http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=145062
29 May 2012
by Keith Micallef
PN backbencher Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando lashed out at the government for procrastinating to legislate for the introduction of IVF and a cohabitation bill including some form of legal recognition to same-sex unions.
Addressing the media, on the occasion marking the first anniversary of the divorce referendum in which the majority voted in favour of the introduction for this right, Dr Pullicino Orlando used harsh words for several members of Cabinet accusing them of buckling under the pressure of the ecclesiastical authorities.
The Nationalist MP, who in July 2010 had tabled the private members’ bill for the introduction of divorce, claimed that the Prime Minister had not kept his word as he had promised to introduce a law regarding IVF exactly a year ago. Regarding the cohabitation bill, he quoted Justice Minister Chris Said who had publicly said that the bill would be enacted by the beginning of next month.
Showing posts with label Divorce. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Divorce. Show all posts
Wednesday, 30 May 2012
Independent: Divorce referendum - one year later: 247 couples granted divorce so far
http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=145045
28 May 2012 by Keith Micallef
247 couples have been granted divorce so far since the introduction of this civil right from 1 October last year, following the divorce referendum held exactly a year ago today.
In total there were 512 applications for divorce of which only 14 were from Gozo.
According to the statistics provided by the Justice Ministry, there were 94 requests from couples who made a joint bid after being granted legal separation. Another 350 requests were made from either the husband or wife making up couples who were already legally separated, while a further 38 requests were made from couples who are still in the process of separating.
28 May 2012 by Keith Micallef
247 couples have been granted divorce so far since the introduction of this civil right from 1 October last year, following the divorce referendum held exactly a year ago today.
In total there were 512 applications for divorce of which only 14 were from Gozo.
According to the statistics provided by the Justice Ministry, there were 94 requests from couples who made a joint bid after being granted legal separation. Another 350 requests were made from either the husband or wife making up couples who were already legally separated, while a further 38 requests were made from couples who are still in the process of separating.
Independent: Malta marks divorce referendum anniversary
http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=144998
Article published on 27 May 2012
Tomorrow, Malta marks the first anniversary of the historic 28 May 2011 Divorce Referendum, which saw the ‘Yes’ camp emerging victorious by a six point margin after a hard-fought five-week campaign for the introduction of divorce.
Since then, in the last year close to 500 divorce applications have been filed before the courts, and around half of those have been granted.
Tomorrow will see a reunion of the three people who drove the ‘Yes’ campaign to victory – Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, Evarist Bartolo and Deborah Schembri at a press conference being convened to mark the date, in which they are expected to compare and contrast what had been claimed during the gloves-off campaign with what has really happened since then.
AD Chairperson Michael Briguglio was also a co-founder of the ‘Yes’ movement.
Tomorrow, Malta marks the first anniversary of the historic 28 May 2011 Divorce Referendum, which saw the ‘Yes’ camp emerging victorious by a six point margin after a hard-fought five-week campaign for the introduction of divorce.
Since then, in the last year close to 500 divorce applications have been filed before the courts, and around half of those have been granted.
Tomorrow will see a reunion of the three people who drove the ‘Yes’ campaign to victory – Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, Evarist Bartolo and Deborah Schembri at a press conference being convened to mark the date, in which they are expected to compare and contrast what had been claimed during the gloves-off campaign with what has really happened since then.
AD Chairperson Michael Briguglio was also a co-founder of the ‘Yes’ movement.
Malta Today: AD on divorce: ‘Proud to have set the ball rolling’
Alternattiva Demokratika said that it was proud to have set the ball rolling for the introduction of divorce.
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/en/newsdetails/news/national/AD-on-divorce-Proud-to-have-set-the-ball-rolling-20120526Saturday 26 May 2012 - 15:43
Marking a year since the referendum approved the introduction of divorce in Malta, Alternattiva Demokratika said it was proud of the pivotal role it played.
AD had been calling for the divorce legislation since its inception in 1989.
"Two years ago, AD decided to take direct action by inviting members of parliament to take a stand on divorce," chairperson Michael Briguglio said.
Saturday, 30 July 2011
Times: President signs divorce bill - set to become law today
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110729/local/president-signs-divorce-bill-set-to-become-law-today.377893
Friday, July 29, 2011, 10:40
President George Abela has signed the Divorce Bill and it is due to be published in the Government Gazette today, thus becoming law.
The law is expected to become effective on October 1, giving the government time to set up the administrative mechanism needed for people to be able to apply for divorce.
The House of Representatives approved the Bill by a large majority on Monday.
The Bill had been presented as a private member's motion by Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando in July last year. It was subsequently co-sponsored by Labour MP Evarist Bartolo.
A referendum in May approved the introduction on divorce based on the no-fault concept. Estranged couples must be separated for four of the preceding five years in order to be eligible for divorce, and provision has to be made for the care of the children. Arrangements made in separation contracts are not affected.
[Click on the hyperlink above to view the comments on the Times' website.]
Friday, July 29, 2011, 10:40
President George Abela has signed the Divorce Bill and it is due to be published in the Government Gazette today, thus becoming law.
The law is expected to become effective on October 1, giving the government time to set up the administrative mechanism needed for people to be able to apply for divorce.
The House of Representatives approved the Bill by a large majority on Monday.
The Bill had been presented as a private member's motion by Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando in July last year. It was subsequently co-sponsored by Labour MP Evarist Bartolo.
A referendum in May approved the introduction on divorce based on the no-fault concept. Estranged couples must be separated for four of the preceding five years in order to be eligible for divorce, and provision has to be made for the care of the children. Arrangements made in separation contracts are not affected.
[Click on the hyperlink above to view the comments on the Times' website.]
MaltaToday: President George Abela signs divorce bill
http://maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/president-george-abela-signs-divorce-bill
FRIDAY, JULY 29, 2011 By KARL STAGNO-NAVARRA
[Click on the hyperlink above to view the comments on MaltaToday's website.]
FRIDAY, JULY 29, 2011 By KARL STAGNO-NAVARRA
President George Abela has signed the Divorce Bill
Divorce in Malta has become law today, following its publication in the Government Gazzette after President GeorgeAbela formally signed the bill.
Coming into force on October 1, the bill was voted in Parliament by a vast majority after long hours of debate from both sides of the House, that also put forward and approved a number of amendments.
The bill - originally submitted by Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando on July 1, 2010 – soon became known as the Pullicino Orlando-Bartolo bill after it was co-sponsored by Labour MP Evarist Bartolo.
The bill brought division within the PN that also took a stand against the introduction of divorce in Malta, while Prime Minister and party leader Lawrence Gonzi declared himself against, and even voted against the bill throughout all its stages in Parliament.
On May 28, 53% of the Maltese electorate voted in favour of the introduction of divorce in Malta.
[Click on the hyperlink above to view the comments on MaltaToday's website.]
Wednesday, 27 July 2011
MaltaToday: Updated | Divorce bill passes as Gonzi confirms ‘no’ in final parliamentary vote
MONDAY, JULY 25, 2011 By NESTOR LAIVIERA
[Click on the hyperlink above to view the comments on MaltaToday's website.]
Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi in parliament
Divorce bill passes as Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi confirms his repeated 'no' vote against the amended and completed divorce bill in the final vote in third reading.
10:52 Divorce Bill passes with 52 MPs voting in favour, 11 voting against, and five abstaining.
Among those voting against the Bill was Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, who earlier had also voted against the bill on a matter of conscience during the second reading of the bill.
