Friday, 21st August 2009
Divorcing the issues (2)
For your consideration...
A few weeks ago I wrote that when discussing divorce, we should differentiate between what is a Roman Catholic Church dogma, a personal and moral belief and a fundamental civil right. I had termed this exercise 'divorcing the issues'. Since then some interesting stories have appeared in the local media which deserve some consideration.
The first was a report by The Today Public Policy Institute called ‘For Worse, For Better: Re-marriage After Legal Separation’ for which Martin Scicluna was lead author. The main conclusions from this report were that no one enters for the sacrifice and commitment of marriage with the intention of using an opt out clause the first time the going gets somewhat rough. Rather, it is those irretrievably broken down marital unions which cause pain and anguish to all parties involved, especially children. Such couples should have the legal right to end the marriage through civil means. The church responded by issuing its own reply, led by ProgettImpenn, that seems to sustain that it is divorce which contributes to marriage breakdown rather than it being a remedial solution to the plight of couples whose marriage has gone wrong.
The church wants Malta to remain 're-marriage free territory' as Martin Scicluna calls it. This is understandable since the indissolubility of marriage is a church dogma. But it is both incredibly unfair and unreasonable to expect this to remain the case. While the laws of the Roman Catholic Church hold true for all those who wish to adhere to them, the state must take note of the wide spectrum of beliefs and interests that exist in our country. It must move on from an attitude of imposition to one of respect - the respect of other faiths and beliefs and the realisation that no institution, regardless of its power should veto the rights of others.
The second story of some note came from an interview by the Sunday Times with Cana Movement founder, Mgr Charles Vella. Mgr Vella stated that the introduction of divorce may not necessarily mean the ruin of marriages. I must say that I was somewhat surprised at his statement for till this day he has been the only senior member of the church who has not been in denial on this matter. Nonetheless I am glad that at least Mgr Vella recognises that it is not divorce which leads to marriage failure but rather the opposite.
And in the political arena...
A deafening silence. Well, at least from the government side. However, after endless years of dodging the issue, there have been some signs from the powers within the PN that things might just be moving, if not for political conviction, certainly for political convenience. Gonzi's recent comment that although he is personally against divorce, one has to see what is best to 'strengthen the family' is significant. Could it be that the Nationalists will be moving to close that 'progressive gap' between themselves and Labour by introducing divorce before the end of this legislature? Could it be the case that such a divorce law as introduced by Gonzi, although technically making marriage legally dissoluble would only be achievable after endless obstacles, even for the most irreconcilable cases? And would the reason for this be to appease the more conservative people in our society? Only time will tell.
On the other side of the political fence, after years of vacuum on this issue there is Joseph Muscat who has come and spoken out straight and plain that he is in favour of the introduction of divorce. It took a lot of courage for the newly elected Labour Leadera to speak out on such a delicate issue in his first interview. His pledge to bring forward a divorce bill, when in office, shows that Muscat, as opposed to Gonzi, is morally convinced of the necessity to allow an individual to exercise that personal freedom of ending one's civil union and marrying again.
Divorce shouldn't be a quick and easy affair. Malta shouldn't be a Las Vegas but neither would one want a farcical law which would make it near impossible to end a broken marriage. That would bring more and more pain to separated individuals who would like to settle down and legally re-marry. It is indeed a complex situation, but one in which the needs of those concerned should be given priority rather than the illusions of anyone with a moral superiority complex.
RSS
Comments
Protecting the rights, freedom, and liberty of each and every individual is, in fact, in the best interest of all individuals in a society. The strength of a society, or country, is in its people.
In general terms, every individual in a society has potential to add value to the society. That potential can only be realized if opportunity is present. So, when the majority suppresses the civil rights of the minority, they are removing some of the opportunity from the equation, and society as a whole suffers. That means that every member of that society suffers, including those in the majority.
There can be hundred and one reasons in favour or against but NO ONE can deny this Social Right!! NO ONE!!! DIVORCE IS A MUST!!!
I am with you except on two scores, human right and the referendum.
Marriage is a gift from God, as are all things which enrich our lives. When we Christians enter into the question of human rights, the first consideration is not ''How can we assert our rights?'' It is as Christ taught us to pray; ''Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done on earth as it is in heaven.'' But God left us free to make a choice to live a Christian life or leave the church when our legislators are depriving us from that right of choice.
Divorce legislation does not impede any Christian citizen from practising their beliefs; it allows them and other denominations the freedom to live the life they chose.
The will of the majority is not an option as the minority has an equal civil right of choice.
