The divorce showboat
Will Marlene Pullicino please stop talking about divorce? She has turned herself into a perambulating circus. If she were not so good at making money and buying and selling real estate, I would have cause to wonder about her powers of reason.
After telling us ad nauseam that she is against divorce because she is a devout Catholic – and this when she left her husband, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, and their children, to set up home with a man who is married to somebody else – two months ago she described a remarkable U-turn and now seems to wish to claim part-ownership of her estranged husband’s divorce initiative.
Last August she told us why she has changed her mind about divorce:
“I have spoken to many people, including priests and theologians, and they exonerated me of my guilt because I realised that legislating for divorce does not mean I am going against my Catholic beliefs.”
I wondered at the time what the same ‘priests and theologians’ had told her about double adultery and whether she quite understands that this goes against Catholic belief, even if her own particular brand of Catholic belief can be made to accommodate the situation. Hypocrisy and self-delusion can be so astonishing, sometimes.
She said back then:
“Some people made me see things in a different light. I realised that as a representative of the people I could not represent only Catholics. I was being narrow-minded enough to disregard this responsibility.”
This was a few weeks after her estranged husband brought before parliament his private member’s bill on divorce. She gave the impression at the time that she was not aware that he was going to do this, and he gave the impression that he hadn’t told her.
Then it turned out that he had, and that she knew, and that he had also given her a dressing-down about her contradictory and hypocritical stance.
But things are getting odd now.
Yesterday, Marlene Pullicino spoke at a seminar organised by the Green European Foundation and chose to drop the bombshell that not only was she fully aware of her husband’s (for yes, he is still her husband because they’re not divorced) plans to bring a private member’s bill before parliament, but that she had offered to co-sponsor it.
As I write this, her husband hasn’t yet made any public comment on the veracity of her statement, but I am curiously inclined to believe it.
It has the ring of truth about it, most particularly the bit where she said that, after her husband put his bill before parliament, she spoke to her party leader, Joseph Muscat, to tell him that she had known what was going to happen, and should she confess to the media? Muscat told her to let it go and do nothing.
But now she has blown away the wrapping.
We knew that Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando didn’t bother to tell the prime minister of his plans for a divorce bill. What we didn’t know for sure is that told an MP on the Opposition benches about those plans, because she happens to be his estranged wife.
What we certainly didn’t know is that, faced with the choice between loyalty to the Labour Party and its leader, and loyalty to the father of her children, Marlene Pullicino clearly decided to avoid more scope for trouble on the family front and risk trouble with her party leader instead.
So she said nothing, allowed her husband to take everyone but her by surprise by putting his bill before parliament, and then rang her leader to confess that she had known but hadn’t told him.
And he told her to say nothing in public – obviously, because it looks terrible that she didn’t warn him, just as it looks terrible that her husband didn’t tell the prime minister.
So what have we here? We have two estranged spouses, one a government MP and the other sitting with the Opposition, plotting and scheming with each other and kidding themselves that they rose above partisan politics in doing so.
But both of them went behind their party leaders’ back and hid crucial information, forcing those party leaders into a situation where they had to play ball and avoid making an embarrassing and destructive scene. I don’t like it.
Of course, there was the inevitable cringe-making statement from the fervent Catholic who lives with another woman’s husband after having walked out on her own (her business, but then she shouldn’t invite mockery and ridicule by calling herself a fervent Catholic).
She has no vested interest in a divorce law, Marlene Pullicino said, because she will not be seeking divorce for herself. She is a Catholic, she said, and so she continues to wait for the Roman Catholic Church to take a decision on her petition to have her marriage to Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando declared null – several children and a couple of decades after the event. And if that marriage is declared null, then none of us are married and we’re all living in sin.
But the funniest, albeit in a tragic way, aspect of her statement is the mistake she makes – a common one – in failing to quite understand that divorce applies to a marriage and not to one of the spouses. It makes no difference at all whether Marlene Pullicino plans to seek divorce or not, because her husband has said already that he will. If he divorces her, then she will find herself divorced, with or without her consent.
This is why I say I find it difficult to follow her reasoning, unless she is being disingenuous and leading on the more gullible of her constituents. Even if she has conveniently overlooked the fact that the man she lives with is married to somebody else, we certainly haven’t.
Even if, by some extraordinary stretch of the imagination and some very keen contortion and twisting through hoops, the Roman Catholic Church declares Marlene and Jeffrey Pullicino’s marriage null and void, there is still another marriage to be declared null and void by the religious tribunal if Marlene is to marry her lover in a white wedding in a Roman Catholic church: her lover’s.
Unfortunately, this thing is now taking on shades of a French farce – but this is a direct result of the political parties refusing to take ownership of the issue and leaving it to individuals, with all their vested interests and hang-ups, instead.