He has now confirmed what he said in his parliamentary speech when he confessed that he would vote against the bill in all its stages in parliament.
Those others who voted against the Bill were Frederich Azzopardi, Jason Azzopardi, Tonio Borg, Giovanna Debono, Louis Deguara, Beppe Fenech Adami, Austin Gatt, Philip Mifsud, Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici, Edwin Vassallo.
Five MPs abstained: Francis Agius, Tonio Fenech, Mario Galea, Peter Micallef, Clyde Pulis.
The voting patterns show that, out of a cabinet of nine, five members voted against, one abstained, and three voted in favour.
Labour MP Adrian Vassallo, who has been previously warned against the consequences of his ''no' vote in the bill's second reading, was absent from today's parliamentary sitting and votes.
10:08: The house has been adjured for 30 minutes.
9:25 A division vote was requested by Labour MP Joe Mizzi, who argued that a vote was required given how the amendments in question affected the referendum question which he said enjoyed the mandate of the public.
Only eight MPs – four cabinet members – voted against the Bill when voting in the committee stage as the amendments were read out in turn and approved. Peter Micallef abstained, while Clyde Pulis and Louis Deguara were away for the vote.
The MPs who voted against were Frederick Azzopardi, Giovanna Debono, Beppe Fenech Adami, Prime minister Lawrence Gonzi, Austin Gatt, Philip Mifsud, Carm Mifsud Bonnici and Edwin Vassallo.
The other 58 MPs voted in favour.
Later on, the House will vote on the Third Reading, the final vote in the legislative process.
[Click on the hyperlink above to view the comments on MaltaToday's website.]
Tuesday, 26 July 2011
Independent: 52 ‘Yes’ votes carry divorce Bill through
http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=129410
26 July 2011 by Chiara Bonello and Annaliza Borg
The divorce Bill yesterday passed through the final reading in parliament with 52 votes in favour. 11 MPs voted ‘No’, five abstained.
One MP, Adrian Vassallo, from the opposition, who was strongly against the Bill since the introduction of the debate, did not turn up for the session. All other opposition members, including Marie Louise Coleiro Preca, who abstained at the second reading, were yesterday in favour of the amendments.
26 July 2011 by Chiara Bonello and Annaliza Borg
The divorce Bill yesterday passed through the final reading in parliament with 52 votes in favour. 11 MPs voted ‘No’, five abstained.
One MP, Adrian Vassallo, from the opposition, who was strongly against the Bill since the introduction of the debate, did not turn up for the session. All other opposition members, including Marie Louise Coleiro Preca, who abstained at the second reading, were yesterday in favour of the amendments.
Tuesday, 19 July 2011
MaltaToday: Divorce bill | How did they vote?
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/en/newsdetails/news/national/Divorce-bill-How-did-they-vote
WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 2011 By KARL STAGNO-NAVARRA
WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 2011 By KARL STAGNO-NAVARRA
Parliamentary secretary Jason Azzopardi has voted against the divorce bill
A who's who? in Parliamentary vote on the divorce bill at the close of the second reading
VOTED IN FAVOUR
PN
David Agius, Robert Arrigo, Joseph Cassar, Franco Debono, Mario de Marco, Joseph Falzon, Censu Galea, Michael Gonzi, Karl Gouder, Jesmond Mugliett, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, Chris Said.
PL
Carmelo Abela, Chris Agius, Anthony Agius Decelis, Evarist Bartolo, Owen Bonnici, Leo Brincat, Stefan Buontempo, Charles Buhagiar, Luciano Busuttil, Chris Cardona, Justyne Caruana, Gino Cauchi, Helena Dalli, Joe Debono Grech, Michael Falzon, Anglu Farrugia, Michael Farrugia, Noel Farrugia, Roderick Galdes, Gavin Gulia, Jose' Herrera, Charles Mangion, Joe Mizzi, Joseph Muscat, Silvio Parnis, Marlene Pullicino, Anton Refalo, Joseph Sammut, Alfred Sant, George Vella, Karmenu Vella, Anthony Zammit.
VOTED AGAINST
PN
Frederick Azzopardi, Jason Azzopardi, Tonio Borg, Giovanna Debono, Louis Deguara, Dolores Cristina, Beppe Fenech Adami, Austin Gatt, Lawrence Gonzi, Carm Mifsud Bonnici, Edwin Vassallo, Francis Zammit Dimech.
PL
Adrian Vassallo
ABSTAINED
PN
Frans Agius, Charlo Bonnici, Jean-Pierre Farrugia, Tonio Fenech, Mario Galea, Peter Micallef, Philip Mifsud, Clyde Puli, George Pullicino, Stephen Spiteri, Ninu Zammit.
PL
Marie Louise Coleiro Preca.
[Click on the hyperlink above to view the comments on the MaltaToday's website.]
Tuesday, 7 June 2011
Times: Yes vote should open way for gay rights – MGRM
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110602/local/Yes-vote-should-open-way-for-gay-rights-MGRM.368466
Thursday, June 2, 2011
The divorce referendum outcome "marks a watershed in the evolution of Maltese society" and it is now time for "meaningful and substantial" gay rights to be introduced on the island, according to the Malta Gay Rights Movement.
In a statement yesterday, the MGRM "warmly" welcomed the result, saying it showed that "Maltese society is altruistic and cognisant of the realities and needs of minority groups within their midst, and exhibits the qualities of compassion, tolerance and acceptance.
"This marks a watershed in the evolution of society, one in which civil liberties can start to flourish, and individual rights and responsibilities are afforded to other minority groups."
In particular, the movement said, it was time for meaningful and substantial rights to be enacted in favour of the local LGBT community, which would reflect the needs and aspirations of LGBT couples and families, that were inclusive and truly brought the LGBT community within the embrace of society.
Cyrus Engerer, one of the movement's members, was actively supporting the pro-divorce campaign.
[Click on the hyperlink above to view the comments on the Times' website.]
Thursday, June 2, 2011
The divorce referendum outcome "marks a watershed in the evolution of Maltese society" and it is now time for "meaningful and substantial" gay rights to be introduced on the island, according to the Malta Gay Rights Movement.
In a statement yesterday, the MGRM "warmly" welcomed the result, saying it showed that "Maltese society is altruistic and cognisant of the realities and needs of minority groups within their midst, and exhibits the qualities of compassion, tolerance and acceptance.
"This marks a watershed in the evolution of society, one in which civil liberties can start to flourish, and individual rights and responsibilities are afforded to other minority groups."
In particular, the movement said, it was time for meaningful and substantial rights to be enacted in favour of the local LGBT community, which would reflect the needs and aspirations of LGBT couples and families, that were inclusive and truly brought the LGBT community within the embrace of society.
Cyrus Engerer, one of the movement's members, was actively supporting the pro-divorce campaign.
[Click on the hyperlink above to view the comments on the Times' website.]
Independent: MGRM welcomes divorce referendum result
http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=126370
Article published on 02 June 2011
The Malta Gay Rights Movement warmly welcomed the result of the divorce referendum, in which the local electorate has expressed its agreement to the enactment of legislation permitting civil divorce. "We wish to congratulate the entire 'Yes' movement on this achievement, and indeed the voters in delivering such an emphatic result," the movement said.
The referendum result amply shows that Maltese society is altruistic and aware of the realities and needs of minority groups within their midst, and exhibits the qualities of compassion, tolerance and acceptance.
