Divorce debate kicks off within the PN
The divorce debate in the Nationalist Party kicked off yesterday with a very “calm and civil” discussion within the executive committee, which will meet again in September to continue exploring the issue.
Executive Committee President Marthese Portelli said when contacted that the internal debate will continue at the party’s executive level and yesterday’s was only the start of a longer process.
She did not say when the next meeting would be held but sources said it would most likely be in September. Members of the executive, who spoke to The Times on condition of anonymity, described the two-and-a-half hour debate that started at 6 p.m. as “very civil”, “calm” and “positive”.
The committee brings together some 100 members of the party from the parliamentary group to the youth section. However, only 85 people can vote, because the votes are divided among the representatives of the various sections of the party.
Backbencher Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando did not give a formal presentation on his Divorce Bill, which was what prompted yesterday’s meeting to be held, but put forward his arguments on the matter.
Sources said a minority of executive members, including some MPs, supported Dr Pullicino Orlando’s initiative and spoke in favour of divorce.
Three Cabinet members – Tonio Fenech, Tonio Borg and Carm Mifsud Bonnici – forcefully reiterated their stand against divorce, according to sources, even though Dr Borg did say he agreed with holding a referendum on the matter. The referendum option was raised by a number of other people.
The Prime Minister opened the discussion by reiterating his opposition to divorce but sources said he set the right tone for the debate to flow in a positive way.
This was the first time that divorce has been discussed in the PN’s executive committee after Dr Pullicino Orlando forced it onto the agenda by presenting his Private Member’s Bill last month. The Bill is modelled on Irish legislation that requires couples to be separated for at least four years before obtaining a divorce.
Dr Gonzi had said he wanted the discussion to continue and the decision to be taken by the people without, however, specifying whether this was through a referendum or a general election. Dr Pullicino Orlando has publicly said that he wants the Bill to be debated in Parliament by January next year.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
81 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mario Muscat
Aug 2nd 2010, 19:50
When I was a young boy they use to teach me that God will come at the end of time and send the good people to haven and the bad to hell. Please could somebody tell God not to waste his time since Joe is doing all the work for him. Or better still , Joe stop playing the God role . You seem to forget the best phrase in the bible . "May the 1st man without sin throw the 1st stone"
Joe Zammit
Aug 3rd 2010, 11:13
Mario, what Christ has taught us applies to you, to me and to all people. He commanded (not advised!) you never to resort to divorce. I warn you not to resort to divorce because if you promote divorce you are sinning grievously against God and if you don't repent, you will find yourself in hell for ever. This is the teaching of Christ and this is what I teach and continue to teach. After telling the others to throw any stone ..., Christ admonished the adulteress TO SIN NO MORE!
Mario Muscat
Aug 2nd 2010, 19:50
When I was a young boy they use to teach me that God will come at the end of time and send the good people to haven and the bad to hell. Please could somebody tell God not to waste his time since Joe is doing all the work for him. Or better still , Joe stop playing the God role . You seem to forget the best phrase in the bible . "May the 1st man without sin throw the 1st stone"
Lino Apap
Aug 2nd 2010, 18:37
@Joe Zammit - you say that " Divorce tears marriage apart. It desolates both husband and wife. It leaves the children not only in tears but also in misery. We do not deny that there can be serious disagreement between husband and wife, but divorce is not the solution"
No-one says that divorce is a solution!!! Divorce is required (a) when the marriage irretrievably breaks down (b) after a legal separation takes place and (c) if the ex-spouses want it!!! There is nothing evil about it. Divorce is necessary and that is all. It's like when someone has a gangrenous foot or leg - this is amputated for the good of the whole body; in this case the dead marriage is "amputated" by means of a divorce for the good of the people involved - children included! What is evil is people like you threatening MP's with fire & brimstone and eternal damnation - that is what is evil and hlarious at the same time Mr. Zammit!
JOHN O SCERRI
Aug 2nd 2010, 15:01
Lets remember this date.....may we live to see the conclusion for the benefit of our country.
Joe Zammit
Aug 2nd 2010, 09:14
A simple argument:
Never make a compromise with evil.
Divorce is evil, condemned by Christ.
Therefore, never make a compromise with divorce.
No MP can vote in favour of divorce without sinning seriously against God. If an MP votes for divorce he or she is betraying Christ. And I seriously warn each MP: Be careful, because God is not asleep! I hope all MPs will understand what I am saying!
B. Cachia
Aug 2nd 2010, 20:44
Life is not just one endless struggle between good and evil. Most of the time, compromises are not such a bad idea. What's wrong with reaching a compromise and tolerating each other? Tolerance is the hallmark both of Christianity and of the civilised state.
