On books, book lovers and book producers

Joe Xuereb

Feb 3rd 2011, 19:53

5) Years ago I learned that labelling (people) is dangerous because some labels carry a stigma. Keeping in mind that labelling somebody as such-and-such could be unjustified (ie untrue). But that doesn't stop the opprobrium that such a label attracts. This is food for serious thinking especially among those who are heavily into value-judgements., a 'comfortable' bedfellow to labelling.
I find the superficial treatment of sin so disappointing. Baring one's soul at the confessional and forgiveness only leads to more of the same. When what is needed is a deeper awareness of the consequences of what we do and say and thenceforth, desisting from repetitious confessions, forgiveness, penancing and falling yet again. Anti-divorcists could understand that divorce is not for them and leave it at that.

Joe Xuereb

Feb 3rd 2011, 19:20

3)*Moreau, Gustave - the works. His symbolism the nearest I'll ever get to a Paradise. And his rendition of the female form the nearest I'll get to that delight (I'm told). Strong and ethereal he rendered them, intimations of an imbivalent relationship no doubt.
** Even with my soul in my derriere I hope I'll have enough strength and with-it-ness to make a final demand. And no, I'm not a power-crazy control-freak. It's that I smell bull-excrement a mile away (that damned euphemism again. In deference to total strangers when they're hardly started to begin to justify their existence? I must work on THAT humble stance of mine and shake it off. It's the censor you see!
Reading a myriad words around this divorce thingy yesterday I came across this little gem. 'a man and a woman have a NATURAL bond that nobody can undo' (or somesuch words). I thought, with a level of information like that, this guy goes to a polling-booth to caste his vote? Or a referendum? Another said that married life is about sacrifice. If one married (LoL!) the two together, the-natural-never-to-be-separated-bond, and the sacrifice, it makes one wonder how such a relationship, day-to-day, pans out./continued

Joe Xuereb

Feb 3rd 2011, 18:50

2) So that's settled. Or die intestate; as in 'no-next-of-kin, doctor' when I'm on my death-bed. Immovable assets can go to line the Govt.'s pocket for stray cats or refugees (many claim, and Governments collude, that they come as economic migrants and they'd be well pleased. They've nothing to offer other than religious fervour. Now THAT'S worrying!). Anything else - books (thousands of them some bought for £40 forty years ago *), paintings (the entire oeuvre plus sketches can go to a charity or the skip or up for grabs(shades of Bubulina's demise in film 'Zorba the Greek') - life's such an ephemeral). If a friend quite legally visits me in hosp. and anybody, like worms out of the proverbial wood, suddenly materialises darting sly looks, a mixture of disapproval and paranoia, at a decent-looking enough stranger - I'd ask nurse to show them the door**. Civil-partnership (equivalent to pogguti)?! who needs it? Not for this queer. Because this one is not for sale, not into collusion with blackmail. No way! Life's a solo journey you see. And anything other notion is pie in the sky (pun intended). A letting-go of self-serving nonsense that paradoxically, renders one anything but humble./continued

Joe Xuereb

Feb 3rd 2011, 18:34

1) Scanning the ping-pong - yawn! yawn! - toing and froing between zewg akkaniti, the word inheritance caught my eye. Allow me. Many homosexuals (must not use the word gay as most homosexual are anything but; also, I must respect the sticklers for language which Malta, of all places, regularly churns out - except they stick up for a foreign language but not their own. Pity that!). I was saying......homos clamour for civil-partnerships/gay marriages, whatever. They want their partner not to lose out when it comes to inheritance. And, hospital-visiting rights of course. What a load of bull!!
A queer can leave his not inconsiderable wealth to whomsoever s/he likes. The usual suspects may or may not care about their share but if I know the church-going Maltese, I think they're sticklers for things material and banking. They have to be saints walking the earth not to. So that's settled. Or die intestate; as in 'no-next-of-kin, doctor' when I'm on my death-bed.
continued

Kenneth Cassar

Feb 3rd 2011, 14:39

@ Jessica DeBattista:

By the way, please spare me the "(hopefully in good faith)", and other such inanities. If you are in doubt about my intentions, why bother to reply? I could equally add such baseless remarks in my replies to you, but what would be the point?

Kenneth Cassar

Feb 3rd 2011, 14:13

@ Jessica DeBattista:

The equation (cohabitation+private contract=remarriage) requires the proviso I gave: "If a private contract is sufficient...". Without that proviso, cohabitation+private contract is NOT equal to remarriage.

What I'm arguing against is the impression that cohabitation is sufficient for people wishing to remarry. By pointing out the added responsibilities and benefits of marriage (such as your paternity example), you are actually proving what I'm saying to be true. I think we're basically in agreement, but stressing on little divergent points.