This marks a watershed in the evolution of Maltese society, one in which civil liberties can start to flourish, and individual rights and responsibilities are afforded to other minority groups.
In particular, it is time for meaningful and substantial rights to be enacted in favour of the local LGBT community, rights that reflect the needs and aspirations of LGBT couples and families, rights that are inclusive and truly bring the LGBT community within the fold and embrace of the society and nation that they aspire to live in and contribute to.
Article published on 02 June 2011
The Malta Gay Rights Movement warmly welcomed the result of the divorce referendum, in which the local electorate has expressed its agreement to the enactment of legislation permitting civil divorce. "We wish to congratulate the entire 'Yes' movement on this achievement, and indeed the voters in delivering such an emphatic result," the movement said.
The referendum result amply shows that Maltese society is altruistic and aware of the realities and needs of minority groups within their midst, and exhibits the qualities of compassion, tolerance and acceptance.
This marks a watershed in the evolution of Maltese society, one in which civil liberties can start to flourish, and individual rights and responsibilities are afforded to other minority groups.
In particular, it is time for meaningful and substantial rights to be enacted in favour of the local LGBT community, rights that reflect the needs and aspirations of LGBT couples and families, rights that are inclusive and truly bring the LGBT community within the fold and embrace of the society and nation that they aspire to live in and contribute to.
MGRM: Statement on Divorce Referendum Result
Press Release by MGRM on YES result in Divorce referendum
1.6.2011
The Malta Gay Rights Movement warmly welcomes the result of the divorce referendum, in which the local electorate has expressed its agreement to the enactment of legislation permitting civil divorce. We wish to congratulate the entire YES movement on this achievement, and indeed the voters in delivering such an emphatic result.
The referendum result amply shows that Maltese society is altruistic and cognisant of the realities and needs of minority groups within their midst, and exhibits the qualities of compassion, tolerance and acceptance.
This marks a watershed in the evolution of Maltese society, one in which civil liberties can start to flourish, and individual rights and responsibilities are afforded to other minority groups. In particular, it is time for meaningful and substantial rights to be enacted in favour of the local LGBT community, rights that reflect the needs and aspirations of LGBT couples and families, rights that are inclusive and truly bring the LGBT community within the fold and embrace of the society and nation that they aspire to live in and contribute to.
Stqarrija għall-Istampa dwar ir-Rebħa tal-IVA fir-Referendum dwar id-Divorzju
Il Malta Gay Rights Movement jilqa’ b’sodisfazzjon ir-riżultat tar-referendum dwar id-divorzju fejn l-elettorat lokali esprima il-qbil tiegħu favur l-introduzzjoni ta’ leġislazzjoni li tippermetti divorzju ċivili. Nixtiequ nifirħu lil moviment IVA kollu ta’ dan is-suċċess, kif ukoll lil votanti kollha li taw sehemhom biex iwasslu għal rebħa daqshekk enfatika.
Ir-riżultat tar-referendum ampjament juri li s-soċjetà Maltija hi altruista u tirrikonoxxi r-realtajiet u bżonnijiet ta 'gruppi ta' minoranza fi ħdanhom. Turi l-kwalitajiet ta 'kompassjoni, tolleranza u aċċettazzjoni.
Dan jimmarka mument importanti fl-evoluzzjoni tas-soċjetà Maltija, waħda li fiha l-libertajiet ċivili jistgħu jibdew jifjorixxu, u d-drittijiet u r-responsabbiltajiet individwali jingħataw lill-gruppi oħra minoritarji. B'mod partikolari, huwa żmien li drittijiet sinifikanti u sostanzjali jiġu introdotti fil-konfront tal-komunità LGBT lokali, drittijiet li jirriflettu l-bżonnijiet u l-aspirazzjonijiet ta koppji u familji LGBT, drittijiet li verament igibu inkluzjoni sħiħa ghal-komunità LGBT fis-soċjetà u fin-nazzjon li jaspiraw li jgħixu fiha u jikkontribwixxu għaliha.
The Malta Gay Rights Movement warmly welcomes the result of the divorce referendum, in which the local electorate has expressed its agreement to the enactment of legislation permitting civil divorce. We wish to congratulate the entire YES movement on this achievement, and indeed the voters in delivering such an emphatic result.
The referendum result amply shows that Maltese society is altruistic and cognisant of the realities and needs of minority groups within their midst, and exhibits the qualities of compassion, tolerance and acceptance.
This marks a watershed in the evolution of Maltese society, one in which civil liberties can start to flourish, and individual rights and responsibilities are afforded to other minority groups. In particular, it is time for meaningful and substantial rights to be enacted in favour of the local LGBT community, rights that reflect the needs and aspirations of LGBT couples and families, rights that are inclusive and truly bring the LGBT community within the fold and embrace of the society and nation that they aspire to live in and contribute to.
Stqarrija għall-Istampa dwar ir-Rebħa tal-IVA fir-Referendum dwar id-Divorzju
Il Malta Gay Rights Movement jilqa’ b’sodisfazzjon ir-riżultat tar-referendum dwar id-divorzju fejn l-elettorat lokali esprima il-qbil tiegħu favur l-introduzzjoni ta’ leġislazzjoni li tippermetti divorzju ċivili. Nixtiequ nifirħu lil moviment IVA kollu ta’ dan is-suċċess, kif ukoll lil votanti kollha li taw sehemhom biex iwasslu għal rebħa daqshekk enfatika.
Ir-riżultat tar-referendum ampjament juri li s-soċjetà Maltija hi altruista u tirrikonoxxi r-realtajiet u bżonnijiet ta 'gruppi ta' minoranza fi ħdanhom. Turi l-kwalitajiet ta 'kompassjoni, tolleranza u aċċettazzjoni.
Dan jimmarka mument importanti fl-evoluzzjoni tas-soċjetà Maltija, waħda li fiha l-libertajiet ċivili jistgħu jibdew jifjorixxu, u d-drittijiet u r-responsabbiltajiet individwali jingħataw lill-gruppi oħra minoritarji. B'mod partikolari, huwa żmien li drittijiet sinifikanti u sostanzjali jiġu introdotti fil-konfront tal-komunità LGBT lokali, drittijiet li jirriflettu l-bżonnijiet u l-aspirazzjonijiet ta koppji u familji LGBT, drittijiet li verament igibu inkluzjoni sħiħa ghal-komunità LGBT fis-soċjetà u fin-nazzjon li jaspiraw li jgħixu fiha u jikkontribwixxu għaliha.
Saturday, 28 May 2011
Independent: J'accuse: Thoroughly modern Malta
http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=125797
22.5.11 by Jacques René Zammit
It's official. It's no longer about divorce. Saturday's referendum is about rubber-stamping Malta's new Identity Card. Think of it as a visit to the ID Office the next time the authorities decide to renew most expired cards. Think of Lady Malta in the queue waiting to get her photo taken and digitally added to the spanking new card. She's moved on since the last photo and is eager to look her best when the guy behind the camera tells her to say "cheese" − and we get to decide what she'll be wearing for the next few years: will it be Lady Malta in an ghonnella or will we have a Thoroughly Modern Malta?
"Yes, because if marriage is what I have in mind, love has everything to do with it." Those were the words of Millie in the movie Thoroughly Modern Millie back in 1967 when marriage and values were quite the talk at the dawn of the modern era of the western world. Hollywood could still carry the responsibility of present day pageant with a vocation to educate, and 10 years had passed since Cecil B. De Mille's monumental The Ten Commandments. Since 1967, most countries have come to terms with the idea that divorce legislation is "normal" − almost a fundamental right. At least the right to divorce is recognised by almost all states on the face of the earth bar the Philippines and Vatican City. Yep, you read that right. Malta is not included in the list because foreign divorces are recognised in Malta, as you probably already know.