Dr Joe Brincat
Aug 2nd 2010, 08:10
"... this is not a 'divorce debate'. It's a divorce legislation debate. Nobody 'wants' or 'likes' divorce. But if some people wish to end their marriage, who am I to stop them?" (Jan-Wouter Stigter- scroll down these comments pls). He is right .
If you ask me whether I am in favour of a reasonable divorce law, not on the tap, and after five years from the first legal document filed in court to start separation, I would say yes. If prior to the five years, one partner has a child outside marriage or is regularly cohabiting, yes. (Not just one occasion of adultery !!)
But is divorce in itself good, guaranteed to solve all problems? I would have my doubts. All depends on many unknown factors. Separation and annulment do not solve all problems. Recently I mentioned the case of a couple who had a child after annulment !! And that of an Englishman who came back to his Maltese wife he had divorced !
As to religious grounds, these are doctrinal matters,Individuals have to make their personal religious decisions. They cannot expect any religion to change its teaching to suit him or her.
Joe Zammit
Aug 2nd 2010, 01:24
Divorce tears marriage apart. It desolates both husband and wife. It leaves the children not only in tears but also in misery. We do not deny that there can be serious disagreement between husband and wife, but divorce is not the solution.
When husband and wife have a disagreement, they should reflect, pray, sit together and discuss. Accept fault where you are wrong, ask for pardon, or consult a priest or other spiritual adviser, but do not divorce.
No MP can vote in favour of divorce without sinning seriously against God. If an MP votes for divorce he or she is betraying Christ. And I seriously warn each MP: Be careful, because God is not asleep! I hope all MPs will understand what I am saying!
Joe Zammit
Aug 2nd 2010, 01:22
A simple argument:
Never make a compromise with evil.
Divorce is evil, condemned by Christ.
Therefore, never make a compromise with divorce.
No MP can vote in favour of divorce without sinning seriously against God. If an MP votes for divorce he or she is betraying Christ. And I seriously warn each MP: Be careful, because God is not asleep! I hope all MPs will understand what I am saying!
Dr Joe Brincat
Jul 31st 2010, 19:38
From Irish Times 22/2/21010 : www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0222/breaking45.html
"The report also shows the introduction of divorce in 1997 was accompanied by the slowing down and eventual levelling off of the growth in marital breakdown."
and
"It found that .... our rate of marriage breakdown is one of the lowest in Europe. It also finds the rate of cohabitation has increased sharply over the past 20 years and twice as many people aged 25 cohabit as are married."
and
"Immigrants from Eastern Europe, for example, are more likely to marry young and more likely to divorce or separate than Irish people. It also found that Muslims, while also likely to be married younger, were less likely to experience marriage breakdown and had larger families than Irish people."
and
"when the rate of marriage breakdown was examined by comparing previous Census returns, the biggest increase was between 1986 and 1996, the decade before divorce was introduced, with a rate of increase of 65.2 per cent. This increase slowed to 24 per cent over the next six years, and slowed again to only 3.3 per cent between 2002 and 2006."
Joe Zammit
Aug 2nd 2010, 01:36
Wherever divorce has seeped in, it has become a PLAGUE! Divorce is detrimental to the whole of society. No MP can vote in favour of divorce without sinning seriously against God. God does not want divorce.
David Caruana
Aug 2nd 2010, 09:37
"It also found that Muslims, while also likely to be married younger, were less likely to experience marriage breakdown and had larger families than Irish people."
There you go, again proof that introduction of divorce does not necessarily mean a higher rate of marriage breakdown. Divorce is allowed in the Muslim faith and to divorce, the man needs only to say to his wife, "Talaq, talaq, talaq" ("I divorce you" 3 times) and the marriage is dissolved.
Jesmond Micallef
Jul 31st 2010, 19:00
Divorce will make people think twice about marriage. Introduce divorce and say goodbye to marriage. Cohabitation will then prevail and children will be born out of marriage. Single parents will flourish and that will wreck havoc on the concept of family. True democracy will suffer as no true role models within the social unit of family will exist.
M Vella
Jul 31st 2010, 19:25
Jesmond can you please tell us from where you got this theory,enlighten us please
MBorg
Jul 31st 2010, 20:04
How very right. Where there is divorce people prefer not to marry in the first place. They know that divorce is no joke they will end up paying for two or three families. Some will end up without a home.
People do not realize that marriage comes with obligations. Get divorced but you still have to provide for your chlidren and your ex wife.Cohabit and be free of all these problems.
For their selfish needs some are prepared to destroy our society.