"To map it out for you - you said: 'In any case, the way I see it, all the ideas you are giving about cohabiting contracts, add up to remarriage by another name.' (Let me draw your attention that the above is what we were discussing and not inheritance as such) My answer was: 'No I do not see it that way. Anybody can make a will in favour of whoever he/she pleases'".

If, as you state, we were discussing cohabiting contracts and whether they add up to remarriage by another name - and not inheritance as such - how is it that I have gone out of context when it is you who introduced inheritance in your example?

Jessica DeBattista

Feb 3rd 2011, 13:12

@ Kenneth Cassar:

Part 2

To map it out for you - you said: “In any case, the way I see it, all the ideas you are giving about cohabiting contracts, add up to remarriage by another name.” (Let me draw your attention that the above is what we were discussing and not inheritance as such)

My answer was: “No I do not see it that way. Anybody can make a will in favour of whoever he/she pleases.

If I were not married and I were to make a will in favour of a child in Kenya (to be extreme), does that mean that I am putting the relationship on the footing of a marriage?”

I used an extreme case to prove my point and you chose to ignore my point of argument and deviate it in such a way as to make it terribly out of point.

Jessica DeBattista

Feb 3rd 2011, 13:09

@ Kenneth Cassar: “"'But can you legally leave everything to the child in Kenya? I may be mistaken, but I don't think you can'. - That is so out of point Kenneth!".

Not really. I thought you were discussing inheritance when you made your Kenya example. In fact, your preceding sentence had been "Anybody can make a will in favour of whoever he/she pleases". So how can a reply that builds on that be out of point?”

Part 1.

Because, Kenneth you are taking it out of context. (hopefully in good faith).

Continued...

Jessica DeBattista

Feb 3rd 2011, 11:35

@Kenneth Cassar: “In any case, if a private contract is sufficient, then, like I said, cohabitation + private contract = remarriage by another name. To be other than marriage by another name, it would have to have different or less benefits/responsibilities towards the partner and offspring.”

Ok let’s see if “cohabitation + private contract = remarriage”.

In cohabitation, the paternity of a child is not automatically recognized and therefore, the father is not obliged to maintain it unless of course he recognizes it as his own.

There is no community of acquests and therefore, if one cohabitant opts to take care of the family, (which means that he/she is not contributing financially to the family) and the cohabitation ends, the said cohabitant is not entitled to anything except whatever he/she owns in his/her own right and what’s more, the said cohabitant is not entitled to maintenance.

As you can see it does “have different or less benefits/responsibilities towards the partner and offspring.” Therefore what I propose does not put the union on the same footing as a marriage.

Richard Curmi

Feb 3rd 2011, 06:20

@ Charles Caruana. Thanks. But I do know that they are technically distinct. If the minister is consistent he would resign also from the party that betrays its foundational principles. So again I say his threat is null and void. All politicians unfortunately decide on vote numbers some more subtly than others.

I can see that Fr. Borg is still hurting from the way things turned out at the Media Centre. Nostalgic about the first years of structuring a creatively productive media centre that gave the church the opportunity to keep abreast of all the changes in the communication technology at quite a high standard and on par with other institutions, Fr Joe shows his disappointment at the way the centre has been rendered highly ineffective, tired and even harbouring some nasty internal conflicts which do not augur always well.

Kenneth Cassar

Feb 3rd 2011, 06:11

@ Jessica DeBattista:

"Again Kenneth! We are not on the same wavelenght. I have in mind cohabiting couples not previously married".

So have I. Unmarried people can have children too, even from previous unmarried relationships.

"'But can you legally leave everything to the child in Kenya? I may be mistaken, but I don't think you can'. - That is so out of point Kenneth!".

Not really. I thought you were discussing inheritance when you made your Kenya example. In fact, your preceding sentence had been "Anybody can make a will in favour of whoever he/she pleases". So how can a reply that builds on that be out of point?

Jessica DeBattista

Feb 2nd 2011, 17:29

@ Kenneth Cassar: “"If I were not married and I were to make a will in favour of a child in Kenya (to be extreme), does that mean that I am putting the relationship on the footing of a marriage?"

But can you legally leave everything to the child in Kenya? I may be mistaken, but I don't think you can.”

That is so out of point Kenneth!

Jessica DeBattista

Feb 2nd 2011, 17:15

@ Kenneth Cassar: ""No I do not see it that way. Anybody can make a will in favour of whoever he/she pleases". (my quote)

I don't think you're correct. For instance I think the legally recognized children of the deceased have a rightful claim to part of the inheritance - no matter the will - unlike his partner and her children.

Again Kenneth!

We are not on the same wavelenght. I have in mind cohabiting couples not previously married.

In fact I went on to say that: "If I WERE NOT MARRIED (my caps) and I were to make a will in favour of a child in Kenya (to be extreme), does that mean that I am putting the relationship on the footing of a marriage?"

