullied and badgered into voting Yes. It’s that they should WANT to vote Yes, and that’s what’s shocking: that they can’t see why they should. ]

      • Harry Purdie says:

        Baxxter, do you remember the children’s game ‘Simon says’? Who gives a shit about Simon, he’s in manipulating mode anyway. Daphne’s right. Also, do you remember the locker room pressure to be ‘one of the boys’?

        These ‘MP’s’, soon to be out to pasture, should, for once, stand up straight, (talking about posture here) and do what they’re there to do–vote the people’s will. Even the creeps.

      • H.P. Baxxter says:

        Locker room pressure? One of the boys? That’s public school talk. I was educated at your bog standard Maltese workhouse school, so we had none of that post-rugger homoerotic camaraderie.

      • Harry Purdie says:

        You don’t know what you missed, Baxxter. Everyone running around in jockstraps! Wonderful!

      • H.P. Baxxter says:

        Never mind. I can always make up for it at one of Malta’s glitterati parties.

      • Harry Purdie says:

        Similar, Baxxter, but without the sequins and floozies. Just hormonized (is that a word, Daphne?) young males celebrating a victory.

  10. Harry Purdie says:

    As a ‘foreigner’, up to his ears on the ‘rock’, Daphne, I fear it’s too late. The fumbling, misguided, fundamentalist incumbents have disappeared up their own a**holes.

    ‘Bring on the clowns’. Or, as a famed film director once said, ‘Time for the riderless horses’. Sigh.

  11. Mark Vassallo says:

    The 1870 referendum asked “Are ecclesiastics to be eligible to the Council of Government?” to which 96% of valid votes said yes.

    If back in 1870 the country could decide which professions were eligible to represent us, can we today vote to exclude members of the legal profession.

    I fear that leaving them eligible for office does not benefit our country.

  12. lino says:

    They make laws, they defend, they prosecute and they judge; so they might as well defy.

  13. I was (and still am) against any form of responsible or irresponsible (as though there’s a difference ha ha) divorce.

    These people who are now talking about conscience should have objected to the referendum in the first place. They didn’t. They had a second chance to “quell” their conscience by voting “no” – which they probably did. The “Yes” vote got the majority of votes and they’ll have to accept that.

    Now is not the time to drag conscience into the act. If they didn’t have the courage to step up and say “I will not consider legislating for divorce – not now nor ever” they have no other option but to go by the answer to their question.

    Divorce should have never been reduced to a “civic” issue. It is not. It is a moral and ethical matter. Had these “chest beaters” appreciated this fact we wouldn’t be here now having this ridiculous discussion.

    • Interested Bystander says:

      I am against naming a child ‘Reuben’.

      It is a moral and ethical matter.

      Moreover, I am against ANYONE ELSE naming a child ‘Reuben’.

    • La Redoute says:

      Moral and ethical mean the same thing. Their linguistic roots differ, that’s all.

      Why are civil issues devoid of moral considerations in your part of the universe?

      • “Moral and ethical mean the same thing. Their linguistic roots differ, that’s all.”

        “Ethics” is the practical application of “morals” Morals establish what is wrong and what is right, while ethics “guide” actions in the light of what is wrong and what is right … um … yes you’re right. they’re the same.

        Why are civil issues devoid of moral considerations in your part of the universe?

        In my universe there is no thing that is devoid of moral and ethical considerations. I think that you have a problem with the sort of morality I adhere to and ethics based upon that morality

      • La Redoute says:

        Moral is also an adjective. I have no problem with your morality as I do not know you from Adam, nor you, me.

  14. Dingo says:

    And look who’s talking about respecting referendum results, all the cast in this tragi-comedy is almost complete. Just KMB and Mintoff are left to put in their two cents’ worth.

    http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110622/local/Referendum-result-must-be-respected-Alfred-Sant.371768

  15. lino says:

    @Reuben
    They did. Please correct me if I’m wrong. The vote in parliament for the referendum was passed by 36 votes against 33 because JPO and Mugliett voted for the referendum. http://divorcereferendummalta.com/?paged=5

    [Daphne – Parliament did not take a vote on the referendum. There was agreement on that. The vote was on the referendum QUESTION.]

  16. Matthew Vella says:

    Considering this whole divorce nonsense, the salaries scandal, and the fact that the Nationalist party has been in government for so long, voting for labour seems to be the reasonable thing to do….

    I know quite a few people my age, 20, who will not be voting for the nationalists because of the theocratic way in which the nationalist party acted.

    [Daphne – Fine, go ahead and elect as prime minister the man who bent over backwards to keep you out of Europe then. Great choice, Matthew – reward Joseph Muscat for doing his damnedest to screw up your life. You must be one hell of a good Christian, turning the other cheek like that.]

    • Student says:

      Yes, I agree with you 100%. Too much is going on right now honoraria scandal, BWSC, this divorce thing and much more. They switched sides – it is the PN now which is not being democratic.

      Also, through defeating the next election, the PN will be given a chance to settle things down within the party.

    • Fenech M says:

      And who are these ‘quite a few people my age, 20’?

      Some illiterate stupid Super One-brainwashed persons?

      Young people with their heads screwed up the right way would never dream of voting Labour. Think about it and read or ask about the LP history before taking such a drastic opinion.

      • Matthew Vella says:

        Young open minded and educated people who have rarely ever seen super one, and who are also not ignorant enough to blindly follow one party and discredit the other at all costs.

        And reading up on labour history is one thing, but its another not to consider it because of its past mistakes.

    • Matthew Vella says:

      You don’t have to be so snide. I’m no christian and to what someone said below, I’ve rarely ever watched superone, and obviously am very happy to be an EU citizen.

      The labour party just seems to be more progressive at the moment, and one cannot deny that its not healthy for a country to have the same party in government for such a long time. Plus considering the fact that I’m gay I’m sure I’d face more challenges from the same people who were too ‘christian’ to allow others to get a divorce.

  17. jae says:

    “if the PN is re-elected still with its official anti-divorce clause in place, then some dumbass MP from Mosta could claim that the party had a mandate to not implement (or to remove any existing) divorce legislation.”

    The dumbass from Mosta can say what he likes but the PN is not in the habit of committing political suicide. I believe that the PN will change their position on divorce before the elections and commit themselves that they have no intention of doing anything which will go against the result of the referendum.

    Having said that, my reading is that PN’s position on divorce has de facto changed. After the referendum, the context has changed and the PN is recognising the new realty and ready to move on.

    The PM was very clear: The people decided and as far as he is concerned the debate about whether to have divorce legislation is now closed. The law will be enacted in line with the result of the referendum and that will be the end to it.

  18. Dee says:

    I will most certainly not vote for Joe Muscat’s Labour Party, irrespective of what individual Nationalists MPs may decide re the divorce vote. Anything is preferable, as far as I am concerned, to that vain, simpering , superficial , phony, histrionic wannabe. Anything.

  19. Mario Coleiro says:

    Well Dee, can you please tell us who the hell asked for your vote?? Voters like yourself ie. with there heads stuck in ……. you know where are most certainly not welcome in our PL.

Leave a Comment