Say cheese
But if it's not about divorce then what? The drumming up of support by the IVA movement is more than a passing clue. The emphasis is not on the divorce question itself (which is important) but on the emancipation of our society. It is about the recognition of the role of free will in our society. As I wrote (and as Bertu pictured the idea perfectly) last week, we are coming to terms with an important decision that is more about ourselves than about others but that at the very same time will have an impact on every other person.
Lady Malta in an ghonnella represents Malta in the nanny state. She is the Malta of "because they told us so". She implies an option where our life decisions are not based on our free will but on the diktat of "those who know better for us". She is the Garden of Eden with the fenced off apple tree. For people like me it implies a moral failure of an abysmal kind. Every person voting for NO and the lady in an ghonnella is admitting that he or she is incapable of making a mature informed choice when faced with a dilemma − whatever code of values they subscribe to. I don't mean to imply that his choice for NO is immature. I mean that his NO translates into a decision to renounce his free will and hand over his right to self-determination to others: the Church, the conservatives, the busybodies − whatever.
Thoroughly Modern Malta scares many people. They have called it a leap in the dark. It is not a matter of courage or machoism. It is a lifestyle choice. The leap in the dark for them means that they are worried that there is a Playboy magazine on the shelves because they cannot resist taking a peek. They are worried that if divorce is available they will succumb to some irresistible urge to destroy their marriage. They are the people who will not allow a play to be performed because they do not like the content (even if they would not watch it themselves). The fear of the leap in the dark is actually the fear of letting go of mummy's hand and venturing out into the adult world. Thoroughly Modern Malta is about emancipation.
Evil v good
I've decided to vote because I cannot let this opportunity go by. This referendum has transcended our obsolete political party system insofar as content goes. It is a choice for the future of our country. Let's deal with the parties after we've dealt with the referendum. Whichever way it goes will be a clear message to both parties − we'll watch them handle the hot potato afterwards. What worries me is that the new trenches that have been formed (see post "After the Dust Settles (I)" on www.akkuza.com) will lose their momentum once the decision is announced. I am worried that a major cause that is crying out for representation and leadership − the cause for change − will allow the PLPN thread to reabsorb them and mollify their needs.
There is much that needs fixing in our society. News from the courts this week stood out with items about abuse, rape and violence within the Maltese family − absence of divorce notwithstanding. From the animal world we saw the massacre of storks and a dog being buried alive after being shot in the head. The incident between Pastor Manché and the LBGT community highlighted issues of tolerance that we tend to ignore in this day and age. Pardon my sixties corniness but I have to ask: Where is the love?
The Others
Next week's vote is crucial. A column is way too short to enter the fray of the pros and cons of the arguments − there's the blog for that. We can comment on the style of the debate and its outcomes. There is no doubt that the forthcoming vote is about much more than divorce legislation. It is a moment of truth for the country.
It is a decision that goes beyond even the secular v religion. Basically, we are choosing between emancipation and submission. The YES vote means we want emancipation as freethinking individuals who are ready to take responsibility for their future choices. The NO vote means we accept that there are others who know better than us and, more importantly (and in my opinion more damaging), that we know better for others too.
If the NO vote wins the referendum next Saturday will the last person to leave the country please turn off the light.
I don't subscribe to this point of view
It would be such an ignorant thing to do
If the Others love their children too... (Sting. The Russians)
www.akkuza.com will be travelling on the "cheap flights" sponsored by taxpayers (with special thanks to The Sunday Times of Malta editor) and will be voting YES on Saturday... because I love my neighbour as myself.
It's official. It's no longer about divorce. Saturday's referendum is about rubber-stamping Malta's new Identity Card. Think of it as a visit to the ID Office the next time the authorities decide to renew most expired cards. Think of Lady Malta in the queue waiting to get her photo taken and digitally added to the spanking new card. She's moved on since the last photo and is eager to look her best when the guy behind the camera tells her to say "cheese" − and we get to decide what she'll be wearing for the next few years: will it be Lady Malta in an ghonnella or will we have a Thoroughly Modern Malta?
"Yes, because if marriage is what I have in mind, love has everything to do with it." Those were the words of Millie in the movie Thoroughly Modern Millie back in 1967 when marriage and values were quite the talk at the dawn of the modern era of the western world. Hollywood could still carry the responsibility of present day pageant with a vocation to educate, and 10 years had passed since Cecil B. De Mille's monumental The Ten Commandments. Since 1967, most countries have come to terms with the idea that divorce legislation is "normal" − almost a fundamental right. At least the right to divorce is recognised by almost all states on the face of the earth bar the Philippines and Vatican City. Yep, you read that right. Malta is not included in the list because foreign divorces are recognised in Malta, as you probably already know.
Say cheese
But if it's not about divorce then what? The drumming up of support by the IVA movement is more than a passing clue. The emphasis is not on the divorce question itself (which is important) but on the emancipation of our society. It is about the recognition of the role of free will in our society. As I wrote (and as Bertu pictured the idea perfectly) last week, we are coming to terms with an important decision that is more about ourselves than about others but that at the very same time will have an impact on every other person.
Lady Malta in an ghonnella represents Malta in the nanny state. She is the Malta of "because they told us so". She implies an option where our life decisions are not based on our free will but on the diktat of "those who know better for us". She is the Garden of Eden with the fenced off apple tree. For people like me it implies a moral failure of an abysmal kind. Every person voting for NO and the lady in an ghonnella is admitting that he or she is incapable of making a mature informed choice when faced with a dilemma − whatever code of values they subscribe to. I don't mean to imply that his choice for NO is immature. I mean that his NO translates into a decision to renounce his free will and hand over his right to self-determination to others: the Church, the conservatives, the busybodies − whatever.
Thoroughly Modern Malta scares many people. They have called it a leap in the dark. It is not a matter of courage or machoism. It is a lifestyle choice. The leap in the dark for them means that they are worried that there is a Playboy magazine on the shelves because they cannot resist taking a peek. They are worried that if divorce is available they will succumb to some irresistible urge to destroy their marriage. They are the people who will not allow a play to be performed because they do not like the content (even if they would not watch it themselves). The fear of the leap in the dark is actually the fear of letting go of mummy's hand and venturing out into the adult world. Thoroughly Modern Malta is about emancipation.
Evil v good
I've decided to vote because I cannot let this opportunity go by. This referendum has transcended our obsolete political party system insofar as content goes. It is a choice for the future of our country. Let's deal with the parties after we've dealt with the referendum. Whichever way it goes will be a clear message to both parties − we'll watch them handle the hot potato afterwards. What worries me is that the new trenches that have been formed (see post "After the Dust Settles (I)" on www.akkuza.com) will lose their momentum once the decision is announced. I am worried that a major cause that is crying out for representation and leadership − the cause for change − will allow the PLPN thread to reabsorb them and mollify their needs.
There is much that needs fixing in our society. News from the courts this week stood out with items about abuse, rape and violence within the Maltese family − absence of divorce notwithstanding. From the animal world we saw the massacre of storks and a dog being buried alive after being shot in the head. The incident between Pastor Manché and the LBGT community highlighted issues of tolerance that we tend to ignore in this day and age. Pardon my sixties corniness but I have to ask: Where is the love?