Paul Barrett
Jul 31st 2010, 20:26
I really do not think that you have understood the concept of divorce. Divorce is the only step left to prevent those from broken marriages actually getting married again should they wish to do so. Divorce is an honest way forward - annulments are basically a lie - you cannot pretend something did not happen, especially when there are often a number of children involved.
People will separate with or without divorce. With divorce there is a chance for more people to re-marry and thus strengthen the stock of legally married families, not reduce it.
Charles J. Buttigieg
Jul 31st 2010, 20:36
You are being a radical alarmist and a scare monger. Divorce works everywhere in the world. Why should it have a different result in the Vatican,The Philippine and Malta? Please tell us.
Ramon Casha
Aug 1st 2010, 07:53
Quite the opposite.
The situation now is that "marriage" merely means that there's a piece of paper in a register somewhere saying that you're married to someone. Specifically, it does not mean you live with that person, love that person, have or intend to form a family with that person, or anything else.
With divorce, these paper-only marriages will be erased, and marriage will once again mean that you're really married to someone, with love and respect.
A.Charles
Aug 1st 2010, 08:07
I believe that Mr. Micallef meant "No divorce will make people think twice about marriage". If not, he is very mistaken because with or without divorce, cohabitation will always exist. In fact, it is bound to increase because divorce is not available.
Jesmond Micallef
Aug 1st 2010, 22:12
Paul Barrett : Divorce is completely false and obviously epitomises hypocrisy. Hypocrisy destroys character and the complete and utter individual. Hypocrisy is also found in the "Imagery" or shall I say "Mirages" of the so called modern built environment. Maltese culture is obviously fundamentally different to other larger cultures worldwide.
Jesmond Micallef
Aug 1st 2010, 22:16
Charles J. Buttigieg. Divorce promotes failures. It does not work.
Jesmond Micallef
Aug 1st 2010, 22:20
M Vella. It called "Reason and Rationality".
Sabrina Borda
Aug 2nd 2010, 08:29
How did you create this illusion? What do you think....that you are going to change how its best for society to move forward because if not you think there will be no more democracy?
Democracy is what these people are fighting for. Values that are dignified are what these people are fighting for and if you cannot understand this then we may all turn out to be puppets.
D. Micallef
Jul 31st 2010, 16:06
wow, big well done!
the laughing stock of Europe
Bud Moureaux - Flanders (BE) & Xemxija, SPB (MT)
Jul 31st 2010, 16:01
Have joined Facebook 'FAVUR D-DIVORZJU F'MALTA' and posted the following comments:
My urgent plea to Malta's MPs of all parties: "Please catch up with today's needs of the Maltese people; (1) Separate State and Church and (2) Introduce civil divorce". This is already 50 years overdue.
I am a full supporter of Dr. Lynn Zahra's divorce court case. I love Malta and its people.
Bud, staying periodically at... my own flat/penthouse in Xemxija and intending to stay there permanently in a few years time
Joe Zammit
Jul 31st 2010, 20:39
Buds are inexperienced!
victor caruana
Jul 31st 2010, 15:18
It does not seem that not marraige is for ever, but surely cohabitation is FOREVER.
I don't know which is best or worst (depending on point of view) between divorce and cohabitaiton.
Joe Zammit
Jul 31st 2010, 20:42
93% of our marriages are going steady and strong. Only 7% are separated and only a few of these want divorce.
Mike F Abbot
Aug 2nd 2010, 15:16
@ Joe
"Only 7% are separated and only a few of these want divorce"
Joe, people are separated for a reason - how can you say 'only a few of these want divorce' - you've pulled number that out of your behind.
it's reasonable, though, to say not all separated people want the option to divorce.
and by the way - 7% is a lot of people who you feel so obliged to deny the option of divorce. i think you'll also find you are desperately trying to mislead people by implying that the 93% of reportedly happily married people don't agree with divorce. In case it's escaped you, it's actually possible to agree with divorce and be happily married at the same time, such is the freedom of intelligent, educated, informed thought.
m. borg (slm)
Jul 31st 2010, 14:48
What use is discussion about divorce within the gonziPN fold if Dr gonzi will not give his MPs a free vote.
This is what the discussion was.
Dr. Gonzi "What I say goes, you'll vote as I say.. End of discussion. Now whose for biscuits and tea.? "
Jimmy Magro
Jul 31st 2010, 13:34
I wonder when the PN held an intensive discussion on accepting the pricniple of co-habitation and imposing on the State (Taxpayers) the full burden of co-habitation. The proposal being discussed by the Social Affairs Committee also includes same sex bondship.
As things are bieng proposed the State (taxpayers) have to finance an office to act as registrar, pensions, children allowances, and other financial benefits to a civil union that is not the regular marriage and that is recognised by the State and the Church.
