We're all going to be hoist by somebody else's petard
I vote No to a referendum on divorce
Something tells me that we’re in for a nasty shock on BondiPlus tonight, with the prime minister committing himself – and the whole bloody country – to a referendum on divorce.
If he does, then this will be the first time he has spelled it out. All previous references he has made have been to ‘the people should decide’ and ‘we have no popular mandate’, all of which a sensible person would take to mean that the general election in two years’ time should be the deciding factor.
But then if this country were populated by sensible people, both political parties would take divorce legislation as a given, sit down at table and just thrash out the details, having taken the principle for granted.
Instead, what we have is a chaos of indecision, with the leader of the Opposition talking about a free vote and not even telling us how he will vote himself, and the prime minister floundering about at a complete loss as to how he is going to take a decision without actually taking a decision.
Up to now I had thought that the way through this one was obvious for the Nationalist Party: stick divorce in the 2013 electoral programme and let it ride, especially now that the Labour Party can’t do the same because Muscat, with his free vote, has ruled out a commitment to divorce being included in Labour’s own electoral programme.
That way, the people will decide but the costly disruption and upheaval of a referendum and its twin campaigns – the last thing this country needs right now – will be avoided.
But I suddenly realised today that I was thinking in terms of the Nationalist Party functioning as it should and has done as long I’ve known it, as a party that develops policy with foresight, an eye to the long view, and taking great care not to paint itself and, more crucially, the country, into any tight and impossible corners.
That kind of rational and responsible thinking depends on the party leader staying impartial and objective and not allowing his personal sentiments or emotions to get in the way of long-reaching decisions that affect the destiny of the party he leads and, more importantly, the destiny of the country.
On the issue of divorce, the prime minister is showing all signs of behaving as Alfred Sant did with EU membership, allowing the personal to get in the way of the political and of commonsense. And I have the most unnerving feeling that he will end up meeting the same fate for the same reason.
The electorate is able to perceive when a party leader has allowed his personal beliefs to interfere with and derail the common good.
I think it is about to become very obvious that the prime minister, wrong-footed on divorce and having ignored the loud, neon elephant in the room for so long, is taking decisions on the hoof on this one, has dumped foresight and has moved his vision away from the long-term to the pressures sitting on him right now.
In taking any decision, you have to contemplate a range of alternative scenarios and then calculate all the risks and likely outcomes involved, matching them to strategies. The strategy for a Yes vote is obvious – divorce legislation – though even there, there will be a chaos as this will conflict with Muscat’s statement that MPs should be allowed to vote according to their conscience (which is distinct from what their constituents want).
But what strategy can be foreseen for a No vote? The absence of divorce legislation is unsustainable in the long-term. It is proving to be unsustainable already. Divorce exists everywhere in the world because it is the best solution to a real problem. With no divorce, Lawrence Gonzi will have to do what Prime Minister Sant did when he removed VAT: reinvent the wheel and discover that he has ended up with something square that doesn’t turn.
He has begun this process already with attempts at legislation which will give cohabitees rights over each other (when the time-honoured solution to that one is – yes, you’ve got it – marriage) and now, a report which advises that women in ‘stable relationships’ will be permitted to apply for IVF treatment which will result in – yes, you’ve got it again – a child born out of wedlock.
It’s enough to make me pack my bags. To think that I’m living in the only country in the world to hold a referendum on whether to legislate for divorce – and in 2010, what’s more.
60 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Shocking decision by the Prime Minister. Shame! He has abdicated his responsibility. Shame!
Why are you so surprised by all this? You people seem to have forgotten that the PN’s backbone is the Roman Catholic, traditionalist voter.
[Daphne – Oh, no it isn’t. It might once have been, but no more. The Labour Party now has more than its fair share of conservative, right-wing ‘teahouse Catholics’ while people like me support the Nationalist Party precisely because the Labour Party, aside from its history, is so off-puttingly old-fashioned and redneck in its thinking and behaviour. Let’s face it, what liberal person would have voted against EU membership?]
And it is led by a former president of Catholic Action. Yet, in the past decades, the PN managed to become a catch-all party, under whose roof liberals and traditional Catholics could live comfortably. However, seems like the time of the cull has arrived. The chickens have come home to roost.
[Daphne – Don’t rush, Albert. If I were to remove my vote from the Nationalist Party, I would have to put it elsewhere. Where – Labour? Don’t make me laugh. Voting in a general election is a choice: party X or party Y, which one is going to cause the least damage?]
If you fail to see that the backbone of the PN is the traditional Catholic vote, even today, well OK. One cannot try to convince someone else of the obvious. I repeat my comment: the PN was very successful in attracting to it the “liberal” voters, those who in other countries would be under the banner of a “liberal party”.