It goes without saying that "legally recognized children of the deceased have a rightful claim to part of the inheritance ". For sure they have the right to what we call "il-legittma" if nothing else.

Kenneth Cassar

Feb 2nd 2011, 15:41

@ Jessica DeBattista:

"Well, in that case I can only imagine the bad blood created all along. I had in mind cohabiting couples who were not previously married but who wanted to safeguard their position".

Its much clearer now. In that case, if they don't even want marriage, they shouldn't expect all the benefits of marriage...but they could make some written legally binding agreement...but the details are something for lawyers. I'm not a lawyer, so I can only give a general opinion without elaborating on specifics.

"No I do not see it that way. Anybody can make a will in favour of whoever he/she pleases".

I don't think you're correct. For instance I think the legally recognized children of the deceased have a rightful claim to part of the inheritance - no matter the will - unlike his partner and her children.

"If I were not married and I were to make a will in favour of a child in Kenya (to be extreme), does that mean that I am putting the relationship on the footing of a marriage?"

But can you legally leave everything to the child in Kenya? I may be mistaken, but I don't think you can.

Jessica DeBattista

Feb 2nd 2011, 15:14

@ Kenneth Cassar: “"And that is why I suggested a private contract for cohabiting couples". (My quote)
- “I don't think that's legally possible, especially if there are family members who have a legal right to the inheritance.”

Well, in that case I can only imagine the bad blood created all along. I had in mind cohabiting couples who were not previously married but who wanted to safeguard their position.

- “In any case, the way I see it, all the ideas you are giving about cohabiting contracts, add up to remarriage by another name.”

No I do not see it that way. Anybody can make a will in favour of whoever he/she pleases.
If I were not married and I were to make a will in favour of a child in Kenya (to be extreme), does that mean that I am putting the relationship on the footing of a marriage?

Kenneth Cassar

Feb 2nd 2011, 14:05

@ Jessica DeBattista (part.4):

"Why is a private contract not good enough for them and their children? Can you elaborate please?".

I could give a few off-hand examples: Hospital visiting rights, inheritance rights, any next-of-kin rights, and more.

In any case, if a private contract is sufficient, then, like I said, cohabitation + private contract = remarriage by another name. To be other than marriage by another name, it would have to have different or less benefits/responsibilities towards the partner and offspring.

Kenneth Cassar

Feb 2nd 2011, 13:19

@ Jessica DeBattista (part.3):

"For instance if a couple is living in a house which belongs to one party it is quite probable that if this party dies, the surviving party has no right to the property and could be thrown out on the street. Very unfair by my book!".

Exactly.

"And that is why I suggested a private contract for cohabitating couples".

I don't think that's legally possible, especially if there are family members who have a legal right to the inheritance. In any case, the way I see it, all the ideas you are giving about cohabiting contracts, add up to remarriage by another name.

Kenneth Cassar

Feb 2nd 2011, 13:14

@ Jessica DeBattista (part.2):

"I only said that it makes no sense to give cohabiting (couples who can't marry) the “same” benefits as married couples. This does not mean that they should not be given benefits at all".

Of course. What I said still stands though. You deny them the chance to marry each other, and then say they should not get the same benefits as married couples because they are not married to each other.

"Marriage is one state of life and cohabitation is another. They are not the same"

Of course. Some separated people want to marry their partners precisely for that reason.

"So how can you expect them to be regarded as the same?"

I don't. Marriage benefits should only be given to married people, provided we don't deny anyone the opportunity to marry.

"I also said in another comment that cohabitating couples could safeguard their position by making a private contract...but something tells me that probems could arise if one party is not willing to commit him/herself to such a contract".

In any case, contracts would not be worth their paper where it involves third-parties - such as hospital visiting rights, any next-of-kin rights, etc.

Kenneth Cassar

Feb 2nd 2011, 13:04

@ Jessica DeBattista (part.1):

"I am denying nobody the possibility to marry since, as they stand, they are already married..."

Not to each other, though. And one of them might not even be married to anyone.

"...and marriage is forever - whether I like it or not".

Not necessarily. The majority of the world's population, including the majority of Christians, would disagree.

"If divorce were introduced, on the other hand, there is no saying how laws would be formulated. I would say that if they re-marry, they would enjoy very similar privileges as those who are married for the first time, except they they would have the added responsibility to honour certain obligations owed to the previous marriage".

I would hope so. Especially where children are involved.

"But then again, they would already be honouring that obligation even if they do not re-marry".

True. But honouring obligations of a previous marriage says nothing about protecting rights and duties of new unions - especially with regards to the new union's offspring. In the absence of legislation at least identical to a divorce law, this would not be addressed.