One cannot claim discrimination between a family in marriage and a couple in co-habitation since these couples are not of the same class. Discrminiation can only happen within the same class.
Those that opt for co-habitation, for their own reasons, should accept that there is a cost to their lifestyle. If they want the full benefits of a state recognised marriage, then they should get married.
If they cannot get married because they were married before, the solution is to introduce divorce. But I find the situation untenable that the PN forced co-habitation on our society and is against divorce.
After all co-habitiation is not an acceptable solution to the Catholic Church.
Charles J. Buttigieg
Jul 31st 2010, 19:16
Cohabitation, same sex partnership, marriage, siblings living together and contributing to each other’s need are intrinsically of the same genre, a union of two persons living in the same home. Until the time comes for the State to recognise these unions as Community of Acquests, irrespective of their different types, there is discrimination.
Joseph Attard
Jul 31st 2010, 21:04
Certain people should be the last to speak about morality and about what the Church wants. These people find nothing wrong in going to certain countries on government business, only to try and befriend much younger women (girls0 when they fully know that they are married and have children of their own. I know what I am saying. People in glasshouses should be the last to thrown stones.
Dr Joe Brincat
Jul 31st 2010, 13:15
Joe Zammit points a finger of sin to all those MP's who would vote for divorce.
I know of another sin, called "a cardinal sign", which by its Latin name is "superbia" - "pride. St Augustine defined it as "love of one's own excellence". That would apply, in my humble view and on the basis of what St Augustine taught, to anyone who considers that he is fit to be the gate-keeper of Heaven.
I know also another expression in Latin. Quis te constituit iudicem super me ? Who appointed you a judge over me ? So, please, make your arguments but stop from condemning anyone to hell.
Joe Zammit
Aug 2nd 2010, 01:31
Joe, your limited mind speaks in favour of divorce but Christ who knows more than you tells you never to resort to divorce. Divorce is evil in the eyes of God and no dottore is going to change that. MPs who vote for divorce will be separating themselves from God and put themselves on the path to hell. Promoting divorce is grave sin. God orders you not to put asunder what he has joined together. The State has no right to dissolve marriage.
R. Gatt
Jul 31st 2010, 12:21
At Joe Zammit: If an MP is expected to vote in Parliament according to his or her own Christian beliefs, he or she may well stay at home at not vote at all. An MP was not elected to act in accordance to what he or she believes in, but was elected to serve the interests of the electorate who voted him in Parliament! You seem like speaking on behalf of God...when in actual case God never imposed anything on us...He proposes Himself, not imposes Himself, as you are doing! I definitely think that when voting on the divorce issue, an essential concept is that of freedom. I may well be against divorce, but if I vote against divorce in a referendum, I will be limiting the freedom of individuals who wish, for their own reasons, to divorce. Who am I to constrain them from doing that? God does not do it himself! He always leaves us free!
Joe Zammit
Jul 31st 2010, 20:46
Mr Gatt, A Catholic is Catholic always and everywhere. So discussing a topic from a civic point of view does in no way mean that a Catholic is on leave from his obligations towards God and his one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. No Catholic can ever accept evil, like divorce, in his civic arguments. After all, Christ condemns divorce always (with no exception!) for our own good.
So the religious argument strengthens the civic argument because the Catholic has Christ enlightening words to convince him or her that divorce is evil and as such is always to the detriment of society.
R. Gatt
Aug 1st 2010, 22:10
J. Zammit: while agreeing that a Catholic is a Catholic always and everywhere, a Catholic politician is a politician before he's a Catholic, and for a very precise reason: When voting on behalf of the electorate, the politician should seek to represent the interests of the electorate he or she represents, not his or her own interest or beliefs. The essence of my argument is that the best policy is that enabling freedom of choice. God Himself did not impose any of His teachings on his followers. He always leaves us free. While the religious argument may inform the civic argument, the former clearly cannot superimpose on the latter. We are not living in a theocracy, but in a secular state based on freedom of choice. The Church has every right to voice its views against divorce, yet the state is obliged to be sensitive towards every citizen – Catholic or not – who wishes to make a decision in his or her life. I am nobody to interfere in fellow citizen’s choices. People out there may be experiencing unjust situations in their lives, and for anybody to speak deterministically may indeed not be welcoming by one and all.
Joe Zammit
Aug 3rd 2010, 11:08
Mr Gatt, you are completely wrong! A Catholic politician is Catholic before he is a politician. He must talk and behave as a faithful Catholic. God is above everything else. God's law is above national laws and above EU laws. God must be first and foremost in our lives.