Till now, the two wings – traditional Catholic and liberal – have cooperated seamlessly with one another. Now an issue has come up about which the two wings have different views, and a comprimise under the same roof will be very difficult.
Again.do you imagine the PN can win an election without the vote of the traditional Catholic vote? And can you imagine a Prime Minister campagining in a general election as Leader of a party proposing divorce, when he himself has declared himself many times over to be against?
You will agree with him that his position would be very vulnerable. I would say untenable. Should Gonzi be replaced, perhaps?
This is unlikely as he said tonight that he is ready to fight another election. So where does that leave us? Back to the referendum….
[Daphne – There is another solution, Albert, but it doesn’t happen because the Labour Party has even more staunch traditionalists among its electorate, a situation made worse by the fact that Labour also has the mass of illiterates and semi-literates among its core support (fact, not opinion – the vast majority of socio-economic group DE vote Labour). If both parties were able to cooperate sanely, they would BOTH put divorce legislation into their electoral programmes and leave the staunch traditionalists with nowhere to move.]
If the backbone of PN is the traditionalist Catholic vote, and if this isn’t the same backbone as MLP’s, is a full 50% of the electorate (the ones who vote Labour) not traditionalist Catholic? Can’t you see your logic is nonsense?
If the only traditionalist Catholics in Malta were on the side of PN, then we’d have had divorce legislation long ago. But the way things stand, we have something approaching 95% of the population being traditionalist Catholics.
The Mario Vella – Dominic Fenech Paradigm has been shown to be fallacious time and again.
As for Religio et Patria, look no further than Joseph Muscat himself: grovelling before the archbishop, taking his wife-cum-rosary beads out for an outing, crusading against EU membership, clutching his chest during the national anthem, and defending the fireworks idiocy on the grounds of “nitpaxxew”.
The traditionalist Catholics (I prefer the term cretins – idiocy is non-denominational) holding back this country’s development could have been checkmated long ago if even one of the two parties had decided to ignore that demographic. But they haven’t. Hence this divorce referendum charade.
“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter”
Winston Churchill
Sometimes I feel we have not moved forward at all.
It is not that we have not moved forward – it is that Churchill was ahead of his time.
This is, quite possibly, the first time that I have lost faith in our current prime minister.
What a sorry state of affairs.
Well…take solace in the fact that you are not alone to have lost faith. Many have lost it many years ago. Welcome to the club.
I wrote on this blog quite some time ago that the PM will decide for a referendum and, alas, I am now proved right. I can take some pride in having read the man about this issue from before the last elections when he was interviewed by The Times and, having answered all questions with confidence, he stumbled and looked nonplussed when the interviwer asked about divorce.
I wish I were wrong (for once) but I was quite correct in my analysis. The Xarabank programme convinced me that it was all a sham. According to my thinking, it was meant to convince everyone that a referendum was already a given and the only option. In my opinion, it was all agreed beforehand and that was the first step.
The second step will now be an aggressive media campaign, supported by the Roman Catholic Church, to persuade the majority to vote against divorce in the referendum. Sin will not be mentioned publicly but it would be implied. The old will be made to feel they cannot depart this world and leave behind the chaos that divorce will cause.
It is easier to tip the balance among the general electorate than in parliament. The slumbering Opposition, having bungled in a spectacular manner the divorce strategy, will just look on helplessly.
How can Muscat now tell the electorate to vote in favour of divorce when he declared he would give a free vote to his MPs? The PM’s tactics were shrewd and show he is a master on thwarting the enactment of divorce. Muscat has been outclassed big time by the PM in this. Divorce will have to wait at least another generation.
The old will be made to feel they cannot depart this world and leave behind the chaos that divorce will cause.
And do you think that the old will think twice to vote for divorce if their son/daughter is separated and/or cohabitating? Will they, do you think, leave their beloved in misery, so that they will depart this world in God’s good books?
They would, however, be in a minority.
And there it was:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20101018/local/divorce-i-am-in-favour-of-having-referendum-gonzi
Daphne, I still am not sure if the PM has categorically stated that there will be a referendum – I will watch Bondi+ again after it finishes.
In any case, if the PM opts for a referendum before the general elections, my first thoughts are that he will be tackling the issue so that, by the time of the general elections, the subject of divorce would be dead and buried, and Joseph Muscat’s private member’s bill and free vote will be dead before they were born.
However, I am still pondering about Lou’s question, to which the PM’s answer was not very convincing to me – whether the PM will hold a referendum on the same day of general elections. I still have to work out what that would achieve, and what was Lou’s reasoning behind it.