A crude example. In a society of 100 married couples 99 are happily married and want to remain married till death do them part and one is desperately unhappy, will it be fair if the 99 ignore the pain and suffering of the one couple?
Divorce in my opinion is not a human right!! It is only a tool or a method of solving the anguish of a failed marriage. Any divorcee can CHOOSE to stay single or remarry as his religious/culture dictates. It certainly does not interfere with the state of marriage be it healthy or otherwise. Divorce does not impede in any way the ending of a marriage, the ending of marriage is something deeply private between the couple and both or one partner/s can opt for a separation or annulment. We all have to admit that one fine day the party in Government WILL legislate divorce. Parlamentarians have no right to decide for society. We have this right and obligation through a referendum. After all does anyone think that separations, annulments or Divorce will ever decide the future of broken marriage? Certainly not, but at least from a legal and social point of view an Annulment or Divorce helps the partners to have a fresh start. It is unbelievable that our 'modern' society still looks down and frowns upon separated/co-habiting people, on the other hand you are more welcome if you are legally married. WEIRD!!!
I would even venture to comment that the divorce issue is beyond our parliamentarians' conscience. Who are they to decide the future of stricken married couples? The problem is that legislation has to be enacted in parliament. Weird, is'nt it?
The ongoing forum on divorse legislation is a very cotrovertial political issue bearing in mind that it had been a hot potato since time immemorial. A divorse mechanism is the Political issue which the government should be considering and taking action about. Usually, political parties have different views about issues with a moral undertone but the divorce issue has a support and an opposition from both sides of parliament and this can only be resolved with a free vote at division time.
A referendum would avail the government a golden opportunity to shoulder-off its parliamentary obligations towards the protection of the minority rights. The majority do not have a right to suppress the will of the minority when that will doesn’t impinge the freedom, the rights and the freedom of choice of the majority. On the other hand our parliamentarians are in duty bound to protect the civil rights of the minority groups as well as those of the majority.
Too bad the Moderator left out one important sentence regarding my hunch about the reason for your anti-Gonzi and anti-NP tirades!
Yes, too bad indeed! Not that you would have reacted to my suspicions!
No comments.
By Joe Martinelli “..............True, but then should we not consider criticizing the policies of certain parties rather than attack, in a very personal manner, the person? ............
By Joe Martinelli. “ The more you write the more hollow you sound.
By your own admission, Dr. Gonzi never took you up on your advice and that makes me wonder why! One does not become an MP, a Party leader, a Speaker of the House, and a Prime Minister as a result of political shortcomings.
Like the alter ego, you fail to address my questions and give a direct answer, instead, you go on an unrelated tangent in an attempt to change the subject. Run, Jo, run.”
@ Jo Said
You should have stayed with us by the pool.
The more you write the more hollow you sound.
By your own admission, Dr. Gonzi never took you up on your advice and that makes me wonder why! One does not become an MP, a Party leader, a Speaker of the House, and a Prime Minister as a result of political shortcomings.
Like the alter ego, you fail to address my questions and give a direct answer, instead, you go on an unrelated tangent in an attempt to change the subject. Run, Jo, run.
Martinelli accused me that ‘’your allegations and insinuations and your constant clouding of the PM as a person and accusing him of causing harm to the party smacks of you being used as a paraventu to disseminate cheap LP propaganda’’. I accuse the collective of wrong-doing. I do not slap this charge at Lawrence Gonzi personally. We have known each other for decades. But that does not mean that I do not let him know of his political shortcomings. I did that privately with him on previous occasions. However, since he opted for political exposure by contesting for, and by accepting, a publicly paid job, I am free to expose his incompetence both as a party leader as well as a prime minister, in public - more so when he insists on repeating his mistakes. It is the PM who is being used as a pareventu by his circle of friends. Moreover, he has to show us who he really is and what he stands for. But, unfortunately for all, he is caught in his own predicament.
By the way, I never knew that the PL have exclusive ownership of phrases to depict fact. I hope they won’t sue me!
I do not give a hoot, or two, where I voice my opinion. As long as what I say is factual, I could deliver it at the devil’s door, if I have to. Which, as you might remember, I did on so many an occasion.
GonziPn is a clan, an off-shoot, of the PN. The country and party are in a crisis due to the intransigence, incompetence and greed of this group of unscrupulous people.
If your intentions of criticizing GonziPN are so genuine, why air your views on a blog authored by an LP activist?
I have no blinkered eyes and I too perceive a lack of perfection within the NP but then, am I saying something new? Certainly not and nothing will change because perfection does not reside with human nature. That being said your allegations and insinuations and your constant clouding of the PM as a person and accusing him of causing harm to the party smacks of you being used as a paraventu to disseminate cheap LP propaganda.