R. Gatt
Aug 3rd 2010, 14:05
J. Zammit, I'm afraid you are the one completely wrong! The execution of social policy with regards to any issue including divorce, can and may well be informed by religious principles - and that is why the Church, I reiterate, has every right to take part in the discussion on divorce - but for the Church's teachings to take over and completely dictate such social policy backed by the argument that God's will is what is right for society, is a completely senseless and insensitive approach towards individuals and sections of society who do not believe firmly in God as you do. I think you are forgetting that not everybody's beliefs are like yours! I definitely disagree that social policy should be dictated by religion.
Joseph Calleja
Jul 31st 2010, 12:14
"If an MP votes for divorce he or she is betraying Christ." How can you say that when Christ himself told St Peter to leave everything behind (his wife and kids) and follow him and he shall make him a fisher of men.
" And I seriously warn each MP: " Those are pretty strong words Mr Zammit. WARN? And who are you to warn our MPs or anybody else, at that? Aren't you getting a bit carried away with your threats? Why are you so threatened with all this? Nobody is forcing you or anybody else to get a divorce. Let us be free to discuss divorce, pro and con and stop the my way or the highway speeches. You are instilling a lot of hate and that is not so ethical of you.
Lawrence Genovese
Jul 31st 2010, 11:46
Divorce is Evil.
To see the Message of Our lady at Borg in Nadur 28/07/10 on Divorce click on the following link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIW_JOLDM-s
You Tube Channel : http://www.youtube.com/user/lawgen123
Sabrina Borda
Aug 2nd 2010, 08:36
You have got to be kidding !!!
Jan-Wouter Stigter
Jul 31st 2010, 11:41
Basically, opponents of divorce legislation who wish to 'protect the family' do so by blocking thousands of people from getting married. Including people who have never been married before, but want to marry a person who separated - sometimes decades ago.
Just a small but important point: this is not a 'divorce debate'. It's a divorce legislation debate. Nobody 'wants' or 'likes' divorce. But if some people wish to end their marriage, who am I to stop them?
Dr Joe Brincat
Jul 31st 2010, 12:14
Right you are. Legislation on divorce should cause concern if it is made compulsory on married couples. But it is not . So is separation. And by the way, so is marriage itself. All belong to the realm of "the right of choice of the individual".
The present situation is that there are many cohabiting couples, children from such couples, whether after a failed marriage or not, widows and widowers who opt for relationships rather than marriage or cohabitation (not to complicate matters!), I am all in favour of rights and obligations (from the patrimonial aspect) for cohabiting couples, as I have seen so many victims of such relationships which turned sour and worse than a marriage. If the government is willing to legislate on "cohabiting couples", then the "moral" issue is already decided. It is sheer hypocrisy to regulate the reciprocal rights and duties of cohabiting couples and just deny them the right to go through the marriage ceremony. It boils down to this.
C Cini
Jul 31st 2010, 12:59
who are you to end your marriage like that? No one is imposing others we all wish healthy families, and divorce always helped to have co-abitation and not marriage. See first what happened elsewhere and then speak.
Raymond Bezzina
Jul 31st 2010, 14:48
@ Jan-Wouter Stigter
The vow of a valid marriage is indissoluble, which, in marriage means until death.
So, contrary to what you said, they cannot end their marriage. Even if the couple
decide to separate, their marriage vow remains valid.
Therefore, by divorce, they would be living an adulterous life, that is, a sinful life.
Joe Zammit
Jul 31st 2010, 16:05
No one can end their marriage. Marriage is there for life. God unites two in marriage. The State has no say in the celebration of marriage and so the State cannot dissolve marriage. DIVORCE NEVER!
Joe Zammit
Jul 31st 2010, 11:39
Divorce is a great social evil. Marriage is for ever.
No MP can vote in favour of divorce. To divorce is evil and condemned by God. God unites a couple in marriage and no one, no State has the right to dissolve their marriage.
Divorce is a grave sin. Helping anyone to divorce is equally a grave sin. Voting in parliament in favour of divorce is grave sin that separates that MP from God and puts him on the way to hell. Divorce pleases only the devil and his followers.
No MP can vote in favour of divorce without sinning seriously against God. If an MP votes for divorce he or she is betraying Christ. And I seriously warn each MP: Be careful, because God is not asleep! I hope all MPs will understand what I am saying!
K J Vella
Jul 31st 2010, 12:27
Well, if they do, then at least somebody would understand your senseless fundamentalist rants. You are coming across as terribly judgemental, bigotted and an intolerant Catholicist rather than a practising humble Catholic who despite firm in his belief is willing to acknowledge the Compassionate Christ and admit that some people do make mistakes and that the Church should no longer have a monopoly on the dissolution of marriage. Christ was a man of understanding and compassion, a man who empathised with the sick, the poor and the sinners. Why shouldn't you?
m. borg (slm)
Jul 31st 2010, 14:49
Sir you have a very wrong picture of God.