You’re right.
All the PM said that he will see what happens after debating the issue in Parliament. He did not say that there definitely will be a referendum. He did not commit himself.
Always happens, Daphne, everywhere. The old guys with guts who made a change are followed by gutless hangers-on who can’t even spell it.
Well, time to get the badly spelt placards now.
“No to divorse” and all that jazz.
Divorzju qatt, pogguti iva.
L-Angli fuq il-Kerubini, favur il-Konkubini.
Ss if people will stay with their wife or husband in an unhappy relationship – divorce or no divorce, marriages will continue to break down and people will continue to go their separate ways.
The issue is not whether or not divorce will be introduced/legislated. The issue is that when it comes to the crunch – what we are left with are a bunch of spineless twats.
I am happily married for more than forty years, but if a referendum comes, I will vote yes for divorce. I strongly believe that couples that are having a hard time together, they should get divorced.
If they do bring in divorce after five years of being separated then you can bet the church will offer cut price ‘fast track’ annulments after two years to compete!
What really ought to happen after a marriage is anulled? Should the children become classified as illegitimate? Should the mate who becomes the unwilling victim of an anullment, have no rights to compensation or support, since the marriage is now no longer recognized as ever having been a marriage?
Is God to be held responsible for yokeing these two people together and then unyokeing the yoke? What scriptural grounds does the church have for anulling a marriage? At least the scriptures accept adultery not as a reason for anullment, but as a reason for divorce. Surely Any intelligent human being can find some justification for divorce in the case of adultery, but how could anyone in a right frame of mind justify anullment?
I can understand why the Catholic church introduced the teaching of purgatory and encouraged individuals to contribute money, in the hope that their dead loved ones would get out of purgatory and into heaven sooner, since they had run out of funds, when building St Peter’s basilica in Rome. Even though they hoodwinked their followers, at least, that makes some sense to me, but can anyone give me a good reason why they introduced anullment?
Surely, if those people who are anti divorce, have made this conscience decision based on their christian beliefs, then they also ought to protest against the decision of the church to introduce anullment, since this has the same effect on one’s marriage and one’s children, as a divorce has, and it is without scriptural foundation.
Jesus himself, whom Catholics consider to be God, said that divorce was only permissable on the grounds of adultery. Then he went on to say that what God had yoked together, no man should tear apart. Just what did Jesus have in mind when giving that command. Bear in mind that scripturally speaking, adultery only takes place once sexual relations have been involved.
Jesus made this clear when he spoke of people who commit adultery in their hearts. So he obviously meant that if a married person committed adultery by having sexual relations with a woman outside marriage, that person has now gone and yoked himself to another person by reason of his adulterous relationship.
Only on this ground was adultery justifiable by the innocent mate. So if the Catholic church decides it can anull a marraigeon any ground, other than adultery, it then becomes guilty in God’s eyes, of tearing up an arrangement that God has yoked together. At what stage does God yoke a couple together?
Well, according to the scriptures, this is when God approves of two people sharing sexual intimacies after getting married. They are now yoked together in God’s eyes. I am not a religious person by any means. Neither do I believe in God. However I understand that those who are anti divorce use religion to justfy their stand. Hence my use of the scriptures and God’s own word to counter such wrongful ideas.
You obviously have no idea of what you’re talking about. The annullment of a marriage by the Church tribunal is obtained on the basis of vices of consent, which would in any case, vitiate (and therefore, annull) any for of contract. the only person who doesn’t seem to be in a right frame of mind is yourself. This is a cornerstone of the catholic laws regulating the celebration of marriage.
It is only fair, and therefore a principle of natural justice, that if any of the party/ies contracting marriage were at the time of the celebration (or in one particular instance of matrimonio non rato et consummato, after the celebration of the marriage) suffering from one or more of the vices of consent (e.g. duress, simulation etc) as listed in the Canons, then that marriage can be annulled. The justification that seems to elude you so desparately is to be found within these criteria.
And not only is it fair to the parties who have contracted the annullable marriage. It is also an imperative to protect the Catholic theological principle of the INDISSOLUBILITY of a VALID marriage. In other words, and readers will forgive me for stating the obvious, there are instances where a marriage can be contracted invalidly. In this, the marriage contract is indistinct from it’s more distant relatives in the field of civil law. Here, and pretty much to the same extent as under the Canons, civil contracts (i.e. contracts concluded between private citizens) may also be annulled on the basis of some vice of consent
Secondly, in the event that the putative marriage has borne fruit, the Tribunal would pronounce the annullment (if this is the case!) from the date of the last born onwards. The question of legitimacy of a child, moreover, is a question of civil status (and one which has been dealt with recently by our benevolent legislators!). the Church annullment does not have authority on the civil status of persons, and therefore the child cannot be ‘classified’ as illegitamate.