You read your own comments one more time and you will find that you use phrases, tones and quotes often found in no other place than the LP media itself.
Stop donning camo and let the real Jo show us who he really is and what he stands for.
"...the suffering which the population is going through"
"families living on the poverty line"
"regret at having voted them in again"
"Middle-class friends...had to restrict their life styles to make ends meet"
"the number of unemployed..."
Heard those before - can you be a bit more original, Jo?
Jo, you seem to be some sort of statistician since you are constantly calculating the ebbing fortunes of the NP and the increasing numbers of those fleeing the NP to the LP! Good for you. Keep thinking that way, the same way as the LP had fed its supporters that it was 16,000 votes ahead in the last election! Some statistics.
With regard to the NP being church dominated, I can only say that it is much better for the NP to be church dominated than the LP still being dominated by the 'brains' who resorted to charitable donations from N Korea , China and Libya and who still pull Joseph's strings!
Charles, radio silence can only mean one thing - you lost your voice and credibility because you cannot answer a few questions. BTW when you write about NP DNA, which DNA lab are you using for your analysis? Charles Mangion's?
Now, that the minion has been well and truly creamed, let’s steer back Nikita's piece. I quote again from Noel Grima's upshot: GonziPN is still in a way run and dominated by the church. So is it a no-no to divorce? Or is the shattered, arrogant, incompetent, sleazy and pitiful GonziPN waiting for a few months before the general election to use it for its political convenience?
Radio silence Jo irritates the irritable.
What is important is to understand clearly and thoroughly the PN DNA, going back if need be to George Borg Olivier (for even Eddie Fenech Adami, in his own way, short-circuited the PN DNA and turned the party into something else, but at least he had the guts to do it and the ideals to get through) and even before, and to understand how much that DNA could contribute to make Malta a far better place in which to be.
I have no pat solution to offer. Nor do I think the party itself can offer an alternative. The party today is in a shambles. Its organisation is weak, its capillary network reduced to tatters. Its television station is sinking fast as the latest Broadcasting Authority figures show. And that’s just what outsiders can see. It seemed to attract some new blood in recent months but even this has not been properly nurtured and many have lost heart. What a contrast with Labour!
“To sum up, for the vast PN hinterland today’s GonziPN does not represent PN’s ideals, history, DNA. It is a small group that has somehow found itself running the government. It is hanging by a thread, attempting to act big but in reality not tackling at all the issues that a PN DNA would consider as vital.
The GonziPN government has very limited possibilities open to it. People speak of a possible reshuffle as if it could change anything. More probably, the network of decision-makers comfortable with taking decisions and being covered by ministers, right or wrong, will militate against any big changes. This is the way it is going to be.
Some may put some hope in the PN backbench but even here I see no sign of any uprising. As it is, in the structure of Maltese politics, the prime minister can do pretty much as he wants and they have next to no power. They do not even get to vote in the meetings of the parliamentary group on proposed legislation.
The middle class has become poorer, its purchasing power has been reduced. It is working harder but the results are not showing. On the one hand, there is a government bent on getting all its dues, such as through VAT, through Income Tax, through fuel prices, etc., but on the other, it does not seem concerned enough to ensure that its citizens get the revenue they require.
It is a government that says it is near to business, but in the actual working of things it is not. Enterprises that are encouraged to set up here are left to their own devices and when they remonstrate that port charges are still very high, they get no response, nor when they complain when government-induced costs are suddenly hiked with no consultation whatever.
Even more, issues that would have been core issues of the Nationalist Party in other times have now been swept aside by a government bent only on following every EU directive as soon as it is issued.
Issues such as illegal immigration, for instance. The PN DNA would be far, far, harder on this issue than the present GonziPN one. Can any Maltese not be daily humiliated by the crowds of asylum seekers waiting under the trees at Marsa and Hal Far with a complacent government looking on and doing nothing?
Five very angry men and a woman.
A nation can only have one government at a time and the MPs of the party in government should behave like a government should. They can criticize, they can suggest, but they must help and they cannot hold the government to ransom at their whim.
Excerpt from Noel Grima.
“There is an aggressive Opposition Labour Party out there, making most of the running, gunning to take over at the earliest opportunity. It is true that Maltese politics is not as entrenched, as tribal, as some make it seem. Nevertheless, there will have to be a very serious reason for a Labour supporter to bring himself to vote PN, or vice-versa.”
Excerpt from Noel Grima.
