President Abela takes a stand against Muscat’s civil unions bill
Times of Malta reports this morning on the reason why the civil unions bill has not yet been signed into law, and it is as we suspected. The President has refused to sign it off.
For five weeks, the bill has been pending.
Even after the vote in parliament, it cannot become law without the head of state’s signature.
And as we have seen now, that is not a formality, but a requirement, and the head of state can deploy his conscience.
I imagine President Fenech Adami would have done the same had the divorce bill come before him for signature, but it came before President Abela, who has no objections to divorce law though he clearly has very serious reservations about putting marriage between a man and a man or a woman and woman on the same legal and operational level as marriage between a man and a woman.
The thing to remember here is that the President is not the elected representative of the people. He is not morally bound to execute their will in representation of them in parliament, facing a choice between that and resignation. This was the issue when Prime Minister Gonzi voted against the divorce bill despite the clear result of the referendum on divorce. That was a bad decision and decisively shaped what came next. A matter of conscience, in a prime minister bound over to respect the will of the people symbolically and personally as well as effectively through the majority vote, demanded withdrawal through resignation rather than a vote in defiance of the referendum result.
The President, in matters of conscience which leave him or her unable to sign off a bill into law, would have to resign too – not because he or she is morally bound to respect the will of the people as expressed in parliament, but for the obvious practical reasons. The President can’t sit there, blocking bills from being made into law, like an irascible monarch from another age. It wouldn’t be tolerated, because it is intolerable.
Had the parliamentary vote on this bill come earlier, right at the start of this Labour government’s term last year for instance, President Abela would have had to step down. He would not have been able to stay on for a year refusing to sign the bill.
But six or seven weeks is not that long, and so he must have reasoned that he could sit it out until his term of office ends on 4 April.
We can now see that this is the reason why Muscat’s government delayed the debate and vote on the civil unions bill for almost a year, even though – given their campaigning platform – people expected it to be the first thing they would see to. They knew that President Abela wouldn’t sign it.
46 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20140327/local/president-refusing-to-sign-civil-unions-bill.512305
A picture is better than a thousand words. This caption picture says it all.
May I flag what’s happening on the Times comments board here?
This is the article:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20140326/local/government-working-on-rent-mechanism-for-fairer-rates.512297
And this is the paid up stupid liar who is putting comments on The Times with 12 “likes”.
The revised rent laws stipulate that the minimum rent is €180 (or more) not what the hired Saviour Cachia is claiming here.
LIARS !
Saviour Cachia • 14 hours ago
Ghall-erwieh. Pass gust mis-Segretarju Parlamentari Owen Bonnici u l-Gvern Laburista biex issir gustizzja maghna werrieta li ghad ghandna postijiet mikrija bis-soldi, Lm20 jew Lm10 fis-sena. U dawn it-talin jafu minn fejn jizgiccaw biex ma jhallsux kera, anki jekk suppost qeghdin ipogguh il-Qorti. Meta se ssir gustizzja maghna l-werrieta li ghandna dawn il-postijiet maqbuda minn dawn it-talin, f’kaz minnhom bla titolu ta’kera. Xbajna telghlin u nezlin il-Qrati. Kemm nifilhu nifthu kawzi?
12 • Reply•Share ›
Certainly Joseph Muscat discussed the issue with the new president Marie Louise Colerio Preca and she finds no objection in signing off the Act. She had once a problem with the divorce issue but now she has nothing against the Civil Unions Bill.
Artiklu ta’ veru. Niehu gost naqra artikli bhal dan miktubin b’certu reqqa u dritt ghal punt.
Daphne ma tahfira lil hadd, u b’mod gust tinseg kliem adatti ghal kul sitwazzjoni.
Grazzi tas-servizz li taghtina kuljum.
True. I never read any other news online or any newspapers. This is the source for information about what’s really happening around me. I only go to other news sites whenever Daphne gives us a link. Otherwise this is the only place I come to for truthful, straight-to-the-point news worthy of reading.
Cannot agree more. Keep up the good work Daphne.
And a big THANKYOU.
Amen.
Yet he signed the citizenship one.
I can’t say I agree with you on Gonzi’s position vis-a-vis the divorce issue. He made his personal view clear but put the matter to a popular vote.
He may have miscalculated the numbers but, whatever the case, the vote was held and the nation, on the whole, didn’t share his view.
In correct democratic fashion, he bowed to their will and allowed the law to be introduced.
It may have been a bad decision from a purely political viewpoint but even that is only because of the general misconception that he resisted the people’s will.
That perspective is patently wrong – if anything, he did the very opposite. Having failed to convince the electorate of his point of view, he allowed them to have their way. I don’t see how you can get any more democratic than that.