Thirdly, the if the marriage is defective and therefore annulled by virtue of being annullabke, then God hasn’t ‘yoked’ these two people together, A marriage that is declared to be null is null ab initio (from the very begining) and therefore, there is no ‘unyokeing’ (sic!) to be performed by any deity from up high.
And, as was Napoleon’s wont, you persist further. You state that the Church introduced anullment. It didn’t. It respects the institute of annullment because this is a principle of natural justice. Catholics do not ‘consider’ Jesus to be God, but rather his one and only Son. Furthermore, the state of civil society today is far removed from that of Jesus’s time.
Lastly, I suggest that you learn how to think, then how to spell correctly…then maybe, maybe, maybe…you’ll learn how to speak and write. Until then, kindly refrain from regaling us with your inanities.
You obviously have no idea of what you’re talking about. The annullment of a marriage by the Ecclesiatical Tribunal is obtained on the basis of vices of consent, which would, in any case, vitiate (and therefore, annull) any form of contract. Here, the only person who doesn’t seem to be in a right frame of mind seems to be none other than yourself. Annullment is in fact a cornerstone of the Catholic laws regulating the celebration of marriage.
Here’s the logic which, somewhere along the path from gibbering to drooling, you seem to have lost:
It is only fair, and therefore a principle of natural justice, that if any of the party/ies contracting marriage were at the time of the celebration (or in one particular instance only after the celebration of the marriage – matrimonio non raot et non consummato) were suffering from one or more of the vices of consent (e.g. duress, simulation etc) as listed in the Canons, then that marriage can be annulled. This is the justification that seems to elude you, but only you, so desparately.
And not only is it fair to the parties who have contracted the annullable marriage. It is also an imperative to protect the Catholic theological principle of the INDISSOLUBILITY of a VALID marriage. In other words, and readers will forgive me for stating the obvious, there are instances where a marriage can be contracted invalidly. In this, the marriage contract is indistinct from it’s more distant relatives in the field of civil law. Here, and pretty much to the same extent as under the Canons, civil contracts (i.e. contracts concluded between private citizens) may also be annulled on the basis of some vice of consent. Though they may also be annulled for a whole set of different reasons. Hence, under the Canons, the demonstrability of the marriage as null and void is strictly restricted to a vice of consent.
Secondly, in the event that the putative marriage has borne fruit, the Tribunal would pronounce the annullment (if this is the case!) from the date of the first born onwards. The question of legitimacy of a child, moreover, is a question of civil status (and one which has been dealt with recently by our benevolent legislators!). The Church tribunal, and any annullment that it may pronounce, does not have authority to regulate the civil status of persons, and therefore the child cannot be ‘classified’ as illegitamate.
Thirdly, the if the marriage is defective and therefore annulled by virtue of being annullable, then God hasn’t ‘yoked’ these two people together, A marriage that is declared to be null is null ab initio (from the very begining) and therefore, there is no ‘unyokeing’ (sic!) to be performed by any deity from up high.
And, as was Napoleon’s wont, you persist further. You state that the Church introduced annullment. It didn’t. It respects the institute of annullment because this is a principle of natural justice. Catholics do not ‘consider’ Jesus to be God, but rather his one and only Son. Furthermore, the state of civil society today is far removed from that of Jesus’s time. And in any case whoever said that adultery is not a ground for divorce? We do not have divorce legislation on our books as yet, but given that adultery IS a ground for personal separation I am pretty sure that it will constitute, as a civil offence, a ground for divorce.
In fact, I am equally sure that all the grounds that are presently valid and available for personal separation (including having no ground at all!) will be equally available as criteria for the obtaining of a divorce decree.
Lastly, I suggest that you learn how to think, then how to spell correctly…then maybe, maybe, maybe…you’ll learn how to speak and write. Until then, kindly refrain from regaling us with your inanities and non-sequiturs.
@interested bystander: or the Church will offer a ‘fast track’ first class passage to paradise for those who vote against divorce…
Let’s say a referendum is held and the Yes vote wins. The resulting divorce legislation would surely be hammered to include a ‘four-years-apart-out-of-the-last-five’ clause or something to that effect.
We’re talking 2013 here, earliest.
We’ll have to wait until 2018 to celebrate the inaugural divorcees.
[Daphne – Oh come on. Any ‘two/three/four years apart’ clause won’t be qualified by ‘from the date of enactment of this legislation’. It makes no sense at all. What exactly is the point of having people whose marriages broke down 30 years ago wait another three years?]