“The last election was won, fittingly enough, by one man – Lawrence Gonzi – but he, and we, are now finding out it is one thing to win an election and quite another to govern a country.
What do we have now, and why am I saying the situation is untenable? I refer, of course, to Dr Gonzi’s one seat majority hanging on for dear life in the face of five, six, very angry MPs. But it’s not just that.
Dr Gonzi deliberately chose a small Cabinet, but this isn’t working either. Minister criticises minister, minister obstructs minister, minister contradicts minister. There are rumours that some of the ministers are not even talking to each other. Mainly, it’s every minister doing his (her) own thing with little coordination with the rest.
Even collectively, as was said on the morrow of the 6 June European election defeat, this government is the government most people like to hate.”
Most people resist change - it is a natural phenomenon. Not changing means the 'status quo' and we know very well where that condition resides.
The Nationalist Party's success lies on the fact that it is in constant change, adapting, responding and finding solutions for the problems as they arise. On the other hand, the Labour Party is comfortable with the status quo, although I want to admit that since Joseph Muscat took over, it went one step backwards. Not only Joseph was unsuccessful in bringing anything new within the LP but went one step backwards resurrecting ghosts of the past and welcoming them back to his 'new' party!
Of course, there are Nationalists who do not like all that is happening within the NP, just as much as there are Labour supporters who openly and privately admit that while the outer wrappings seem pretty, what's inside is a stinking mess.
The 'new' ethics rules for the Labour media is a stinking mess, with doctored tapes, videos etc. totally out of control.
The failure to declare election expenses and their sources by Labour MEPs, is another stinking mess with no explanation in sight.
continued
The Labour MP voting against the removal of the Oil Depot while the Labour led Vittoriosa Council agreeing that the Depot be demolished - is another visible mess where it seems that the right hand knows not what the left hand is doing.
The Siggiewi Labour Club resistance to relinquish a public property it occupied for over 30 years at a ridiculous rent is yet another fine stinking mess. It expects the current government to endorse a Labour scandal and renew the lease for more years! Some cheek.
There is nothing wrong with having an Opposition Party which offers different but workable solutions to the nation's problems and Malta would welcome such a party. But to have an opposition which constantly preaches doom and gloom at a time when a large dose of optimism goes a significant way to restoring consumer confidence is so desperately desired, is a travesty and does nothing to help.
A nation can only have one government at a time and the Opposition should behave like an Opposition should. It can criticize, it can suggest, it can help but it cannot hold the government to ransom at its whim.
Perhaps our friend Martinelli would find solace in reading the whole piece.
By the way, what Charles Buttigieg says in here points to a common DNA - two Gonzis, one trait.... hmmmm
To begin with his opinion that GBO was a pushover, is simply that- a twisted version of the truth ala Buttigieg. Ask politicians (even within the MLP) who will promptly contradict him, let alone foreign dignitaries, including the British who, on record describe GBO as a shrewd negotiator.
Buttigieg likes the Mintoff style, brash, swearing and table thumping. I would rather prefer the calm, calculating and classy GBO. Mintoff wanted Integration - and failed. GBO wanted Independence and got it! No fuss, no muss.
With regard to the Defence Agreement 'for cheap', Mintoff went one step further and got no Defence Agreement and no money. Instead he went begging in Korea and China and appeased (!?) the public with inedible Chinese chocolate.
Mr. Buttigieg knows very well that there is no such thing as quasi-Independence as much as there is no Partnership with the EU, but within Labour's minds "everything is possible".
If the NP government introduces a quasi-divorce law, then separated couples will have to wait quite a bit longer for Labour to 'fix'.
Well then, why was the need of 'social must' not felt at the time, or soon after the Civil Marriage law was introduced by the Socialist government of yore? Don't tell me that all marriages then were solid, there were no separated couples, therefore there was no need for a Divorce Law!
Ditto for Sant's 22 month stint. He had ample time to at least recognize that a Divorce Law was needed. Don't give me the usual - poor man did not have sufficient time to even think about I because then you will be telling me that on the list of priorities, divorce never made it up one from the bottom rung..
@ Joseph Buttigieg Attard
You continue to quote me when and if it is 'convenient' to you. Obviously you must be completely oblivious of my feelings regarding the Divorce issue, clearly expressed in several blogs over the last several months.
There is no other political party which 'conveniently' spins, makes U-turns and makes untruthful statements, than your beloved stagnantly 'new', Labour Party.