OH MY, WHAT A COINCIDENCE
Why do I get the funny feeling that this protracted exercise in choosing the Labour Party’s new emblem – competitions, exhibitions, committees to select the finalists, voting by text message and the rest – was just one great, big mise-en-scene?
I rather suspect that the winner, announced yesterday, was always going to be the winner. Wearing my professional hat in my working life outside column-writing, I had identified it immediately for what it was among the lorry-load of rubbish at that exhibition: the designated, perhaps even commissioned, Labour Party logo.
I made this assessment even without knowing which company had designed it – I discovered that yesterday – for it was quite obviously a professional piece of corporate design.
The Labour Party has continued to play the stealth game by telling us yesterday, in a statement, that the winning emblem was designed by “international company TBWA/ANG”.
Who exactly do they think they’re fooling?
To Mrs Borg up the road, the letters TBWA/ANG might mean nothing, but there are hundreds of people who work in the media here in Malta and who know that ANG is the Associated News Group, the advertising agency set up and owned by Joseph Muscat’s NBF (new best friend) and adviser, Godfrey Grima.
I should know, because once upon a time, a lifetime ago, I worked there.
It is TBWA that is the international agency, and ANG represents it in Malta, but the Labour Party’s statement sought to make it seem that TBWA/ANG is one international company. Why Joseph Muscat seems to wish to hide Godfrey Grima’s business involvement is anyone’s guess.
This article is published in The Malta Independent on Sunday today.
42 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Men are from Mars and women are from Venus. I tried very hard to understand Marlene, but the only thing I can conclude is that I don’t blame Jeffrey for doing his damn best to get this divorce bill through, no matter what – and then get divorced from Marlene.
No, no no. It’s not “TBWA / ANG”.
According to mlatasart.com , it’s “TBWA \ ANG”.
It took me a quite a while to find the ” \ ” on my keyboard.
You can fool some of the people some of the time .. etc.
So the new earth-shattering emblem has been chosen and the wage bill for a couple of weeks at the glasshouse nicely secured. It wasn’t too difficult really, having placed it in between two strawberry ice cream cones on the multiple-choice emblem spread and the master tacticians at HQ prodding the free spending members to vote either a, BBBB, or c.
We saw the new internationally designed letterheads coming weeks ago.
Labour has shown that it is a B party. It’s definitely not an A party.
Ohh, the twisted mind of Marlene Pullicino… So, let me get this straight. She said that since she is a Catholic, she will continue to wait for the Roman Catholic Church to take a decision on her petition to have her marriage to Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando declared null.
Now,with her reasoning and Catholic beliefs, when that time comes and she is granted her petition, does that not make the fact that she has children out of wedlock sinful?
‘wedlock’–haven’t read that word for years. Puts all this local uproar in perspective. Pity.
I thought it to be rather duplicit to state that one would rather wait for a church annulment rather than opt for divorce (were it available) whilst one is living with the husband of another – especially after having left one’s husband to do so.
Children born of a marriage declared null are presumed to be legitimate. Regarding sin, since they were born before the marriage was declared null, I think there is no sin as they were born in “bona fide”.
I would have loved to be a fly on the wall to watch Joseph Muscat’s reaction if Marlene co-presented the private members’ bill on divorce.
To have a government backbencher pull the rug from under your feet is already bad enough but to have one of your own co-sponsor it is a whole different ball game.
The way the whole divorce thing is developing, I can’t decide whether I should be amused or plunge into despair.
I still cannot understand what it is exactly that the prime minister has to decide about. The question is not “if” but “how”.
Let us say for the sake of argument that the decision is that divorce legislation is not introduced. Then what? Won’t the issue come up again in 3, 5, 10 years’ time? Are the parties waiting for the catholic taliban to die out? Or maybe nobody wants to go down in the history as being the prime minister to introduce divorce? I suspect that the latter is what is weighing mostly on Gonzi’s mind.
I was also quite fascinated about the fact that journalists have asked ex-president Eddie Fenech Adami about his opinion on the issue, but not the current president (or, perhaps, I’ve missed it). On the other hand, knowing the current president’s ultra-religious conservative stance, it might be a rhetoric question. I wonder whether he would refuse to sign the bill into law or else resign.
The issue here is that this Government does not have a mandate to introduce any sort of legislation to favour divorce. It can order a referendum to see if the people want divorce to be part of our legislation or if things are to stay as they are. I bet my last dollar that things will stay as they are. Surveys cannot decide the issue. Parliament doesn’t have the authority to legislate on this issue. The minority cannot decide for the majority. And the majority does not want the introduction of divorce.
It has the highest mandate of them all: the mandate of common sense.
And I had thought that the Labour Party emblem was designed by some working class Labour enthusiast – one of those who aspire that the party will one day pay him a living wage.