You’re right.
If couples do rush to the courts to file for divorce once in, another ‘wejting list’ will swell up. Or is it oldest served first?
Sounds like the GWU all over again….
Divorce is a MUST if we really believe in equal rights of the minority.
Married life is wonderful. It’s nice to come home to the welcoming arms of your husband. So let’s give everybody a second chance to a happy marriage.
Wouldn’ t it be nice if everyone would offer support to these unlucky people whose marriage did not work out.
What about the children?
Think of your children whilst you are married. One of the best gifts a parent can give their child is to love their marriage mate. Work on your marriage whilst it is thriving, not once it’s over.
Once that love between mates no longer exists, don’t use the children as an excuse not to get a divorce. That is emotional blackmail. If parents really love their children, they can divorce and come to some agreement which is in the best interest of their children’s happiness.
This might mean that another person has now entered your child’s life. It may be hard to accept, but if your child’s happiness is at stake here, you have to make some hard choices. Having children grow up in an environment where parents do not get on, is definitely not in a child’s interest.
I have read some comments that divorce should only be allowed after the children’s interests have been taken into consideration. What a load of hog wash. If a court were to be allowed to make such a decision on behalf of a married couple and refuse the right of divorce, could you imagine the much worse situation those children would have to contend with?
hey Bob I have been asking the church this for ages and still they won’t tell me the difference between kids that come from a home broken by church annulment and kids from a home broken by divorce. Maybe you know the difference.
I agree to a referendum. I will vote against divorce, but for the PN in an election.
Both my votes are based on an educated choice.
The country cannot take all the social seurity requirements and problems divorce will introduce.
I do not think that our country has given up on its people as yet!
What extra social security requirements and extra problems on top of those created by separation/annullment would we have to finance if divorce had to be introduced?
I must say that Gonzi let me down big time tonight. His body language by itself was enough to betray his discomfiture. What he uttered was even more abysmal. It was incoherent and illogical. He said that there was no mandate for divorce, promptly followed by him stating that he does not want divorce to be an issue come next election. So there will still be no mandate next time round either.
Then he criticised Joseph Muscat for declaring that he would present a private member’s bill if he is prime minister but he followed that by conjecturing that JM will take everybody by surprise and springing the divorce issue unexpectedly.
This must be the nadir of Gonzi’s career. His loyalty is towards the Vatican not towards Malta. Not that I ever doubted it.
Anybody has Lowell’s contact number? I want to book a seat on his first one way trip to Mars.
I am against divorce. But I would vote in favour of its introduction. I don’t feel that my beliefs should be imposed on everyone.
With divorce only the civil contract will be dissolved.
Those who are Catholics and want to obey its teaching will just treat divorce like they treat the present separation and remain chaste for the rest of their lives.
I honestly can’t see what all the fuss is about.
Babel, it’s written on the wall: Gonzi sees a referendum to be the only way out. With a referendum there is no need of a mandate and the people will decide.
I and many people I know find his reasoning highly logical.
His loyalty is towards the electorate.
Your ‘reasoning’ puts you on a first class seat on Lowell’s trip to Mars.
[Daphne – No, John, his loyalty is towards his own conscience on what is a highly personal matter, and sadly, when people allow themselves to be overcome by their own sense personal views, they lose their sense of perspective and take the wrong decisions (vide John Dalli). This was immediately obvious when the prime minister made the Freudian slip that divorce is the biggest decision Malta has ever had to face, and immediately realised what he had done and qualified it by saying ‘one of the biggest’. To those with a sense of perspective, it is not one of the biggest decisions and it is certainly not the biggest. There have been far more fundamentally wide-reaching decisions, most notably in 2003. And every general election faces us with a decision far greater than the decision on divorce, because the choice of government changes the direction and nature of the country permanently and in an overall manner, unlike divorce. People were unaware of it at the time, for instance, but the decision to elect Mintoff in 1971 was just a decision, for the worse. As a result of that decision, Malta ended up with its back broken, escalating class hatred and wounds that are still open 40 years later. Arguing for a referendum at this stage is just so much sophistry. It is beyond irresponsible to hold a referendum when you know that a society without divorce legislation and a increasing rate of marital breakdown is unsustainable, that divorce is necessary for the same reason social reasons that marriage is necessary, and when you have no Plan B – because there can be no Plan B – to contain the fall-out over generations when divorce is vetoed.]
Truth hurts and hurts badly.
I cannot believe we still even have to discuss this in 2010, as if the current situation is any better to anyone.
I think “spineless twats” sums it up perfectly.