‘Social Must’, presumably referring to ‘social justice’ and \or ‘civic rights’ is not always appreciated as such by a despotic administration however there may come a time when, for political exigency (convenience), the government succumbs to the people’s demands. Citizen’s equality is a social must however Apartheid was the law in S.Africa and Racial disintegration was the American system until a few years ago.
But as Nikita well said, for your beloved party it a 'political convenience'!! As always your beloved party ( uppps now, GonziPN ) won't move from it stagnant position.
In short for GonziPN it is indeed a 'political convenience'. For the majority and myself it is a 'Social Must"!
"...there have been some signs from the powers within the PN that things might just be moving, if not for political conviction, certainly for political convenience..." - Nikki Alamango
'Social must' or 'political convenience'?
And yet some people would insist that Divorce isn’t a political issue.
Politicians who use religion for convenience, as is the case with the subject of divorce, are simply not worth a sixpence. Their ilk is neither a good policy-maker, nor a good Christian, for that matter. But, then, I should not judge others.
Who are we, simple mortals, to oblige others to have the same faith as ours? This would be tantamount to coercion. Having said that, however, I personally entered into marriage with a covenant with God, and therefore I would not subscribe to divorce from a moral viewpoint. But the Sate has no right to dictate that a couple cannot terminate an agreement, from a legal perspective.
Indeed you have shattered all your mirrors and have a very tick deep skin to write: “It is no secret that Nikita's mission is to elevate Joseph at every opportunity and to debase Gonzi just as frequently.” Your political blindness is driving you away from the realities of life faster then you can ever imagine!
You can’t send a simple and fair comment, without a pinch of salt.
Divorce is a ‘social must’ and it is never a question of political gains or losses! Nothing else nothing more!
Finally, your phrase “some good and others not so good’ reminds of same phrase used by your ex-leader in describing the ‘qualities’ of a very well known PN bodyguard! In fact, a well known criminal describes as ‘Imqareb’ simply because he was on your side of the fence!
The_divorce_issue_is_not_only a political issue but also controversial, a hot potato and a divide between the progressive element and the anti reformist group which is still dominant within the PN. The list of law reforms which brought us to the 20th Century is indeed a tall order and almost always brought about by a Labour Administration. The abolition of Capital Punishment, decriminalisation of sodomy, homosexual acts between consenting adults, adultery, the introduction of civil marriage, vote for women, vote for 18 year olds, free education, free hospital care and others were all voted against by the PN and today they have the audacity to call us partit tal le.
Times are changing and today we see less priest ridden PN supporters and those within the 40% who support a divorce legislation are standing up to get counted and Gonzipn are very aware of this situation.
This time round Gonzipn would introduce this controversial divorce law, not through conviction and definitely, certainly for political convenience
The writing is on the wall and the spin doctors are already actively engaged to pave the way and I’m not saying that Mons Charles Vella is one spin doctor although he might be.
- Interview with the Sunday Times 8 Feb 09
http://patrickattard.blogspot.com/2009/02/times-engagement-party-interview-with.html
A man in Phoenix calls his son in New York a couple of days before Xmas and says, "I hate to ruin your day, but I have to tell you that your mother and I are divorcing; forty-five years of misery is enough."
"Pop, what are you talking about?" the son screams.
"We can't stand the sight of each other any longer," the father says. "We're sick of each other, and I'm sick of talking about this, so you call your sister in Chicago and tell her."
Frantic, the son calls his sister, who explodes on the phone. "No way they're getting divorced!" she shouts, "I'll take care of this."
She calls Phoenix immediately and screams at her father, "You are not getting divorced. Don't do a single thing until I get there. I'm calling my brother back, and we'll both be there tomorrow. Until then, don't! do a thing, DO YOU HEAR ME?" and hangs up.
The old man hangs up his phone and turns to his wife. "Okay," he says, "they're coming for Xmas and paying their own way."
It is no secret that Nikita's mission is to elevate Joseph at every opportunity and to debase Gonzi just as frequently. Typical example, "...there have been some signs from the powers within the PN that things might just be moving, if not for political conviction, certainly for political convenience" and "Could it be the case that such a divorce law as introduced by Gonzi, although technically making marriage legally dissoluble would only be achievable after endless obstacles..."?
What makes Nikita so sure that either party will gain from introducing a Divorce law in Malta? Divorce is a personal issue and whether the partners involved are red or blue, is immaterial. So when writing about the subject, political comments should be somewhat restrained to who is likely to be in support of the law and who not.
Many changes have occurred in Malta in the last 30 years, some good and others not so good but we cannot forever colour laws according to which political party introduced them.
The rest of the article is balanced and factual and a good read. If only Nikita concluded while she was ahead!