The Others
Next week's vote is crucial. A column is way too short to enter the fray of the pros and cons of the arguments − there's the blog for that. We can comment on the style of the debate and its outcomes. There is no doubt that the forthcoming vote is about much more than divorce legislation. It is a moment of truth for the country.
It is a decision that goes beyond even the secular v religion. Basically, we are choosing between emancipation and submission. The YES vote means we want emancipation as freethinking individuals who are ready to take responsibility for their future choices. The NO vote means we accept that there are others who know better than us and, more importantly (and in my opinion more damaging), that we know better for others too.
If the NO vote wins the referendum next Saturday will the last person to leave the country please turn off the light.
I don't subscribe to this point of view
It would be such an ignorant thing to do
If the Others love their children too... (Sting. The Russians)
www.akkuza.com will be travelling on the "cheap flights" sponsored by taxpayers (with special thanks to The Sunday Times of Malta editor) and will be voting YES on Saturday... because I love my neighbour as myself.
Wednesday, 25 May 2011
Times: Catholics for Divorce urge yes vote
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110520/local/catholics-for-divorce-urge-yes-vote.366314
Friday, May 20, 2011, 09:16
In the forthcoming referendum on divorce, it is only a 'yes' vote which warrants the absolute respect for the dignity and rights of persons, and the recognition and respect for their legitimate rights, the Catholics for Divorce group said.
The group said that the referendum is not about giving or denying moral or religious legitimacy to divorce. It is about accepting or refusing whether the State will continue to have a right to impose a particular morality on the whole population irrespective whether its citizens are Catholic or not.
"Whether Catholics stand in favour or against divorce as such is beside the point.
"We consider it deceitful for our Catholic brothers and sisters to present the referendum issue in this way, thus misleading many a conscientious Catholic.
"Though we, as Catholics, may be a million times against divorce, never once can we be in favour of a state imposing the will, beliefs and practices of one particular creed, be it Catholic or not, on citizens who do not share that faith. It is for this reason that our duty, as Catholics, is to vote 'yes' in the forthcoming referendum.
[Click on the hyperlink above to view the comments on the Times' website.]
In the forthcoming referendum on divorce, it is only a 'yes' vote which warrants the absolute respect for the dignity and rights of persons, and the recognition and respect for their legitimate rights, the Catholics for Divorce group said.
The group said that the referendum is not about giving or denying moral or religious legitimacy to divorce. It is about accepting or refusing whether the State will continue to have a right to impose a particular morality on the whole population irrespective whether its citizens are Catholic or not.
"Whether Catholics stand in favour or against divorce as such is beside the point.
"We consider it deceitful for our Catholic brothers and sisters to present the referendum issue in this way, thus misleading many a conscientious Catholic.
"Though we, as Catholics, may be a million times against divorce, never once can we be in favour of a state imposing the will, beliefs and practices of one particular creed, be it Catholic or not, on citizens who do not share that faith. It is for this reason that our duty, as Catholics, is to vote 'yes' in the forthcoming referendum.
[Click on the hyperlink above to view the comments on the Times' website.]
Independent: Divorce not a civil right – Charlo Bonnici
http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=125553
19.5.2011 by Chiara Bonello
Divorce is not a civil right, if it were somebody would have taken a case to court or the European Court of Human Rights before this, Nationalist MP Charlo Bonnici said yesterday.
Speaking at a seminar organised by the anti-divorce movement, Moviment Żwieġ Bla Divorzju, Mr Bonnici said that in the ECHR case of Ray Johnson vs. Ireland it was ruled that marriage, and not divorce, is a right.
He went on to say that the introduction of divorce will affect children, weaken the institution of marriage, and create a problem as it can mean two families will be dependent on one man’s wages.
Dun Ang Seychell referred to a case last Sunday when another priest celebrated one of Fr Seychell’s two Masses that day in Zejtun, and told the people not to be ‘Pulċinelli’.
He said that although he though this unethical, it did not go down well with the congregation who thought they were being insulted and left. The priest was however alluding to the surname of divorce proponent Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando.
Fr Seychell also said that if arguments are based on the fact that divorce exists in other countries, then we can expect a series of other campaigns to follow, for abortion, euthanasia and same sex marriages.
If, God willing, the no-vote resounds on 28 May, nobody should imagine it is over, but only that part two to strengthen families, must continue, Fr Seychell said.
“It is said that with divorce problems will increase, and I agree, but the truth is either way problems remain a reality,” Labour MP Carmelo Abela said, adding that this is where the parliamentary committee on family affairs comes in.
The motion for the set up of this committee is based on the fact that “we must accept that families go through problems and want to send the message that it will be focusing on family issues and how it can help,” he said.
Those who claim divorce is something private and personal, that it is just a certificate of a marriage which is over, are wrong, medical doctor Anna Vella said, adding that the movement believes it is something contagious.
With the introduction of divorce, she said, research has shown a ‘divorcist’-mentality will emerge. The tendency to ask oneself why they should work at a marriage will increase, she said.
It is untrue to say it will only affect those who want it; it will be imposed on children, who will enter into a marriage which is a ‘worthless union’.
The pro-divorce movement has often said divorce is not a solution, Dr Vella said, suggesting therefore that measures are taken for stronger families.
Nationalist MP Edwin Vassallo said he could not understand why teachers had not spoken in this debate, when they knew the reality of impact on the behaviour of children better than most.
This was echoed by Labour MP Marie Louise Coleiro Preca and former Children’s Commissioner Sonia Camilleri, who said that the majority of cases she had seen were the result of family problems and a parent introducing a new partner.
19.5.2011 by Chiara Bonello
Divorce is not a civil right, if it were somebody would have taken a case to court or the European Court of Human Rights before this, Nationalist MP Charlo Bonnici said yesterday.
Speaking at a seminar organised by the anti-divorce movement, Moviment Żwieġ Bla Divorzju, Mr Bonnici said that in the ECHR case of Ray Johnson vs. Ireland it was ruled that marriage, and not divorce, is a right.
He went on to say that the introduction of divorce will affect children, weaken the institution of marriage, and create a problem as it can mean two families will be dependent on one man’s wages.
Dun Ang Seychell referred to a case last Sunday when another priest celebrated one of Fr Seychell’s two Masses that day in Zejtun, and told the people not to be ‘Pulċinelli’.
He said that although he though this unethical, it did not go down well with the congregation who thought they were being insulted and left. The priest was however alluding to the surname of divorce proponent Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando.
Fr Seychell also said that if arguments are based on the fact that divorce exists in other countries, then we can expect a series of other campaigns to follow, for abortion, euthanasia and same sex marriages.
If, God willing, the no-vote resounds on 28 May, nobody should imagine it is over, but only that part two to strengthen families, must continue, Fr Seychell said.
“It is said that with divorce problems will increase, and I agree, but the truth is either way problems remain a reality,” Labour MP Carmelo Abela said, adding that this is where the parliamentary committee on family affairs comes in.
The motion for the set up of this committee is based on the fact that “we must accept that families go through problems and want to send the message that it will be focusing on family issues and how it can help,” he said.
Those who claim divorce is something private and personal, that it is just a certificate of a marriage which is over, are wrong, medical doctor Anna Vella said, adding that the movement believes it is something contagious.
With the introduction of divorce, she said, research has shown a ‘divorcist’-mentality will emerge. The tendency to ask oneself why they should work at a marriage will increase, she said.