Stop reading the old testament.
martin saliba
Jul 31st 2010, 15:33
You are one of those who are going to hell because you have allready commuted a grave sin. You are threatening our mp 's with hell. If , for any reason our present or near future mp's do not vote for divorce i can assure you that further down the line other mp's wont give a damm fro your empty threats.
Paul Harper
Jul 31st 2010, 18:22
You honestly dont know what you are talking about. So it is wrong to divorce a person that has been unfaithful and cheated on you with other woman but it is ok to shagg with someone
elses wife or husband and it is ok to cheat behind your wife's back and pretend to be a good holy family man.
Most maltese are living in sin and a bunch of hypocrites
joe gatt
Aug 2nd 2010, 10:58
@Paul Harper, I agree with you, but would not say most, I would say some do cheat others would like to, but do not have the guts, others may be impotent, & some may have had enough woman/man trouble. That leaves a percentage who are faithful.
May ask I you Joe Zammmit, if God forbids divorce, may one marry a second or even a third time without divorce. What are the rules and regulations on that?
Why assume that one will divorce to live in sin. May one divorce and become a member of a religious society, a Monk for example?
This is not meant to offend, but you should not worry too much about divorce, as you are not married anyway, & do not intend to.
Why worry, live and let live. Divorce will be introduced in Malta, sooner than you think, people who support divorce, will vote it in soon.
Votes count, a lot & attitudes will change.
Alfred Gatt
Jul 31st 2010, 11:14
Discuss as much as is necessary but no mandate has been given by the electorate to the governing party to introduce divorce as was not included in the PN's electoral programme. If J.P.O. has any objection, let him resign from the party.
S. Calleja
Jul 31st 2010, 11:52
The Parliament does not need a mandate from the electorate to pass a law. If that were the case, we would have to hold an election or referendum for every single law that is passed that has not been in the electoral mandate.
Divorce is nothing more than a minority law, and hardly earthquake material. On the other hand, decisions such as changes in taxation and signing of treaties, which affect everyone, went on ahead without any such reaction from the people.
m. borg (slm)
Jul 31st 2010, 14:52
No mandate was given to gonziPN to negotiate with blacklisted companies like BWSC , Lahmeyer and Siemens.
NOEL DARMANIN
Jul 31st 2010, 10:43
To all those who wish that in malta should be introduce divorce,pls give us support in new group on facebook. FAVUR D DIVORZJU F MALTA.
Joe Zammit
Aug 2nd 2010, 01:34
Noel, the best support is only one: DIVORCE NEVER!
Dr Joe Brincat
Jul 31st 2010, 10:36
Political strategy apart, real or imaginary, I do not think that a major party would include a promise of divorce in its manifesto.
If it is true that there are MP's on the PN side who favour divorce, there is nothing to hold them back from joining forces with LP members and force an amendment on the Government in, for example, Bill 44 still pending. It intends to amend the Civil Code. Those members must first be sure that they have a majority. Not all on LP side are in favour.
This happened, even without a vote, in the introduction of appeals from trials by jury. Dr UgoMifsud Bonnici and others, teaming up with opposition members, forced the Minister to change his bill. In Italy, women MP's from all parties joined forces and pushed legislation through. The big question would be whether there are enough members in favour, and whether those in favour on the PN side are ready to "risk" their political career against the wishes of the PM.
Joe Mangion
Jul 31st 2010, 10:11
With all due respect, it was Dr Joseph Muscat who set the ball rolling on this issue and continues to set the agenda towards a modern Malta. The issue of divorce is not the only issue but it is one in many. What I cannot understand is how some bloggers opine that by just talking and discussing divorce, the PN is going to win the next election. I agree that the PN had to react to JPO's bill on the introduction of divorce. But will the PN go to parliament to discuss the bill? This is where the real discussion has to take place, not the market place. At the moment the PN is only trying to sort out the mess within its own ranks.
Anthony Baldacchino
Jul 31st 2010, 09:15
Dear Frans Attard, please note that when Dr. Gonzi is saying to decide in general election, I think it is as if you choose PN you will no get divorce abd if you choose PL you will get it.
To Mr. Farrugia,
an you please publish these imagination polls you are saying? Because I think who read your message said that you are the only person who thinks that.
Anthony Mizzi
Jul 31st 2010, 08:51
Why not have the cameras in and make public the very “calm and civil” discussion within the executive committee of Gonzipn?
That would surely "stimulate" nation wide discussion and set the right tone for the debate to flow in a positive way.