Above all, the divorce referendum was hamstrung by the unusual high number of abstentions that rendered the result not truly representative of the will of the majority. The “yes” vote was an unnatural admixture of those who were keen on divorce with those who were too bewildered, too confused to vote and those who did not care one way or the other.
Is there a precedent to this scenario? Has there ever been a situation where the President has refused to sign a bill of law?
This is Malta. You don’t ‘refuse’ to do anything.
You can turn up late, at the wrong venue, mislay your pen, have a last minute emergency, dog ate my car keys, bomb scare, take your time reading the small print or, my favourite, tell them you’ll get back to them (the phone call that never comes).
This is Abela’s revenge for the speech Muscat made him make last year.
What is astonishing is that a person supposedly representing the people in parliament who in turn represent the citizens of this country would put his personal ideas of whether love should exist between x or y or x when his duty is simply to ensure this country functions properly in the democratic spirit it is legally bound to do.
I never elected Mr Abela. I do not care if he is a Christian, Protestant, atheist or agnostic. I do not care if he has children or not, if he is divorced or not.
I only care that he does his duty and ratifies what parliament decides in an orderly manner.
His objection in doing so, in this case, is causing pain to well-meaning human beings who wish to express their love to each other and who wish to have basic civil rights like anyone else.
There should be a law that penalizes a president who hinders the progress of human rights rather than allows him to stop progress on the basis of personal moral issues which the people he serves do not care about.
[Daphne – Marriage between two people of the same gender is not a human right. The European Court of Human Rights has established that already. It would be a violation of your human rights if lovers of the same gender were prevented from living together or having a relationship. Marriage is a technicality of law. The absence of a marriage law does not prevent people forming a relationship or a family, which is where your rights are vested. I say this not in defence of President Abela’s view but because I am tired of hearing homosexual couples go on about how important it is for them to marry to express their love, when the reality with heterosexual couples is somewhat more prosaic: they marry when they take the decision to form a family and have children. Expressing your love is not a factor, because you do that regardless. ]
The president’s duty is to safeguard the constitution. There is no clear difference between marriage and civil union.
This law seems to be a tool to undermine or remove marriage.
Very well explained Daphne prosit.
The Anti-LGBT laws in Uganda and Russia are a human rights issue, not the lack of gay marriage laws in Malta.
Go be a champion of gay rights there if you want to know the value of human rights.
Sorry to butt in here, but in Schalk and Kopf the ECtHR held that same-sex marriage is not YET a fundamental right; the suggestion in that judgment is that recognition of the right to marry for same-sex couples would represent a higher stage of development of the law. The Court says that the law is developing in that direction and that it will revisit its decisions following further developments in the Contracting States.
Also, the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights removes the reference to men and women in the context of the right to marry. This suggests that the right to marry in the Charter should be extended to same-sex couples:
“The Court would also note that Article 9 of the recently adopted Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union departs, no doubt deliberately, from the wording of Article 12 of the Convention in removing the reference to men and women.” (ECtHR judgment in Goodwin)
Well, so what about homosexual couples who take the decision to form a family and have children
The President of Gozo has a different take on the president’s role: “Soon after being nominated for the presidency, Ms Coleiro Preca said since this Bill was an electoral commitment made by the government before the last election she had no problem with it.”
She is wrong. The bill is not exactly what was promised in the electoral manifesto.
Quite frankly, Labour’s electoral manifesto doesn’t mean anything any more, if it ever did to begin with. So far they’ve acted on behind-the-scenes promises made to their pre-election benefactors. The manifesto is only a façade they loosely try to connect their actions to, which should be enough to kick them out in my opinion.
Principles are there to guide us through our decisions in life.
We all should base our decisions upon our principles and not the other way round, and after George Abela lost all credibility when he read that infamous parliament opening speech.
I think he is now vacating his palace taking all his belongings including his integrity.
Well done, George Abela.
And President Abela is right. No one is made to sign against his/her wish or are we back to Inquisition times? Thank you Mr President.
There is also another option: the President leaves Malta on an official visit or on holiday, an acting President is appointed for the duration of his absence, and the acting President puts his or her signature of assent on the Bill to become law. But then even the acting President could have the same objection as the President.
I’m confused:
Didn’t Marlene Farrugia say that George Abela helps form her opinions?
Didn’t she vote in favour?
What’s going on?
Was the very early talk of the Cabinet reshuffle an undisguised threat to achieve “unity” on this score?
Now he grows a pair? I appreciate it, really and most verily I do, but surely he should have also objected to the citizenship scheme/scam as well?
I will not go into the merit of the law itself, especially for the “marriage” part. Before the election, Jo had stated that he did not believe that people of the same sex should “marry”. After the election, Gaby LGBT seems to have changed his mind.
However, I find it very hard to understand why the President signed the citizenship purchase law, a law which was conceived and planned in secrecy, probably in China, and which never was on the PL’s electoral programme.