Jessica DeBattista

Feb 2nd 2011, 12:50

@ Kenneth Cassar: “Of course not. What you suggested was that there's nothing to stop separated people who form new unions with new partners from making a private contract to safeguard each others’ position - as if this would be good enough for them and their children.”

Why is a private contract not good enough for them and their children? Can you elaborate please?

Jessica DeBattista

Feb 2nd 2011, 12:39

@ Kenneth Casssar:

Part 3.

If the state were to confer that right, a right to inherit each other’s assets, for instance, it would do away with probable bad feelings that could arise if one party would ask the other party to safeguard his/her position.

For instance if a couple is living in a house which belongs to one party it is quite probable that if this party dies, the surviving party has no right to the property and could be thrown out on the street.

Very unfair by my book!

And that is why I suggested a private contract for cohabitating couples.

Jessica DeBattista

Feb 2nd 2011, 12:35

@ Kenneth Cassar:

Part 2.

As to benefits to cohabitating couples: I am not refusing them and their children benefits because they are not married (but cohabitating).

I only said that it makes no sense to give them the “same” benefits as married couples. This does not mean that they should not be given benefits at all.

Marriage is one state of life and cohabitation is another. They are not the same. One has something different from the other. So how can you expect them to be regarded as the same?

I also said in another comment that cohabitating couples could safeguard their position by making a private contract (a will for instance, or a donation) but something tells me that probems could arise if one party is not willing to commit him/herself to such a contract.

Continued....

Jessica DeBattista

Feb 2nd 2011, 12:31

@ Kenneth Cassar: “"What I said is that it would make no sense for the state to give the same benefits (it gives to married couples) to cohabitating couples". (my quote).
So what you're basically saying is that you're denying people the possibility to marry (by denying them divorce), and then refuse them (and their children) benefits because they are not married.”

Part 1.

Is that how you interpret my quote above? Shows that we are not on the same wavelength!

I am denying nobody the possibility to marry since, as they stand, they are already married and marriage is forever - whether I like it or not.

If divorce were introduced, on the other hand, there is no saying how laws would be formulated. I would say that if they re-marry, they would enjoy very similar privileges as those who are married for the first time, except they they would have the added responsibility to honour certain obligations owed to the previous marriage.

But then again, they would already be honouring that obligation even if they do not re-marry.

Continued

Kenneth Cassar

Feb 2nd 2011, 07:01

@ Jessica DeBattista:

"I don’t think I suggested that “re-marriage does not give benefits and responsibilities that go above and beyond that of cohabitation” did I?".

Of course not. What you suggested was that there's nothing to stop separated people who form new unions with new partners from making a private contract to safeguard each others’ position - as if this would be good enough for them and their children.

"What I said is that it would make no sense for the state to give the same benefits (it gives to married couples) to cohabitating couples".

So what you're basically saying is that you're denying people the possibility to marry (by denying them divorce), and then refuse them (and their children) benefits because they are not married.

"I don’t think I mentioned re-marriage as regards above".

Of course not. That was a convenient omission.

Steven Bonello

Feb 1st 2011, 19:14

I only got to know about George Fava's imminent demise a couple of days before he left us. By that time I preferred not to visit him - I would rather recall the last time we met and talked for the best part of an hour at the Brikkuni concert in July. George was an incredibly well read man, intelligent and unpretentious. I have known George from as far back as 1992 when he invited me to illustrate a book Media Centre was publishing. Since then he has always been a sort of mentor to me in my erratic graphic endeavours.

You will be missed George.

Joe Xuereb

Feb 1st 2011, 19:08

3) Jessica, feminism is an issue close to my heart and has been for a long time. Gay men may be gay but they are men first and foremost and the worst traits in a straight men are often perfectly acceptable among some gay men. At the supermarket yesterday a headline caught my eye. I just looked it up and voila` - here it is and I'd like to share it. Of course it's easy for anybody to diagnose the problems but where are the solutions. One gives advice to the 'young' and one is laughed under the table. Has always been so. Now its my turn to be 'old fogey'. And yet I've never felt more at peace with myself. Meaning, I am glad I was born when I was. I would not want to be young today. And that is quite a statement when considering that our culture is all about remaining or regaining youthfulness.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/yasmin-alibhaibrown-sexism-is-wrong-but-are-we-women-our-own-worst-enemy-2199039.html

Victor Formosa

Feb 1st 2011, 18:58

Thank you Fr Joe for commemorating George Fava. Normally, I check your blog at least every other day but this time around it took me a while to get to it. George was indeed what you described him to be so aptly and much more. George and I hail from Qormi and we both knew each other's family. At the Media Centre, where I used your desk for a few years, George and I went through a lot of ups and downs but mostly ups mainly due to his particular way of going about things. I can also "attest to his sense of duty, dedication and honesty". George was one of a kind. Even on his hospital bed he kept telling me he was OK even though he might have felt differently. To his wife Mary Lou, his children, his mum Frances, brothers and sisters our deepest condolences. George is and will be in our prayers.