It is untrue to say it will only affect those who want it; it will be imposed on children, who will enter into a marriage which is a ‘worthless union’.
The pro-divorce movement has often said divorce is not a solution, Dr Vella said, suggesting therefore that measures are taken for stronger families.
Nationalist MP Edwin Vassallo said he could not understand why teachers had not spoken in this debate, when they knew the reality of impact on the behaviour of children better than most.
This was echoed by Labour MP Marie Louise Coleiro Preca and former Children’s Commissioner Sonia Camilleri, who said that the majority of cases she had seen were the result of family problems and a parent introducing a new partner.
Tuesday, 17 May 2011
Times: Updated: Cohabitation Bill will not be published before referendum - PM
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110513/local/cohabitation-bill-will-not-be-published-before-referendum-pm.365173
Friday, May 13, 2011, 10:57
Photo: Jason Borg
(Adds afternoon press conference)
Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi has declined a request by the Divorce Movement for publication of the Cohabitation Bill prior to the May 28 referendum on divorce.
During a meeting between Dr Gonzi and the movement at the PN headquarters in Pieta, Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando argued that the bill should be made public before the referendum to give the people the possibility to scrutinise it and know their options before casting their vote.
But Dr Gonzi did not agree and said that a debate on the cohabitation bill before the referendum could divert the issue.
He said that until now, Malta had an institution of permanent marriages.
In the referendum, people had to choose between retaining such marriage or opting for four-year ones. This, he said, had nothing to do with cohabitation, which could also be between brothers and sisters.
The country, the Prime Minister said, needed a law which regulated cohabitation, independently of whether or not divorce was introduced.
Former Nationalist minister Michael Falzon said that with a cohabitation law, the country would be creating a two-tiered society – of people in a real marriage and those who were cohabitating.
He stressed that the Divorce Movement was not asking people to chose between strong and broken families.
"We believe the family is the basis of Maltese society. But a cohabitation law will not bring order to society."
Mr Falzon said he could not understand what the state was gaining from making people whose marriage would have broken down cohabit rather than remarry.
Moreover, how could one give cohabitation rights to someone who was legally still bound to another person.
This would be the case without divorce.
Cohabitation without divorce, he argued, institutionalised disorder in society.
In a news conference in the afternoon, Movement head Deborah Schembri said that according to a study by the university published last Malta, people who opted to remarry were younger.
30.2 per cent of respondents who were 40 or younger said they would like to remarry to regularise their situation.
She also stressed that the cohabitation law should follow that on divorce.
Dr Schembri doubled whether the law on cohabitation would apply to people who were separated. This was because there existed legal obligations, such as faithfulness, which had to continue being respected even after separation.
So a cohabitation act involving separated souples would bring the situation in Malta very close to a bigamous one.
Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando said that this was a moral dilemma and he expected the movement against divorce to also appeal to the government to publish the bill on cohabitation.
He stressed that it was more correct to divorce, rather than formalise cohabitation.
He noted that by 2015, there will be 35,000 individuals who would have gone through a broken marriage.
[Click on the hyperlink above to view the comments on the Times' website.]
Friday, May 13, 2011, 10:57
Photo: Jason Borg(Adds afternoon press conference)
Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi has declined a request by the Divorce Movement for publication of the Cohabitation Bill prior to the May 28 referendum on divorce.
During a meeting between Dr Gonzi and the movement at the PN headquarters in Pieta, Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando argued that the bill should be made public before the referendum to give the people the possibility to scrutinise it and know their options before casting their vote.
But Dr Gonzi did not agree and said that a debate on the cohabitation bill before the referendum could divert the issue.
He said that until now, Malta had an institution of permanent marriages.
In the referendum, people had to choose between retaining such marriage or opting for four-year ones. This, he said, had nothing to do with cohabitation, which could also be between brothers and sisters.
The country, the Prime Minister said, needed a law which regulated cohabitation, independently of whether or not divorce was introduced.
Former Nationalist minister Michael Falzon said that with a cohabitation law, the country would be creating a two-tiered society – of people in a real marriage and those who were cohabitating.
He stressed that the Divorce Movement was not asking people to chose between strong and broken families.
"We believe the family is the basis of Maltese society. But a cohabitation law will not bring order to society."
Mr Falzon said he could not understand what the state was gaining from making people whose marriage would have broken down cohabit rather than remarry.
Moreover, how could one give cohabitation rights to someone who was legally still bound to another person.
This would be the case without divorce.
Cohabitation without divorce, he argued, institutionalised disorder in society.
In a news conference in the afternoon, Movement head Deborah Schembri said that according to a study by the university published last Malta, people who opted to remarry were younger.
30.2 per cent of respondents who were 40 or younger said they would like to remarry to regularise their situation.
She also stressed that the cohabitation law should follow that on divorce.
Dr Schembri doubled whether the law on cohabitation would apply to people who were separated. This was because there existed legal obligations, such as faithfulness, which had to continue being respected even after separation.
So a cohabitation act involving separated souples would bring the situation in Malta very close to a bigamous one.
Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando said that this was a moral dilemma and he expected the movement against divorce to also appeal to the government to publish the bill on cohabitation.
He stressed that it was more correct to divorce, rather than formalise cohabitation.
He noted that by 2015, there will be 35,000 individuals who would have gone through a broken marriage.
[Click on the hyperlink above to view the comments on the Times' website.]
MaltaToday: Gonzi refuses to publish cohabitation bill draft before referendum
Moviment Iva have said Gonzi's cohabitation bill is already in the President's hands.
Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando asks PM to reveal cohabitation bill before divorce referendum.
Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando has asked Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi to publish the draft cohabitation bill he intends presenting to parliament, before the 28 May referendum on divorce.
He was meeting Gonzi with Moviment Iva members Deborah Schembri, former Nationalist minister Michael Falzon, Labour MP Evarist Bartolo and Alternattiva Demokratika chairperson Michael Brigigulio at the PN headquarters.
“I am appealing to you to publish the bill for public scrutiny in the interest of the public having an informed choice of what awaits couples who cannot remarry after separation, but wish to cohabit,” Pullicino Orlando said.
Pullicino Orlando has claimed President George Abela has demanded to see the draft cohabitation bill being planned by the government, which he is reviewing for his scrutiny. The bill is one of several pledges from a 1998 PN electoral manifesto that was never followed on in subsequent manifestos, and only announced late in 2010 after Pullicino Orlando submitted his draft divorce bill.
“It is very unlikely that there will be a referendum on a cohabitation bill after the divorce referendum,” Pullicino Orlando told Gonzi. “So people should know what’s in store from now.”
Critics of the divorce bill claim divorce is not part of the legislature’s electoral mandate, but Pullicino Orlando has argued that neither is cohabitation.
In his reaction, Gonzi expressed his disagreement with publishing the draft bill and said that the cohabitation law he is proposing was unrelated to divorce.
“We shouldn’t bring something that has wider consequences and effects such as cohabitation in the divorce debate. We shouldn’t distract from the issue of divorce, which is crystal clear to everyone.
“I cannot understand how the pro divorce movement has made this link with the cohabitation bill, because cohabitation does not involve marriage,” Gonzi said.
Pullicino Orlando had previously said that President George Abela’s comments on cohabitation made during his speech at the opening of the 2008 legislature were being used as a basis for the introduction of the cohabitation law. “Similarly to the divorce bill, no government has an electoral mandate for a cohabitation law. A mandate is not given through a legislature’s opening speech.”