For this reason alone, the President should have refused to sign it. I mean this was not something like increasing the price of cigarettes or eggs, for goodness sake. This law has very serious implications which will come down hard upon us in the future.
Is it that difficult for a President of Republic not see that the PM deceived everyone in pushing that law through? And yet, here we are, with a law discussed in Parliament through all stages and which has the Opposition’s backing (at least in par), and the President refuses to sign it.
So this was the reason why Joseph Muscat said that Marie Louise Colerio Preca will even be better than George Abela.
I see that the Labour Party is back to the exact point where George Abela left to become president.
It is divided between Jo’s “progressivi moderati” – which they are not – and the other Laburisti who would probably see George Abela more representative of them.
Interesting times ahead.
Ciccio, one has to keep in mind that this time round it wasn’t the Labour Party that won the election, but the “movement”.
The “movement” also included all those thousands who were promised a first-class seat on the gravy train.
Ah, but the movement included also “all those thousands” who were not promised a first-class seat on the gravy train. I can assure you that those thousands are bigger in number.
May I have your email address pls?
[Daphne – [email protected]]
There is a difference between the Gonzi/divorce stand and the Abela/gay marriage stand. The former had the option to lose or gain politically while rightfully exercising his parliamentary vote whereas Abela had no option not to sign the bill into law. He was granted a reprieve so that a presidential resignation would be avoided.
One is a Prime Minister as long as he enjoys the support of the majority to govern. Gonzi would have resigned if his personal values were going to prevent the divorce bill going through. One is President because he/she is appointed to occupy a ceremonial representation of the nation and has no role other than this. When his/her personal values prevent him from carrying out the role, resignation is the only way.
We all know today’s implementation of democracy worldwide is seriously flawed.
The good news is that the whole idea of voting in a government and having to put up with them for 4 or 5 years will become obsolete in a few years, maybe decades, due to advances in technology that will make it possible for people to voice their opinion and affect government on an individual, issue-by-issue basis from their own homes.
One way this will work is through cryptographically secure electronic voting tokens. Instead of voting for an MP in a general election, you pass them your electronic voting token so that they can take decisions on your behalf. The interesting part is that you are also able to recall your voting token at any time and give it to someone else if you are not happy with the way your representative is performing.
The whole record of who possesses which tokens will be stored on a distributed and cryptographically secure public ledger that everybody can download to their computers. This will make it practically impossible to “fudge the books” because you would have to take control of over 50% of everyone’s computers to do so. Basically, the system will be as difficult to take down as it is to delete songs from a distributed file sharing network like BitTorrent.
Watch this talk on distributed autonomous communities. It’s a mind-blowing paradigm shift.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=J8JuTMFuXuU#t=2177
The bad news is that I think it will take a good while to catch on in our provincial Malta.
I am inclined to believe that the President’s objection is not about civil unions but about adoption by same-sex couples.
From a moral point of view (and Abela’s objection is said to be based on moral grounds), it is not the purely juridical status of such a union or what rights and obligations are stipulated in the law which go against this kind of moral code but sexual acts between homosexual couples.
The fact of the legal status of same-sex couples has no bearing on morality.
In other words, the civil union as such is a civil contract governing rights and obligations and has nothing to say about the morality of the sexual relations between the same-sex couple and consequently it has no bearing on morality.
Contracts are binding agreements sanctioned by the state and the State has no power to decide what is moral or immoral. The morality or immorality of a human act does not depend on whether it is or is not sanctioned (legalized) by any law.
Some years ago, there was in Malta talk of a law “to enforce fiscal morality” — an absurdity because all moral acts must be free to be moral and thus any enforcement immediately takes away this freedom.
Morality cannot be enforced by law, only human acts can and what is forced cannot be judged as moral or immoral.
Ergo, the matter of a law regulating civil unions should not be objectionable from a moral point of view. A law allowing same-sex couples to adopt children is another matter altogether because it is enabling such couples to take into their charge and bring up children in an environment which may or may not be conducive to a normal upbringing.
Here I am not passing any moral judgement on this law as I do not believe there are enough data at present on which to base a truly well-informed opinion as regards the adoptions in question.
The President is not an elected representative but he is elected by MP’s delegated by the people to elect him. He is also an integral part of Parliament which is made up of the House of Representatives and the President.
The Maltese Constitution has inherited the British Constitutional convention that the monarch must assent to bills passed by Parliament and has no choice in the matter other than abdication or (in our case) resignation.
It would have been interesting to see what President Abela would have done had the bill been presented for his assent earlier in his term. The fact that it came so close to the end of his quinquennium may have rendered his refusal easier, one might suspect. One might also speculate as to whether what might perhaps be latent antagonism between him and the PM had anything to do with his decision refusing assent.