Joe Xuereb

Feb 1st 2011, 18:39

1)@Jessica. The strict chaperoning I well remember; a fiance` soon to be married being ejected by the father of the bride -to-be simply because he was caught pecking her on the cheek behind a curtain in the balcony (the courting area but well within sight of the parents). Malta, 1950s.
Young women devoured all the literature they could get hold of - True Romance and ten others. They lived on dreams and paid the price. They married TO GET AWAY - quite!
Then came Feminism and the 'girls' were told they could be equal. By icons like Camille Paglia, Kate Millett et al. High heels were suddenly a no-no. Too dollish/bad for the feet/pandering to men. The feminists miscalculated and overlooked the fact that women have sexual appetites as voracious as any man's. So young women started beating men at their own sexual game. Woman was in the ascendant, literally. With heels up to here and soles as high as cathedras as enhancers. Some men are having a field-day. Many are becoming feminized (plucked eyebrows now the norm) and many still behave Neanderthal-like. I cannot bear to proceed.
We're told birthrates are down yet there's quasi-panic at triple births (currently).

Joe Xuereb

Feb 1st 2011, 18:16

1) All those tens of thousands of years ago (before Christ walked the earth and, according to some, before the universe was invented) marriage in one for or another was instituted to maintain some semblance of social order. Goodness knows what the rituals/arrangements were but one can guess. Common sense does good guesswork.
With the best, and in spite of, intentions these social - call them State - sanctions break down. Contrary to what is claimed, and provided divorce is sought JUDICIOUSLY, I would go as far as to say that divorce is desirable for the survival of society. Within failed marriages, the 'bad seed' is inherited from one generation to the next. I personally need go no further than look at all society members' misbehaviour, be it wilful lone-mother status with benefits, a cohabitee, and the hundred and one examples of criminal behaviour committed daily. I doubt many of these would be the offspring of divorced parents. More than likely they are the product of parental marriages that would have produced better fruit had they split up.
continued

Jessica DeBattista

Feb 1st 2011, 16:50

@ Kenneth Cassar: “And if re-marriage does not give benefits and responsibilities that go above and beyond that of cohabitation (with or without written agreements) as you seem to suggest, why do you insist denying the re-marriage option? Just because the term "marriage" should only be applied once? Are you actually only objecting to a string of letters (m-a-r-r-i-a-g-e)?”

I don’t think I suggested that “re-marriage does not give benefits and responsibilities that go above and beyond that of cohabitation” did I?

What I said is that it would make no sense for the state to give the same benefits (it gives to married couples) to cohabitating couples.

I don’t think I mentioned re-marriage as regards above.

I am not “objecting to a string of letters (m-a-r-r-i-a-g-e)?” And “marriage” is not a term like “pogguti” or “bastards”. It is a binding contract with the aim to preserve the stability of a society.

Kenneth Cassar

Feb 1st 2011, 14:32

@ Jessica DeBattista:

By the way, I have no interest in political correctness and for sanitized words.

And if re-marriage does not give benefits and responsibilities that go above and beyond that of cohabitation (with or without written agreements) as you seem to suggest, why do you insist denying the re-marriage option? Just because the term "marriage" should only be applied once? Are you actually only objecting to a string of letters (m-a-r-r-i-a-g-e)?

Kenneth Cassar

Feb 1st 2011, 14:21

@ Jessica DeBattista:

"Marriage should retain its original function. Of course they will continue to break down and other liaisons formed, but what’s keeping these couples from safeguarding themselves by means of other possibilities.?"

Don’t give me that Jessica! From which part of the world do you hail if you still can use that as a line of argument?

Jessica DeBattista

Feb 1st 2011, 13:59

Part 4.

If I had a boy friend, I had to be very careful not to let my parents find out. I became an expert at finding excuses for not being at a place where they knew I would be and where they could call me to the phone to ascertain that I was there.

Sneaking an hour with my boyfriend was a whole strategy often involving my brothers as accomplices. You men on this blog cannot understand this because you are all “bandiera bajda”, but girls were very much protected in my time – at least the ones who did not go out to work.

I believe that some girls got married to get rid of all this restriction only to find out that they had only exchanged one form of restriction to another.

Jessica Debattista

Feb 1st 2011, 13:55

Part 3.

@ Most:

In case you think that I am against equality of the sexes, I can assure you that I am not. I am a product of the older generation who had silently rebelled against the restrictions imposed on me for being a girl.