Malta’s first referendum was on EU membership; Malta’s second refereudum will be on whether or not Malta is a secular society: yes, or no. Will the evolution continue?
Evolution? The third referendum will be on the re-introduction of the faldetta.
Or devolution?
If I am not mistaken there was another referendum about the integration with England.
Everyone must also bear in mind that although the Roman Catholic Church is against divorce, not all Maltese people are devout Catholics.
In the last church survey held in 2005, it was declared that only 52% of the population attend mass on Sunday, I’m not stating that divorce should be obtained easily but on the other hand, everyone should bear in mind and think about the suffering many people are going through.
According to our Catholic religion, one can only obtain an annulment only if it is proved that there was an impediment before marriage that one of the parties involved did not know about. Situations like domestic violence or adultery are not taken into consideration. At this stage then I ask: ‘If the innocent party leaves his/her violent or unfaithful partner, and has no grounds for annulment, does he/she have to remain alone for the rest of his/her life?’ It is true that if one wants to follow the Catholic religion, he/she has to lump it, forgive the partner and remains alone for the rest of his/her life but on the other hand, if there are others who want to have another relationship, they should be given a chance.
In my opinion, either annulments should be widened and situations where there is no possible hope of reconciliation and no children were born from that union should be dissolved or else let divorce be introduced and it is up to the conscience of that individual whether to opt for it or not.
“Everyone must also bear in mind that although the Roman Catholic Church is against divorce, not all Maltese people are devout Catholics.”
Fallacious argument. It is civil divorce we’re talking about, not divorce in a Catholic marriage. One can be a super-devout Roman Catholic and happily allow others (and oneself) to dissolve their civil marriage union. Monsignor Said Pullicino thinks otherwise, but he’s wrong.
u hallina xbin arjurant iehor l’ewwel reverendu kien tal integresion fi zmien mintoff int iehor hux li toqod tmaqdar lil jose???? qabda arjuranti laqqas listorja ta malta ma taf pruzuntus hallina xbin tridx tmur lura mnej gejt bahnan????
Thank you Daphne for uploading this comment.
There have been only five referenda in Malta’s history, none of them passing with a majority of the registered voters. There has been only one referendum after Act No. XX of 2002, an ACT entitled “the Referenda (Amendment) Act, 2002), which was published in the Government Gazette of Malta No. 17,295 — 4th October, 2002.
The first Referendum was in 1870. So, The Integration Referendum of 1956 (February 11 and 12), with 59% of registered voters voting, was Malta’s second referendum, not the first. But it was the first in Malta’s recent history for anyone who is still alive today.
Integration with Britain, Mintoff’s ambition then in 1956, was defeated because of an insufficient quota of voters. Even so, Mintoff did not give up his ambitions for integration until 1958; after then he sought independence. Mintoff’s vision for independence seems to have been motivated by his desire to extort financial benefits for Malta from the British.
The Independence Referendum of 1964 (May 2, 3 and 4) was Malta’s third, winning with 54.47 vs 45.53 percent of valid votes casts.
Only Gozo could vote in the Gozo Civil Council (Abolition) Referendum of 1973, Malta’s fourth referendum (but only in Gozo).
The European Union Referendum of 2003 (8 March 2003) was Malta’s fifth referendum, the first after the amendment to the Referendum Act in 2002. The vote passed with 53.65 vs 46.35 percent of the valid votes cast.
Alfred Sant wanted to count the votes differently than democratic procedure allowed, and he claimed defeat of the referendum in a parallel argument to the defeat of the integration referendum of 1954; and Joseph Muscat agreed with Alfred Sant in their misguided belief that the Referendum had not passed because there was no majority of the registered voters voting “yes.”
There never has been a majority of registered voter approval in any referendum. There certainly was a significant quorum of voters in the 2003 referendum; a truly democratic majority for the “yes” vote; and the people’s vote in the 2003 referendum was confirmed in the general election that followed.
If the integration referendum of 1956 had passed, we would not be having a divorce debate today: Britain’s laws would have become ours. Nor would Malta be an independent nation, as it became in 1964 when Malta no longer was a British colony.
And thanks to the last referendum, we have an independent voice and our stability within Europe and its opportunities, both at home and abroad. Like other insurance, we also share in the risks along with the other members of the EU, as we also benefit in the supports of the EU. And we still have our independence. And accordingly, after EU membership, Malta is no longer insular, even if it is an island; we now are an integral part of the larger European enterprise.
Perhaps, eventually, we will enjoy the option of more of Europe’s freedoms and protections, including divorce as an available option for those who want or need it, but according to our self-determined choice for bringing the option for divorce to a significant Maltese minority–beyond those who have the financial means to obtain divorce abroad.