Daphne, you have a point and you are correct in your argument, in essence.
I should however explain the context of my comment. I know one guy who is in love with another who is from a non-EU country (USA). They keep flying to and fro and exhausting tourist visas just to keep the relationship alive.
[Daphne – Why don’t they marry in the US, then? Why turn your guns on Malta and make this somehow Malta’s responsibility? After all, the US is the world’s greatest liberal democracy, isn’t it. Yet even in the US itself, same-sex marriages carried out under the laws of one state are not even acknowledged under the laws of another, and yet you make a big deal about Malta’s situation. If your friends want to marry so badly, they can take it up with Obama, not work on bullying a small island nation with electors who are even crazier and ill-informed than those of great swathes of America. This is what really annoys me: it’s a US/Malta situation, but Gonzi was to blame. Not Obama.]
They wish to live together on this island so to have a normal relationship (which in itself aides to express one’s love rather than prohibit their love because long distance does not work for most). Two people who love each other cannot live together in Malta if they are of the same sex and not both EU residents. (Unless of course complicated work visas are conjured up every so often).
[Daphne – The same refers. Why can’t your Maltese friend go and live with his American lover in the United States? Oh yes, because he would only be allowed through JFK after massive scrutiny and he won’t even be allowed onto the flight to JFK without airline staff first checking that he has a biometric passport or a visa. If he outstays his three months, he will automatically become an illegal alien and subject to deportation. That’s why. But again, Malta is the issue, Malta is the problem, and this is all Gonzi’s fault and not the United States’. The fact is you can’t even begin to think of lobbying the US government because it is this mammoth thing so you might as well forget it. But lobbying the government/Opposition in Malta is easy because you can meet the prime minister/Opposition leader face to face and threaten him with your vote.]
Is Jo holding back a belch?
When something is held up for some five weeks, our Jo still says that it is on track. I will remember to point this out to ARMS Ltd. when I receive my next bill.
“From our side, the law is on track and will be enacted in the coming weeks.” (MaltaToday)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMYBl2uzXEw&feature=youtube_gdata_player
He puts it much better than I ever could.
Why couldn’t Jo wait for President Abela to finish his term and let the Lady president do the signing honours?
It is not that long of a wait, unless Jo is using this to make the current president look bad and archaic just in the nick of time.
Jo and George do not like each other and this is a roundabout way for Jo to abuse him a little before he steps down, as pricks do like to prick.
http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2014-03-27/news/two-hunters-get-their-jail-time-suspended-in-police-bribe-4402872323/
Two hunters who bribed a police officer for information were subject to a judicial process.
The people who bribed Enemalta officials will not be investigated or charged because of a political decision, taken not in accordance to law.
I went to the public talk by Lord Igor Judge, the former Lord Chief Justice of England. He emphasised that equality before the law is a human right.
On this basis, can one argue that the rights of these two men have been infringed because they were not treated in the same way as others who committed a similar crime?
I am genuinely confused. Maybe a lawyer can enlighten me.
I think his successor will have a similar difficulty in signing.
Ma nahsibx ta. Minn pecluqa ma nistenniex affarijiet ta’ barra minn hawn.
Ma tarax kemm tahraqha qalbha ghall-fqir tant li ghandha stonku li tonfoq minn jaf kemm elufi minn fuq dar il-fqir biex tirranga residenza presidenzjali go Ghawdex. Tghid mhux ha tmur ghall-irhas tender. Direct order ghal xi hadd tal-qalba. Issa naraw kemm bravuri ha jkun hemm f’din il-presidenza.
But don’t forget that she was one of the only PL MPs to speak against divorce if I’m not mistaken so I’m thinking that she is also against gay marriage and adoption.
What I find disturbing is the secrecy of it all. Surely the public ought to know what the arguments are.
And if the President happens to hold an idea countering Muscat’s stance, which incidentally preempts dialogue on a pragmatic raison d’etre, the prime minister doesn’t really have to keep eveything under wraps.
He stated a number of times the legitimacy of his argument rests on dogged blind determination in the name of equality.
But maybe yes, same sex marriage isn’t as popular as divorce. Well, that does contradict Muscat’s premise that he’ll carry it through notwithstanding orthodox resistance to defend and uphold minorities does it?
He put his name to it. Repeatedly and solemnly. Scout’s honour.
How disappointing this man is, bravado followed by calculated moves to conserve his following. Becoming consistently predictable in all his moves.
At this rate, even mundane Marsaxlokk may be on hold.
It is certainly true to say that Abela’s current intransigence is even more serious then Gonzi’s divorce stance fiasco. However, I think it’s worth pointing out that Abela, Gonzi and Fenech Adami are all equally guilty of confusing bigotry with morality.