“If [her husband] divorces her, then she will find herself divorced, with or without her consent”
Don’t there exist situations where one of the spouses refuses to “sign the papers”? Just asking.
[Daphne – Yes, in the immediate aftermath of the break-up, the other spouse can refuse to sign. But after a period of separation stipulated at law – say, two years – you don’t need the other spouse’s signature and you don’t even need to be in court when the divorce goes through.]
On an unrelated note. This is hilarious. So much for the year-long process.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXKDnAcErWI
This morning on Focus 101, while discussing the IVF issue, Jean Pierre Farrugia said that a practising Catholic can opt out of using IVF technology, if the church rules against it. But any one else is free to do what he/she likes.
I agree 100%.
But why have a different stance on divorce law? It is illogical.
Daphne, you say that it is pointless Marlene claiming that she will not divorce Jeffrey, because Jeffrey has said that he will divorce her. Ah, but accordingly to Monsignor Said Pullicino, if Marlene waits for Jeffrey to divorce her, then she will be the ‘innocent party’ and so not in a state of sin – at least as far as divorce is concerned, if not in other matters. That way, she can continue to use the Virgin Mary as a life-model, as she clamed on television some months ago.
If Marlene really wants to follow the Catholic Church, once her husband divorces her, she still should live the life of a married woman. ie: no other relationships in her life because she is till married to her husband with the Catholic rites. If the Catholic marriage is dissolved, then she could do what she wants.
She still cannot enter into a relationship with another partner if he is married to another woman (unless he gets an annulment as well).
This is all typical of a small parish mentality.
Malta has suddenly become inundated by peripatetic lecturers in theology, morals, ethics, anthropology, sociology, you name it.
Interestingly, most of these overnight gurus do not seem to be able to sort out their personal lives. They are living in an almighty mess.
How they expect to be credible and to be able to solve everyone else’s problems is beyond me.
La donna e mobile, qual piuma al vento, muta d’accento e di pensier………….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXKDnAcErWI
The PL logo looks more like an Olympic torch to me. I’m sure Google images will help us find something similar.
My, my, Marlene has changed her mind and Labour has changed its logo – truly a changed party.
The more we change the more we stay the same, as Evarist Bartolo said.
Marlene tahseb verament li il- poplu Malti huwa daqsekk stupidu? Filli ma taqbilx, filli kienet taf qabel mil-ex ragel u qablet, WARA li semghet l ilmenti, tikkontradixxi lilha nfisha ghax Kattolika u ma taqbilx mad-divorzju, meta ilha tghix fid-dnub, ghax il-knisja kontra l-adulterju.
Titlob l-annullament minn ragel li kellha tlett itfal mieghu u ghexu flimkien snin twal. X`igifieri? Mela jekk il-knisja ituha l-annullament, nitlef it-twemmin kollu jien. Ghax, allura, KULHADD jista jitlob annullament mela.
Sewwa ta. Tiddejjaq mir-ragel jew mil-mara, ghal ragunijiet diversi, jew, jien naf, tiltaqgha ma xi hadd iehor, u flok titlob ghad-divorzju, titlob l annullament?Tajba ukoll.
Ma stajt qatt nifhem din il-vavata ta’ l -annullament jien, meta jkun hemm it-tfal fin nofs. Forsi tista tispjegali, Daphne. Ghax, sa fejn naf jien, annullament ituh meta iz-zwieg qatt ma esista, le?
Qatt ma esista, meta jkun hemm it-tfal fin-nofs? Kif jista jkun? Mela Marlene kontra id-divorzju imma favur l-annullament, halli tkun mohha mistrieh li ghada kattolika. U hallina dott.
Naqbel hafna mal-punti ta’ Pat. Xi haga li tttini veru gewwa meta zwieg jigi annullat u jkun hemm it-tfal.
Jidher li l-knisja ddum hafna biex taghti annullament (madwar 6 snin) imma wara din il-hafna stennija jidher li kulhadd jiehdu, anke fuq adulterju. L-iskuza hi li meta jsiru r-ricerki kien hemm problemi li jaghtu lok ghall-annullament.
Sa fejn naf jiena, hemm lista ta’ ragunijiet verament serji biex zwieg jigi null.
Nies it-tip ta pullicino ituni x’nifhem li jridu jikkondizzjonaw lil Alla, lill- Knisja, lill-poplu ghax jahsbu li kulhadd stupidu.
I think she’s got a twisted mind. Changes in political parties, her new reasoning and interpretations regarding divorce. Typical U-turns.
Can’t Dr Pullicino change her present surname to her maiden’s surname. In my opinion, it doesn’t make any sense to keep the double barrel surname of her husband but being separated she eliminated the Orlando. Is this her stage name? Usually actors and artists play with names.
I’m sorry “imma jiena kollox itini f’ghajni”
How reliable can the unreliable Marlene Pullicino be?