However, there should be no need for a referendum if only the political parties would agree to parliament’s doing its job. Both political parties are jockeying for political advantage.
If the Prime Minister fails to lead on this divorce issue, against the eventuality of history, he may hand government over to the opposition. Between “divorce” and “the opposition in government,” certainly the latter is the far worst of “two evils.” That would seem to be another moral weight on the shoulders of the Prime Minister’s leadership.
u ha nejdlek ir-revednu tal integresion tlifnih habba gonzi mux dan il pacaccu tisa imma zijuh li kien arcisoqf halluna tridx imbasta tejdu kontra jose u mbad laqqas biss tafu xgara u ma garax fdal pajjiz arjuranti umtaten
“the Labour Party has even more staunch traditionalists among its electorate”
Oh come on Daph, after what the labour party went through in the 60s? It is a known fact that many Labour supporters took a vow against the church in the 60s, whilst those who didn’t, at least, held some serious reserves about its administration and have passed this lack of trust from one generation to the other.
[Daphne – Dear God in heaven, can’t you see the inherent contradiction in your stance and theirs? The Roman Catholic Church can frighten and control you – negatively or positively – only if you give a damn. If you are indifferent to the Roman Catholic Church, except for acknowleding it’s there, then threats of damnation have about as much affect on you as the same threats would have if levied by, say, a hysterical iman in Iran. It is precisely because those people were and still are very conservative, traditional and priest-fearing that they got so strung out about it. They felt rejected by the very institution to which they felt they belonged, which was so much a part of their identity. If the bishop had to threaten me with damnation, I’d just go and eat breakfast and wonder what he was on about.]
What’s surely a fact is that most of the fundamentalist Catholics belong to the PN. Take the leaders themselves, for example, who I believe are a reflection of their most loyal supporters. Fenech Adami and Gonzi are the epitome of churched-influenced traditionalism and, consequently, so are many of those who worship them. Compare Gonzi and Fenech Adami’s talk and day-to-day customs for instance to those of Sant and Mintoff and you would see why your assertion is wrong.
[Daphne – No, no, no and again no – you’re confusing psychology and issues. You seem to genuinely want to understand, which is why I’m bothering with this discussion, so here goes. Mintoff was a totalitarian despot by nature and political behaviour, and so, like all totalitarian despots throughout history and all over the world, he tended to attract support mainly from the urban poor,rural peasants, the unthinking, and those with a grudge. In Malta though, we had a bit of a peculiar development in that the rural peasants, shocked by the totalitarianism and upheaval, promptly reverted back to support for the more peaceable Nationalist Party. It was impossible to be a liberal, thinking person and support Dom Mintoff. In fact, many people of my age or thereabouts who came from peasant or working-class stock, who were raised in Mintoffian households, but who were intelligent, observant and thoughtful, began to fall out with their parents over Mintoff when they reached a sort of age of awareness. Carmen Sammut’s blog-post on the Malta Today website describes this process well, using herself as an example. The mistake you are making here is to divide people into left-wing and right-wing, when really the division falls between those who are tolerant and liberal by nature and nurture and those who are not. The Nationalist Party is essentially a liberal party in that it has, for the last few decades, espoused principles of freedom and the dignity of the individual. Divorce, and only divorce, is a stumbling block, and then it is a stumbling block only because of the prime minister’s personal views. The Labour Party, on the other hand, is immersed in the fundamentally totalitarian belief that freedom and the individual can and should if necessary be subsumed and consumed by the common good. it has scant respect for the dignity of the individual and still cannot handle freedom of expression. This is why those who are liberal and tolerant, in their vast majority, vote for the Nationalist Party and those who are intolerant, unthinking and jealous vote Labour. Religous is irrelevant – or rather, it is very relevant, but not in the way you think. Liberals dislike the Labour Party precisely because of its hostility to the Roman Catholic Church in the past. Liberals believe in freedom of expression and freedom of religion, and that includes the freedom of politicians to be Roman Catholics if they want to be. Instinctively, I trust a person who loves his religion more than I trust a person who hates religion. The person who hates religion has a grudge, and people with grudges are difficult.]
“Liberals dislike the Labour Party precisely because of its hostility to the Roman Catholic Church in the past.”
What the Maltese church did in the 60s to whoever supported Labour was an abomination that goes downright against the credo of liberalism itself. So how could a true liberal possibly criticise the then Labour supporters for their rage against the church? It is very unfair of you to mention this hostility without remarking why this hostility arose in the first place.