As for decisions to be taken by the people, why are not the people involved and trusted in decisions paid for by their taxes like the BWSC contract and the giving away of part of their heritage in speculative deals like the White Rocks €200 million land giveaway ...without having highly paid P.R. companies, paid again from our taxes, to buffer Government‘s questionable decisions and sweeten the pill? ?
joe scerri
Jul 31st 2010, 08:50
Why did they have to emphasise that the meeting was "“calm and civil” ?
Do they usually hurl insults and knock each other out?
The farce begins.
John Ellul
Jul 31st 2010, 08:48
Some thoughts:
Divorce will have a big financial impact on the country, an impact which will permeate into the insides of my pocket. While it is high time that we accept reality, it would not be fair for all those married couples who have striven hard to make their union stick and hold fast, to finance the effects of failed marraiges, mostly due to unpreparedness, violent partners, laziness, etc etc. Let there be divorce, but at a financial price that should be borne by the divorcees, or at least by the partner found at fault for the failed marriage. Wouldn't it be fair if the divorce law would include the banning from a second marriage for violent partners?
The welfare of the children MUST take top place in any proposed law on divorce.
Joseph Calleja
Jul 31st 2010, 11:45
" Divorce will have a big financial impact on the country, an impact which will permeate into the insides of my pocket." Mr Ellul if you are worried about the financial impact on your pocket, why not look at the very high expenses caused by the women, mostly teens who get pregnant out of matrimony and then come up with the excuse that they don't know who the father is, so you and I can support them and their newborn, maybe more? Why not worry about people and businesses that cheat on their income taxes? Politicians (Meps) who refuse to show their financial statement according to the law? The cost of utilities, and so on and so on. Divorce expense should be the least of your financial worries.worries
Ernest Vella
Jul 31st 2010, 08:43
Issa ghax nies fil-partit ma jaqblux ha twahhlu fil-Knisja? Imma intom bis-serjeta temmnu fil-liberta tal-espressjoni, tal-hsieb u tad-demokrazija? Sa prova kuntrarja, l-Knisja dejjem kienet kontra d-divorzju, imma qatt ma ndahlet lil ebda partit biex ihaddan il-valuri taghha. Dan juri li n-nies li jiffurmaw parti mill-Knisja Kattolika hargu ghal politika, bi dritt u bi dmir lejn pajjizhom u b'hidmiethom jippruvaw jaghtuh laqta iktar nisranija...hemm ohrajn li qeghdin f'partit li ma jhaddanx ezattament il-valuri nsara, imma xorta bhala nsara, il-valuri taghhom u t-twemmin taghhom jigi qabel il-partit.
Li issa tigu hawn, u tattakkaw lil dawn il-MP's ghax huma kontra d-divorzju hija xi haga ta min jikkundanaha, mhux tant ghax taqblux maghhom (dritt taghkom) imma ghax hawn nies jattakkaw u mhux jiddjalogaw...metodu milli jidher uzat hafna minn bosta nies li la jghin id-diskussjoni u lanqas it-tolleranza bejnietna.
Intom tghidu, imma l-principji u l-valuri kattolici m'ghandhomx jigu mposti mill-MP's fuq min ma jemminx, u forsi ntikom ragun, imma mbaghad il-partiti mhux l-ideologiji taghhom jimpostaw fuq in-nies, il-principji socjalisti, demokristjani, liberali. Il-Knisja f'din id-diskussjoni tippartecipa bhala istituzzjoni fis-socjeta maltija, bhal kull membru tas-socjeta...Forsi idejjaqkom il-fatt li l-Knisja ghandha jimxu warajja ammont mhux zghir ta nies, li huma jiffurmaw il-Knisja. Ghandhom dritt jivvutaw ghax huma Maltin.
Frans Attard
Jul 31st 2010, 08:31
I presume that, at the end of the day, Dr.Gonzi will opt for a General Election to make the people decide about the introduction of Divorce. That might help him win the next General Election.
So Dr.Muscat be careful not to fall into a trap.
Joe Grima
Jul 31st 2010, 12:42
If that will, be the case, even people who will be against divorce will vote in favour, just to get Gonzi and the rest of his tired and weary marionettes out. Before putting the issue to the viote, Gonzi had better think twice.
m. borg (slm)
Jul 31st 2010, 14:45
If divorce tops the people's priority over the finacial status and the unbridled corruption riddling the country then Malta deserves to be in HELL.
Only a fraud would use the divorce issue to alienate the people from more important issues. Corruption is as much frowned upon by the church as divorce.
Mr. Attard and co. you are mistakenly portraying the Maltese as a bunch of morons, attributing JPO's bill as electoral strategy that will give gonziPN another victory.