• She broke her solemn pronouncement to God that she would forever be faithful and loyal to her husband.
• In fact she walked out, leaving her husband and children, to live with another man who is married to another woman.
• She declared herself against divorce because she is a devout Catholic and only a few weeks later made a big U-turn declaring herself in favour.
• She said publicly that she knew nothing about her estranged husband’s private member’s bill on divorce and today she said that she not only knew about it but she also offered to co sponsor it.
Is her husband more reliable than she is?
• Consider his involvement in the case of the Mistra disco permit.
• Consider the way he did things when presenting his member’s private bill on divorce – that is, behind the back of the Prime Minister.
• Consider the way he went straight to Malta Today to talk over his supposedly private discussion with the Prime Minister.
Can I trust this kind of MP with a decision on a very delicate issue such as divorce, which if enacted would affect me and the entire Maltese society both socially and financially?
Their (the two MPs’) way of doing things tells me not to trust them. After all, it was the Prime Minister himself who advised us to judge him and MPs on what they do and not on what they say. And I am taking the Prime Minister’s advice, judging both Marlene and Jeffrey on what they did.
The Pullicino Orlando children mush have gone through a trauma when their parents separated and another one when their mother chose to live with another man.
But I am sure the biggest trauma would be to find out their parents were never really married in the first place.
There must be many genuine cases of marriages which are declared null. But there must also be those cases where one or both lie. It’s so easy to insist that, for example, when you got married you weren’t mature enough to realise what marriage involved or you already had doubts but were afraid to back out.
In my opinion the biggest trauma for the children is the separation and the new partners of their parents.
All the children need and want is love and serenity in their families. They don’t care so much if their parents haven’t got any marriage contracts.
Re the logo competition.
There was a very subtle variance between the other two logos – so effectively the ‘contra ANG’ vote was split – handing the prize to Godfrey Grima – but more importantly netting the PL €20K. Another prime example of the transparent mirrors Joseph Muscat uses to fool his followers!
Prosit tassew XK! Excellent artwork techniques! And I thought that the red forming the flame was a smudge from Raymond Caruana’s blood pool.
Yes, it is a splutter of blood and as one who has suffered violence under Labour, it will always bring back memories of those dark days.
I forgot to say that I hope Godfrey, a Zejtuni, reads this blog.
I read with interest your comments on the emblem competition because I was of the impression that only individuals would take part, also because the stakes were extremely low. So, only an individual would be enticed to participate, perhaps (I thought) for the “prestige” of having one’s design chosen for one’s pet party.
So, when I read on Saturday that ANG’s design has been given this “honour” I was totally surprised because I thought to myself whether companies such as ANG and TBWA (whoever they are) would have the interest to enter into such competitions unless they are specifically commissioned to do so.
I was surprised to see that it had not been submitted by an individual and, what more, that the company belongs to none other than Godfrey Grima.
Without entering into the merits of jobs for the boys and so on and so forth, I felt disgusted that the PL had also the cheek to abuse of its hardcore supporters.
Not even a floating voter would have voted I’m sure of that. So, basically, the other emblems didn’t have a chance in hell to be chosen.
Indeed, in legal terms, a mise-en-scene aimed at generating some sort of income is called “fraud” and it’s a punishable serious offence.
Had a private individual run something of the sort (or a company for that matter), the Economic Crimes Unit would have been duty-bound to investigate. It’s like organising a fake lottery, a fake charity-drive and a fake event which eventually does not take place in spite of having pocketed the money.
However, since we’re speaking of PL I’m sure that no investigations will take place since, in spite of all the talk of hbieb tal-hbieb and korruzzjoni, the PL and its minions always remain above the law and, ultimately, untouchables.
Is the company going to have rights on whatever the logo is going to appear on? In that case the stakes are not low.
Now here’s something you don’t see everyday.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxf4FSXWq-g
I think it’s really simple:
A. don’t get married in the first place;
B. don’t get married in church.
Come on! Stop moaning you lot! What’s wrong with having the old emblem with a new touch of artwork? Forsi mhux l-istruttura kollha tal-PL hija hekk?
Esteve “Plunge into despair” seems to be the obvious choice.
If this couple manage to obtain an annulment given their positions and children, it makes such a mockery of the whole annulment process as to defy belief (in anything).
If Marlene is a devout Roman Catholic she wouldn’t be living with a man who has a wife and four children. It is not right for a woman to take another woman’s husband simply because her marraige broke down.
Nobody has this right.
In my opinion it is a sin which cannot be forgiven. This is stealing. As we say in Maltese ’tisraq bla ma trott fil-qrar xejn ma jodd’.
One cannot imagine the anguish in which the family finds itself and how much the children suffer. When one is living with another’s husband/wife one can never be happy.