[Daphne – Sigh. I’m going to put this in point form. 1. Liberals believe everybody is free to espouse the religion of their choice or to espouse no religion at all. 2. This is completely different from insisting that organised religions must be liberal with their self-declared members. No organised religion is liberal, by definition, because it is an organised religion. The point is that you are free to join and free to leave, and that’s where the freedom comes in. We are not talking about an Islamic society here, in which one is not free to apostasise. 3. There is no such thing as ‘the Maltese church’. The Roman Catholic Church is one and it is universal, as I believe we learned in first grade. 4. If Labour supporters didn’t like what the Roman Catholic Church did, they were free to leave, find another religion, or have no religion at all. But being adults, this was their choice and they shouldn’t blame anyone for pushing them away. 5. The hostility arose because the archbishop said it would be a mortal sin to vote for Mintoff. In retrospect, and if I believed in sin and all that, I would say he was probably right. The pain and wreckage brought down on this country for 16 long years was the direct responsibility of all those who voted to put him into power. They did it, and everyone else paid the price, for at least two generations. 6. The people who reacted with such hostility to that piece of fire and brimstone did so because they were backward and uneducated. It was Malta, the 1960s and most of them were working-class and partially literate, so what do you expect? There was no similar crazed reaction from the supporters of Lord Strickland in the 1920s, when the local cassocks had a go at him. That was because they were, in the main, highly literate and of a different social order. Religion occupied an entirely different place in their lives and they were not unduly bothered about the approval of priests. 7. We were told only two weeks ago that voting for divorce would be a mortal sin. Did we care? Not much. We laughed. Why? Because it’s 2010 and even working-class people can read and what do you know, some of them can even think.]
Il-kummenti ta’ Jason Palestina huma strambi hafna! Jidher car li min hu jaf jikteb tajjeb imma jaghzel li jaghmilha ta’ injorant. Min jaf minn fejn gejjin?
jien naf li minix arjurant!!!! ma kellix bzonn lilek tigi tejdli!!! jien mil belt ok xbin u gburi u l beltin kolla gburin b jose ok siehbi?!?!?!?! mela tigi din u toqod tejd kontih imissa tisthi hallih trid lil jose u hallijja lill-ohtu ukoll nies bilaqal he nejdlek xbin ahna vfajna lil sandro umbad ara fix gabna isa anna lill-jose u nafu li mohna mistrih bih ok xbin? u ha nedjlek ohra strambi hafna l-kumenti tijek mela tijej ekk aw xi hadd arjurant dak int siehbi ok?!
Jason, tidher li ma intix arjurant.
Ha nara tafx twiegeb din: Mil-liema naha tal-Belt inti – mill-West Bank jew minn Gaza?
U din: Sandro, liema wiehed?
Sandro Schembri Adami or Sandro Chetcuti ?
There is no such thing as a Catholic divorce, so divorce is invariably civil. Now most of the people I know, whether for personal beliefs (of at least one of the spouses) or simply to follow tradition, get married by the Roman Catholic rite.
So when divorce is introduced, will everyone start marrying by the civil rite, “just in case”? And if one member of the couple decides he or she wants to marry just civilly, will the other take it as an offence? (“Mela biħsiebek tiddivorzjani?”)
[Daphne – In the eyes of the law, there is no such thing as a ‘religious’ marriage. The only marriage that counts – the only one that has you down on the books as married – is the civil rite/registration. Before 1993, those who married in church would have to pop into the sacristy to meet a delegate from the Public Registry, who would then perform the civil rite and have you sign the civil marriage contract. Now the priest does that, and faces prosecution if he fails to register your marriage with the CIVIL public registry. When divorce legislation is introduced, it will not distinguish between who married in church and who didn’t, for the simple reason taht the law doesn’t acknowledge the religious rite.]
In Malta the common perception of “getting married” is “getting married by the Roman Catholic rite”, and the common preception of “divorce” is that “it allows you to get married again”.
But the second marriage is just civil, it can’t be Roman Catholic. I’m not sure whether everyone gets that, that’s all. But I might be wrong.
—
Something else.
Besides any money married couples might be entitled to receive from third parties (government, banks, etc.), does civil marriage offer anything that cannot be agreed upon and signed at a notary?
Because if there isn’t (and one is ready to give up those entitlements), couldn’t one just copy the agreement people normally sign when they get married and paste it into a new document “Our custom marriage.doc”, edit the “cannot divorce” bit out, and then sign it?
I’m not saying this would be a straightforward solution. Naturally it’d be much simpler to just “get married” and get on with it, but is it doable?
@ White Rabbit – yes they will, and make no mistake about it; if their conscience so dictates. Big pity, but there you are -a fact of life, in Malta at least, where the Church seems to have a bigger hold than flesh and blood.