My brothers had all the liberty they needed, together with their own car as gifts from my parents. I was never allowed to go out anywhere unless my brothers (twins two years older than me) were there. I was not even allowed to go out to work – something I really wanted to do, if only to give me some independence.

Continued….

Jessica DeBattista

Feb 1st 2011, 13:49

Part 2.

@ Patrik Larsson:

- “"Inevitably moral values will be stretched to accommodate a new way of life. And it is only a matter of time before values are lost altogether." (my quote).

That's soothsaying and I doubt you have any indications to back that statement up”.

Mr. Larsson, how can you fail to see that values can disintegrate?

It is generally the first step that is the hardest! It is the first infidelity that makes one’s conscience smite them. It is the first one night stand that one loses sleep over, considering whether to do it or not. Once the first step is taken, everything becomes progressively easy. Now wouldn’t you call that a sure way of stretchig one’s values to eventually lose them altogether?

- “We are adapting divorce because virtually all other nations have it and we can see the benefit it has had to people,”

I still have to be convinced about that. So far all I have been hearing is that statistics show otherwise.

Continued….

Jessica DeBattista

Feb 1st 2011, 13:47

@ Kenneth Cassar: “People in failed marriages who form new relationships (as well as any children they bring into the world) deserve the stigma of "pogguti" and "bastard" (in the case of the offspring) after all, don't they? It's their own doing...after all,”

Part 1.

Don’t give me that Kenneth!

From which part of Malta do you hail if you still can use that as a line of argument?

“Pogguti” and “bastard” are such old fashioned terms which once upon a time had a negative ring to then but which now have become so neutralised for the fact that they have become so common. In fact I hardly ever hear the terms used nowadays.

Today for “pogguti” we use the term “companion” which if you think about it sounds like a very positive adjective.

Continued….

charles caruana

Feb 1st 2011, 12:59

@ Curmi
In case you haven’t noticed, not contesting the next election and resigning from the PN are two distinct things. The first does not preclude Dr Gatt from remaining a member, active or passive, of his party. The second is a deliberate and public disavowal of a party that by voting in favour of divorce is betraying both his and the party’s foundational principles. One should reflect before judging anyone’s motives as childish. Like Fr Joe, I admire Mr Gatt’s forthright and transparent stand on this issue, even though I have not always seen eye to eye with the man and some of his methods. His consistency is much more preferable than the opportunism of other politicians or the shilly-shallying of cafeteria Catholics. And I welcome the chance of shouldering the responsibility of deciding on such a fundamental issue in a referendum, believing it will have serious consequences not only for those who want to divorce but for all Maltese living here, now and even more in future. The issue is too crucial to leave to the hands of 69 representatives, some of whom are real men, the rest mere quaquaraqua, as Leonardo Sciascia called them.

Joe Xuereb

Feb 1st 2011, 12:21

@Patrik Larsson. Quote: 'It is my right to seek happiness, although obviously not to the deterrent of my fellow human beings'. Quite. Let those smug and complacent in their happy marriages based on nothing more than the bedrock that is 'god says no' and to hell the negatively-labelled 'pogguti' and their damned bastards. Cissssss!!
Look at the fallout of children of divorced people in countries where divorce is allowed. Yes, these children sometimes mess up. Just like the children of parents who never divorce, either because they choose not to or because it's not allowed.
@Sylvana Debono, you had your time with George in the kitchen. If you want to see him again you'll have to brush up on your spelling. In the meantime let Mr.Fava RIP.

Richard Curmi

Feb 1st 2011, 10:51

The Hon Austin Gatt had already announced beforehand that he will not be contesting the next election in the interests of the PN. Based on that declaration I find it very easy to declare null and void his threat of resigning if the PN decide in favour of introducing divorce. This minister is back to when as a child he might have done what many Maltese children used to do at play " jew nilghab jew inhassar (inkeskes) its either what I want or no play. Now his Government has decided to let the people shoulder the responsibility, so what will his next move be?

I suppose that now parliament will discuss the legislation that will be presented to the people and the wording of the question/s to be asked as part of the referendum. It will be very interesting to see what will they come up with.

I believe that the pastoral arm of the church did not keep up with the changing situations of the Maltese family and it found itself reacting rather than proacting loosing a lot of ground in the meantime. Misplaced though well intentioned advice often affected priests' credibility.

Jessica DeBattista

Jan 31st 2011, 17:32

@ Fr. Joe:

May I join all the others in offering my condolences on the loss of your dearest friend George Fava.

Sylvana DeBono

Jan 31st 2011, 16:54

George was one of the pillars of the Media Centre. HIs understated manner enabled one and all to express their opinions and not feel awkward when one was venturing into subjective territory. He was tollerant and amusing and I still remember the fits of laughter we used to go into in the kitchenett at Media Centre during break time. In spite of the difficulties, and all was NOT champagne and roses at the time, one could count on Geroge for an clear and honest opinion and not the opinion one wanted to hear. A compassionate man and a true friend and trusted collegue. I hope to meet him again.