The press were not allowed to ask questions following the event, but were invited to submit any questions in writing by email through official channels.
He was meeting Gonzi with Moviment Iva members Deborah Schembri, former Nationalist minister Michael Falzon, Labour MP Evarist Bartolo and Alternattiva Demokratika chairperson Michael Brigigulio at the PN headquarters.
“I am appealing to you to publish the bill for public scrutiny in the interest of the public having an informed choice of what awaits couples who cannot remarry after separation, but wish to cohabit,” Pullicino Orlando said.
Pullicino Orlando has claimed President George Abela has demanded to see the draft cohabitation bill being planned by the government, which he is reviewing for his scrutiny. The bill is one of several pledges from a 1998 PN electoral manifesto that was never followed on in subsequent manifestos, and only announced late in 2010 after Pullicino Orlando submitted his draft divorce bill.
“It is very unlikely that there will be a referendum on a cohabitation bill after the divorce referendum,” Pullicino Orlando told Gonzi. “So people should know what’s in store from now.”
Critics of the divorce bill claim divorce is not part of the legislature’s electoral mandate, but Pullicino Orlando has argued that neither is cohabitation.
In his reaction, Gonzi expressed his disagreement with publishing the draft bill and said that the cohabitation law he is proposing was unrelated to divorce.
“We shouldn’t bring something that has wider consequences and effects such as cohabitation in the divorce debate. We shouldn’t distract from the issue of divorce, which is crystal clear to everyone.
“I cannot understand how the pro divorce movement has made this link with the cohabitation bill, because cohabitation does not involve marriage,” Gonzi said.
Pullicino Orlando had previously said that President George Abela’s comments on cohabitation made during his speech at the opening of the 2008 legislature were being used as a basis for the introduction of the cohabitation law. “Similarly to the divorce bill, no government has an electoral mandate for a cohabitation law. A mandate is not given through a legislature’s opening speech.”
Asked by MaltaToday for a reaction to Gonzi’s refusal, Dr Deborah Schembri said: “I was surprised at how the Prime Minister stated that he has no intention to publish the cohabitation law before the referendum.”
She said that the pro-divorce lobby had made that request in the light of how the upcoming cohabitation laws will certainly affect those couples who are separated today and will wish to marry.
“They need to know what will happen should the referendum return a ‘no’ result,” she said.
She also questioned how would the cohabitation laws apply to those couples who are cohabiting while also being technically married to previous partners.
“Our laws currently provide certain rights to married people that, should divorce not be introduced, will keep on applying to them, such as maintenance or fidelity. If another law comes into the picture that might allow the same rights, or others, to couples who wish to cohabit, how will these clash?” she questioned.
She also referred to Gonzi’s position that the cohabitation laws will apply to a wide swathe of relationships and individuals. “Despite what he said about divorce and cohabitation being different, I am sure that that it will also affect those cohabiting couples post-separation.”
“The draft already exists – we know it does – so why should it be hidden?” she insisted. “What is there about it that the pubic shouldn’t know about?”
Speaking to MaltaToday, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando added that by refusing to publish the draft bill, the government is not giving the public the full picture on what they are going to vote upon on 28 May.
He referred to figures published by Discern which found that by 2015, there will been as many as 35,000 individuals who suffer marital breakdown. “This means that there are potentially as many as 70,000 couples which stand to be affected by this.”
[Click on the hyperlink above to view the comments on MaltaToday's website.]
Wednesday, 11 May 2011
MaltaToday: Pullicino Orlando says President is reviewing cohabitation bill
MAY 11, 2011 By MIRIAM DALLI
If it is ready, why hasn't the draft law on cohabitation been published? Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando asks.
Divorce bill promoter Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando has claimed President George Abela has demanded to see the draft cohabitation bill being planned by the government, which he is reviewing for his scrutiny.
“If the cohabitation law is ready, why haven’t we seen it?,” Pullicino Orlando told a press conference outside the Office of the Prime Minister in Valletta.
The Nationalist MP called for the publication of the bill, one of several pledges from a 1998 PN electoral manifesto that was never followed on in subsequent manifestos and only announced late in 2010 after Pullicino Orlando submitted his draft divorce bill.
Pullicino Orlando said that Abela's comments on cohabitation made during his speech at the opening of the 2008 legislature were being used as a basis for the introduction of the cohabitation law. "Similarly to the divorce bill, no government has an electoral mandate for a cohabitation law. A mandate is not given through a legislature’s opening speech.”
Asked what will happen if the referendum does not pass, Pullicino Orlando said that pro divorce lobby Moviment Iva would respect the people’s decision and withdraw the bill.
Present at the conference were also Labour MP Evarist Bartolo and former Nationalist MP Michael Falzon who said that the €35 return flights from Air Malta were announced two weeks after the publication of the referendum week contrary to the practice of announcing them immediately.
Falzon said that during the last election, 3,000 people had come to Malta to vote: “Adding this amount to the 2,800 who have been denied their vote because of an expired register, some 5,800 will be denied their right to vote.”
Falzon added that he thought Malta was past the time of such manoeuvres: “The last time I recall a similar situation was during the 1987 elections.”
Bartolo appealed for a “calm, honest campaign led by correctness."
“Voters will be asked to take a serious decision, and it should be based on reason and not on fear and lies,” Bartolo said. He reiterated that divorce will be a right used by those who need it.
He said that in the first four months of this year, 21 divorces were registered in Malta: “This number already surpasses half of what was registered in 2010.”
Referring to report published by Discern, a research institute, Bartolo said by 2015 those who would have passed through marriage breakdowns will amount to 35,000.
[Click on the hyperlink above to view the comments on MaltaToday's website.]
If it is ready, why hasn't the draft law on cohabitation been published? Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando asks.
Divorce bill promoter Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando has claimed President George Abela has demanded to see the draft cohabitation bill being planned by the government, which he is reviewing for his scrutiny.
“If the cohabitation law is ready, why haven’t we seen it?,” Pullicino Orlando told a press conference outside the Office of the Prime Minister in Valletta.
The Nationalist MP called for the publication of the bill, one of several pledges from a 1998 PN electoral manifesto that was never followed on in subsequent manifestos and only announced late in 2010 after Pullicino Orlando submitted his draft divorce bill.
Pullicino Orlando said that Abela's comments on cohabitation made during his speech at the opening of the 2008 legislature were being used as a basis for the introduction of the cohabitation law. "Similarly to the divorce bill, no government has an electoral mandate for a cohabitation law. A mandate is not given through a legislature’s opening speech.”
Asked what will happen if the referendum does not pass, Pullicino Orlando said that pro divorce lobby Moviment Iva would respect the people’s decision and withdraw the bill.
Present at the conference were also Labour MP Evarist Bartolo and former Nationalist MP Michael Falzon who said that the €35 return flights from Air Malta were announced two weeks after the publication of the referendum week contrary to the practice of announcing them immediately.
Falzon said that during the last election, 3,000 people had come to Malta to vote: “Adding this amount to the 2,800 who have been denied their vote because of an expired register, some 5,800 will be denied their right to vote.”
Falzon added that he thought Malta was past the time of such manoeuvres: “The last time I recall a similar situation was during the 1987 elections.”
Bartolo appealed for a “calm, honest campaign led by correctness."
“Voters will be asked to take a serious decision, and it should be based on reason and not on fear and lies,” Bartolo said. He reiterated that divorce will be a right used by those who need it.