Frans Attard
Jul 31st 2010, 21:06
Mr.Borg, I'm afraid you didn't get my point. What I intended to point out is the fact that , if in the next General Election the PL includes the introduction of divorce in its electoral program whilst the PN doesn't, in my opinion the trend would be that the PL would be doing the PN a favour.
It wouldn't be fair that the election would be won and lost because of the divorce issue.
But it might be the case Mr.Borg, never take anything for granted.
Remember: 'A drowning man clutches to a straw.'
Charles J. Buttigieg
Jul 31st 2010, 08:21
The_people_in this group are more concerned with the negative impact on their party’s traditional conservative attitudes to anything opposed by the church.
There can be no denying that this is a moral issue and it makes a lot of sense for the Church to impress its Faithfull not to refer to divorce because that is on the Churches ‘Don’t do list’. However, even the Church is obliged to exercise some democracy and appreciates that while it stands for her teachings the State is in duty bound to respect the basic rights of the minorities even if they are opposed by the majority. Here I am referring to minority rights which do not infringe the rights of the majority and I will give some examples.
Adultery, sodomy, cohabitation and other acts considered immoral by the majority are not illegal because the majority are still left free to choose a different way of life. Artificial birth control goes against the teachings of the Catholics but the use of contraceptives is no longer illegal, ironically, the vast majority of Catholics finds no problem to use condoms because that satisfies their sexual needs while still controlling the size of their families.
a. puli
Jul 31st 2010, 13:35
Hemm differenza zghira! Meta jintuzaw il-kontracettivi, l-individwi jkunu WETTQU dnub. Meta tpoggi jew terga tizzewweg wara li tiddivorzja tkun QED TGHIX fid-dnub. L-ewwel dnub jinhafer fil-qrar... it-tieni wiehed ma jistax sakemm ma tiddecidix li ma tibqax tghix fid-dnub.
Daniela Attard
Aug 1st 2010, 01:48
So its perfectly fine to commit sins that can be forgiven through confession, thats the loophole used by 'catholics' Absolute hypocrisy!!
Albert Farrugia
Jul 31st 2010, 08:20
Dr JPO forced nothing on anyone. He was simply assigned the role, by the strategy team within the PN, to come up with his private member's bill so that this would be used to justify meetings such as yesterday's and the one held two days after the Bill was presented. Is it possible that there is anyone who still believes that JPO acted alone in this, and without the express knowledge of the PN strategy machine (which might, or might not, include Gonzi)? And this should serve as a message to the LP: the PN's strategy machine is still WAY AHEAD of the LP's. For a while it looked as if the LP was taking the initiative in this divorce question. The LP has now totally lost it. The chances of yet another PN victory at the polls with the use of extremely clever strategy are increasing fast.
John Ellul
Jul 31st 2010, 09:05
Bang on. Been saying it to my friends since JPO's day-one of his divorce push. The logical conclusion: I prefer the intelligent guy governing this rock than the stupider one.
Frans Chircop
Jul 31st 2010, 10:10
I perfectly agree with you Mr Farrugia, I personally think that JPO has been forced to bring the issue of divorce to the fore so that the PN propaganda machine will have an excuse to start the divorce debate and clear it up before the next general action. It is so obvious that everything is orchestrated that most probably we will have betting companies offering lottery tickets on the outcome of a referendum - if it ever takes place in democratic Malta.
Also, speaking about democracy its not democratic at all if a referendum is carried out for minority groups will never have a chance of ever getting something in their favour.
Joe Grima
Jul 31st 2010, 12:38
A clear case of wishful thinking. Keep going round the mulberry bush guys until your head clears and you'll be able to smell the coffee.
Joe Grima
Jul 31st 2010, 08:20
The tide is obviously running against Dr Gonzi;'s unsustainable fundumentalism. He is already looking for some kind of escape hatch knowing that his proposal for regulating cohabitating couples will not stem the flood of pro-diviorce supporters in Malta and Gozo. I would say that the internal debate within the PN is all to the good if it manages to bring forward the divorce issue and move it from a debate to the remedy for broken marraiges that this Governemt would have introduced as ordinary business had it not been a church-managed administration under Dr Gonzi and, worse still, under Eddie Fenech Adami. I wish the debate within the PM every success but I sincerely doubt its outcome.
Joe Zammit
Jul 31st 2010, 16:10
Joe, divorce is no remedy at all. Divorce is detrimental to you, to me and to the whole of society. No MP can vote in favour of divorce without sinning seriously against God. If an MP votes for divorce he or she is betraying Christ. And I seriously warn each MP: Be careful, because God is not asleep! I hope all MPs will understand what I am saying!