Patrik Larsson

Jan 31st 2011, 15:06

Jessica DeBattista:
Part 4 of 4
I understand where you are coming from with the atomic bomb analogy, but it has nothing to do with this. We are not adopting divorce because virtually all other nations have it already. We are adapting divorce because virtually all other nations have it and we can see the benefit it has had to people, while not being able to demonstrate a negative correlation that supersedes that.

Patrik Larsson

Jan 31st 2011, 15:06

Jessica DeBattista:
Part 3 of 4
"Marriage should retain its original function."

What type of marriage? I'm sure you are aware by now that marriage has had numerous different meanings and arrangements throughout the ages. Polygamy was accepted in various nations for a very long time, making marriage to an arrangement virtually only to pleasure a man. Should we retain that function as well?

We have a moral book, written throughout the ages, that we have allowed maturing and slowly guiding us towards better morals. It's that strive to increase the benefit to humanity that ought to push us in adding pages and making amendments to that book. Ultimately what becomes apparent is that you can only do that to a certain extent while arguing from a religious stand point and eventually you have to look outside that scope to truly discover what is and isn't moral.

Patrik Larsson

Jan 31st 2011, 15:06

Jessica DeBattista:
Part 2 of 4
"The older generation still respects the teachings of the Church and will possibly adhere to them but unfortunately the young generation is a different kettle of fish."

With some glee I would have to question the placement of "unfortunately" in that sentence :)

"They are bred in a secular society – hedonistic to say the least – and think it is their right to be happy."

It is my right to seek happiness, although obviously not to the deterrent of my fellow human beings. If we were only allowed to operate within the confines of making society better in everything we did, we would aspire to communist ideals, not modern, secular ideals. You be the judge of the better option.

Patrik Larsson

Jan 31st 2011, 15:05

Jessica DeBattista:
Part 1 of 4
"Nowadays the woman is being encouraged to go out to work and this inevitably has changed the whole pattern. "

Yes, it has created a more equal society, where women can reach a different type of fulfilment. Note that I said "can", not have to. Offering more choices does not mean you erode any values, nor push people into taking those choices.

"Inevitably moral values will be stretched to accommodate a new way of life. And it is only a matter of time before values are lost altogether."

That's soothsaying and I doubt you have any indications to back that statement up. Even if you could show a correlation between lack of morals and countries having divorce laws, which you can't, that wouldn't change the playing field one bit.

Joe Xuereb

Jan 31st 2011, 14:32

The message is loud and clear - happiness is 'sexual fulfillment. To the extent, apparently, that the primary purpose of the sexual act seems to have been forgotten. Not unlike seeking happiness via the gin bottle and oblivion. ANY addiction works like that hence its hold on one. Any addiction short-changes and destroys.
The older generation, the women in particular, held onto their marriage vows. They dressed these vows in all kinds of noble garb but really, what they were saying was, what would I do without my husband in order to survive (the meal-ticket of legend in other words). I remember women - my own sisters, neighbours - in the 1950s working in glove/shoe factories near Fleur-de-Lys earning twelve shillings and sixpence a week. From this they saved and bought stuff to equip a kitchen (saucepans, etc.) and bed-sheets for the first night of love with the eternal man of their dreams, 'till death us do part'. Get married or else, in other words. Of course they honoured their vows. Anybody would be a fool not to.
How times have changed. And the 1950s will never come back - no way!

Kenneth Cassar

Jan 31st 2011, 13:25

Ah, now I get it.

A secular society (as opposed to a theocratic one, I suppose), encourages hedonism. All failed marriages are caused by the shirking of responsibilities. And yes, why don't separated couples who form new relationships safeguard themselves by means of other possibilities (such as "Christian" cohabitation laws, I assume). But let's not let them be married.

People in failed marriages who form new relationships (as well as any children they bring into the world) deserve the stigma of "pogguti" and "bastard" (in the case of the offspring) after all, don't they? It's their own doing...after all, "God does not want divorce".

Richard Curmi

Jan 31st 2011, 10:55

The loss of a very close friend is a very great loss indeed. So heartfelt condolonces and may your friens rest in peace. May you find great solace in the knowledge that you were the other half of this close friendship.

With almost childish glee you declared that finally you have bought your HTC Desire Z. Could we take it that this would be a small part of the old church in modern garb, using modern and fast developing technology not only to announce the good news but also for personal worship and spiritual development. At least your kapricc is having some real value for you. But you have to exercise some restraint on your glut for the latest in mediatic technology as it is really changing at a never ending rate.

Jessica DeBattista

Jan 31st 2011, 10:11

Part 4.