He said that in the first four months of this year, 21 divorces were registered in Malta: “This number already surpasses half of what was registered in 2010.”
Referring to report published by Discern, a research institute, Bartolo said by 2015 those who would have passed through marriage breakdowns will amount to 35,000.
[Click on the hyperlink above to view the comments on MaltaToday's website.]
Times: Divorce debate: tolerance means…
Wednesday, May 11, 2011 , by Leo Brincat
Tolerance means that both sides should show greater respect and understanding of each other’s views during the pro- and anti-divorce debate without tipping into fundamentalist arguments of the “fire and brimstone” ilk.
Tolerance should also mean that:
• Bullying tactics should be swept aside and curtailed with a high degree of self-restraint.
• A way should have been found to overcome the resultant disenfranchisement of almost 3,000 voters – equivalent to twice the difference in votes during the last general elections.
Tolerance means that both sides should show greater respect and understanding of each other’s views during the pro- and anti-divorce debate without tipping into fundamentalist arguments of the “fire and brimstone” ilk.
Tolerance should also mean that:
• Bullying tactics should be swept aside and curtailed with a high degree of self-restraint.
• A way should have been found to overcome the resultant disenfranchisement of almost 3,000 voters – equivalent to twice the difference in votes during the last general elections.
• No matter how morally right the Ecclesiastical Tribunal authorities might believe that they have been, the respected ecclesiastical judges must realise that the Ecclesiastical Tribunal is no ordinary “internal disciplinary board” but a court which has civil effects (supreme over the Family Court) due to the infamous law which the Fenech Adami-led Administration had passed in the 1990s. How can a truly European country ever accept that in a court which has civil effects, a lawyer was dismissed simply for airing views which are different to those of the presiding judge? Not to mention those innocent third parties who wanted her to appear as legal counsel in front of the ecclesiastical courts.
• The PN should have emulated the Labour Party in keeping politics and political parties officially out of the whole debate, and objected strongly to the No To Divorce campaign having had the cheek to hijack (with or without their consent) a motto that brought to mind two slogans used by the Nationalist Party for the referendum to join the EU and the last general election by cloning them to perfection.
• Those who should have known better should have put their foot down strongly against the moral pressures being brought to bear on inmates in old people’s homes and other government-run institutions as to how they should vote during the forthcoming referendum.
• While entitled to their public views on the subject, Cabinet members should stick to fighting the deficit and other socio-economic woes rather than embarking on over-the-top, Opus Dei-like crusades by dragging Our Lady’s feelings of sorrow into the whole debate.
• Misinformation campaigns, half truths and downright lies should stop as of now in order not to further mislead a sometimes still uninformed electorate.
• Children should not be dragged into the debate by any party even more so when no one seems to bother mentioning those children who have experienced the traumas of lengthy separations or else those born out of marriages that were eventually annulled.
• One should stop using the fallacious argument that divorce is not a civil right and will not be one until Malta approves its introduction. If we cannot even distinguish between an undisputed right and a right legislated upon, we are an undisputedly confessional state!
• Those campaigners who have shown gross insensitivity towards the plight and rights of those parents and children, who have already proved to be victims of physical or psychological violence during marriage, must be censored by the movements they militate in.
• If certain people genuinely feel that strongly about or against divorce they should show the same concern about cohabitation and annulments which in the latter case total some three a week, with about 50 cases per annum appearing in front of the ecclesiastical authorities.
• It is simply not on for anti-divorce campaign members to first claim that cohabitation is bound to increase as a result of divorce only for other exponents to claim that with divorce, cohabitation partners will suffer since female partners will be more inclined to remarry than male partners might be inclined to!
• The same applies to those who are trying to convince one and all that divorce will not only increase the incidence of cohabitation but also that of separation while reducing that of marriage, without showing any concern for the fact that a third of babies are now born out of wedlock, including many to cohabiting couples who could not marry because there was no divorce, and children would thus stand to benefit. On the other hand it is common knowledge that this number would increase if divorce were not introduced.
• If we really believe in compassion we must practise it rather than merely talk about it.
• Political parties like the PN must make up their minds as to whether they intend to keep on respecting and nurturing the middle ground or else whether they prefer for expediency’s sake to allow themselves to turn into a bastion of confessional conservatism that brings to mind the local equivalent of the Republican Tea Party rather than the inclusive moderate party that we once knew; the same party that until recently was even pitching for the liberal vote among gays and transsexuals.
• No matter how strongly the anti-divorce campaigners might feel about the whole issue, they should refrain from offending our intelligence by resorting to the shameful and insensitive argument that with divorce, abortion and euthanasia will follow as a result of a “newly ingrained” culture.
The author is the opposition spokesman on the environment, sustainable development and climate change.
[Click on the hyperlink above to view the comments on the Times' website.]
[Click on the hyperlink above to view the comments on the Times' website.]
Sunday, 8 May 2011
Times: ‘Serious trouble if we have an atheist state’ – Gozo bishop
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110508/local/-Serious-trouble-if-we-have-an-atheist-state-Gozo-bishop.364229
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Gozo Bishop Mario Grech insisted the Church was not interested in gaining any “political or cultural hegemony”, and was only driven by the certainty that Christ was the cornerstone of every human edifice.
“It is our mission as Christians to try and carve in the nation’s history the Christian truth... Let us not allow anybody to intimidate us or try to silence us,” he said.
His words come just one week after retired judge Philip Sciberras said the Church’s campaign against divorce was motivated by financial considerations because it stood to “lose its hegemony” on marriage annulments.
In his homily to mark the feast of St George last Friday, Mgr Grech said that unfortunately Malta’s thinkers were convinced true progress meant God should be silenced.
“For some it seems that those who believe in God are people without a brain who have nothing to contribute to the public discussion,” he said, stressing it was a Christian’s duty to contribute to ensure an alliance between reason and faith. Mgr Grech lamented there were those who tried to justify Christians not being given a voice because they did not want a theocratic state.
“Whoever thinks this, has not realised that... in the Second Vatican Council, the Church teaches there should be separation between state and Church,” he said.
“While we agree it should not be a confessional state, there will be serious trouble if we have an atheist state.”
[Click on the hyperlink above to view the comments on the Times' website.]
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Gozo Bishop Mario Grech insisted the Church was not interested in gaining any “political or cultural hegemony”, and was only driven by the certainty that Christ was the cornerstone of every human edifice.
“It is our mission as Christians to try and carve in the nation’s history the Christian truth... Let us not allow anybody to intimidate us or try to silence us,” he said.
His words come just one week after retired judge Philip Sciberras said the Church’s campaign against divorce was motivated by financial considerations because it stood to “lose its hegemony” on marriage annulments.
In his homily to mark the feast of St George last Friday, Mgr Grech said that unfortunately Malta’s thinkers were convinced true progress meant God should be silenced.
“For some it seems that those who believe in God are people without a brain who have nothing to contribute to the public discussion,” he said, stressing it was a Christian’s duty to contribute to ensure an alliance between reason and faith. Mgr Grech lamented there were those who tried to justify Christians not being given a voice because they did not want a theocratic state.
“Whoever thinks this, has not realised that... in the Second Vatican Council, the Church teaches there should be separation between state and Church,” he said.
“While we agree it should not be a confessional state, there will be serious trouble if we have an atheist state.”
[Click on the hyperlink above to view the comments on the Times' website.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)