Adrian Vassallo, MP (Labour), Ta' Xbiex
The divorce debate
John Bisazza deliberately or otherwise attributed to me unintended motives (The Sunday Times, August 10).
The one and only purpose of my intervention was to question the logic of the arguments advanced by Michael Falzon, former PN Minister and opinion-maker (July 27).
Mr Falzon argued that Maltese society is evolving in such a way that we are heading to a scenario where the harm done as a result of the lack of divorce would eventually be worse than the harm caused to society by its introduction.
His conclusion is that "applying the principle of the lesser of two evils would then militate in favour of introducing divorce". His central argument was that "if the present situation is such that the lack of divorce is leading to social disorder, then the state is obliged to introduce divorce".
I consider this a non-sequitur. There is plenty of social disorder where divorce is the law of the land. Divorce did not diminish its incidence.
The divorce debate is about values in the context of globalised secularisation, and it has to incorporate moral principles, as they impinge on legal and political considerations, that merit full and free discussion.
Mr Bisazza was "astonished" that I failed to make any reference to Joseph Muscat's proposal to introduce a private member's motion on the issue.
In so doing, Dr Muscat made it amply clear that he would give a free vote to Labour MPs. I have no quarrel with that. Upright politics impose the obligation, on the part of elected politicians, of living up to their sense of moral duty and responsibility.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
3 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Philip Dupuis
Aug 24th 2008, 21:03
The Malta Labour Party does not have just a one word program "divorce" full stop and nothing else.
Reading what the two blog contributors Attard and Grech have written it appears that they never voted in an election because no party had divorce in their program. Divorce is just what these two are after. The rest social justice, education, standard of living, health, good governance etc... things that mark the difference from one party to the others are beside the point and hardly relevant. What I am saying is not to be interpreted as being against or in favour of divorce, but divorce is just one item in a long list of an election political program.
I will not vote against a party just because it is in favour of divorce nor will I vote in favour of a party just because it is against divorce.Both alternatives lead to a “cul de sac”.
Guzeppi Grech
Aug 24th 2008, 13:51
I think I assume correctly that if given a free vote in parliament Dr. Vassallo would vote against the bill. He has expressed himself quite clearly.
And not just now, "to question the logic of the arguments advanced by Michael Falzon", but his views have been consistently uttered by him when ever the issue arose.
Together with his other well publicised hobby, this is the reason why I have never been able to vote for Dr Vassallo.
In fact because of his contestation of elections on my district I find it hard to even go near the section containing his name on the ballot sheet. The word "progressive" as an attribution to his colleagues in the red section of said ballot sheet is belied by his presence there.
He doesn't even get a high number. My Single transferable vote will never get to him.
Yes, he does not need my vote of course. He does quite well without my help, gertting elected handsomely.
But things can change!
C. Attard
Aug 24th 2008, 12:11
What is this guy still doing in the Labour Party? Judging on his regular 'holier-than-thou' contributions, I suppose he should be one of the very first causualties of the promised 'earthquake' that is to make from the MLP the 'most progressive' political organisation in the country. Don't worry Dr. Vassallo, I'm sure Azzjoni Nazzjonali will welcome you with open arms!