Of course it would not make sense to have the same privileges conferred on cohabitation but I would say that there is nothing to keep couples from making a private contract to safeguard each others’ position.

Marriage should retain its original function. Of course they will continue to break down and other liaisons formed, but what’s keeping these couples from safeguarding themselves by means of other possibilities.?

Why do we have to follow the stream just because everybody else except us and the Phillippines have done it?

Dare I be extreme?

Shall we design our own atomic bomb (had we the means) because it seems that more and more countries are doing it? Shall we be party to the total destruction?

Jessica DeBattista

Jan 31st 2011, 10:08

Part 3.

The older generation still respects the teachings of the Church and will possibly adhere to them but unfortunately the young generation is a different kettle of fish.

They are bred in a secular society – hedonistic to say the least – and think it is their right to be happy. Of course everybody wants to be happy but we are human beings with a brain and we ought to know that certain behaviour, if not kept under control, can only result in confusion.

I am sure that every marriage has had its bad phases, and opportunities to sever the ties must have arisen, but the older generation took the marriage vows for what they were (marriage was a step one took in full knowledge of the responsibilities it entailed) and they did their best to avoid situations that could have led to a total marriage breakdown.

Today’s generation want to have their cake and to eat it too. They want the possibility to divorce so that they can have privileges that are safeguarded by the state. Since cohabitation does not give them the security they are after they want the state to introduce divorce.

Continued…

Jessica DeBattista

Jan 31st 2011, 10:04

Part 2.

Nowadays the woman is being encouraged to go out to work and this inevitably has changed the whole pattern.

The woman is no longer house bound - she has the same status as the man – is self-sufficient and can decide for herself whether she wants to get married or not. She is no longer looking for a husband as a life insurance. She is also confident enough to play the man’s game even when it comes to seeking a sexual partner, and going on the pill made her safe from possible pregnancies.

Inevitably moral values will be stretched to accommodate a new way of life. And it is only a matter of time before values are lost altogether.

I dare say that the maternal instinct that drove a woman to seek a husband is not that compelling nowadays. Women are seeking self fulfillment in a job career and do not worry unduly if they never sire a child.

So what can one expect from a society that is so drastically different from the one the older generation had been bred in?

Continued….

Jessica DeBattista

Jan 31st 2011, 10:01

Dr Austin Gatt had asked: “Has Maltese society so broken down we need divorce to regulate the family relationship?”

Part 1.

Sadly our society has been going through this corrosion for many a number of years. Various factors have contributed to this malaise and some of them owe this to progress, which is in itself positive, but as in all things, there is a pro and con, and when the aim is to change a way of life than it is to be expected that there will be negative changes as well.

We had always prided ourselves on how well we had preserved our faith but over the years there have been too many outside influences to shake our foundations.

There had always been infidelity but mostly it was the grass widows who were targeted and they were relatively few, and more often than not, when their husbands returned from their service abroad they took up the relationship where they had left it or carried on for appearances sake.

Continued…

Kenneth Cassar

Jan 30th 2011, 09:54

@ Andrew Farrugia:

By the way, you got that comment from the Malta Humanist facebook page, not the website. The difference might seem negligible, but it helps to be precise for the sake of people who might wish to verify or check for themselves.

Kenneth Cassar

Jan 30th 2011, 09:46

@ Andrew Farrugia:

"Did i comment on the tactic?".

No.

"Do you think i made it up? I invented it?".

No.

"Tsk, tsk, so much for your professed belief that you believe in other people's honesty".

Did I say you are being dishonest?

"Will let you check it out yourself if you wish".

Don't worry. I already did.

"Do you think you would ever, ever, join forces with me on say the protection of animal rights?".

Why not? As long as I agree with the tactics. For example I wouldn't use violence, but then I believe neither would you.

"I doubt it, honestly; i am in your bad books and that is where i will stay. BYEEEE!".

Think again, and have a nice day.

Joe Xuereb

Jan 30th 2011, 01:07

Proper usage of the language of the engLanders of aNgle-land requires that the personal pronoun referring to the self be - note the subjunctive - written as a capital letter, i.e. I. I it is at the beginning, the middle and the end (when it become lower-case 'me' - I think. Of course modern style and a phenomenal grasp of the language would excuse a smidgen of poetic license and allow a quaint, stand-out anomaly as an isolated 'i'. Unless of course we are talking of 'i' being a blushing flower, a flower that hides its light under a bushel. I don't think this applies here. I think it might be a 'Freudian slip albeit an obstinate one, not unlike inverted snobbery. Humility is not some people's forte as is obvious.
Mistakes may be present here. I did go to school once but strictly speaking, my English was picked up - as one does - on the streets, in the dives of Soho and Chelsea, Speakers' Corner when I was young and picking up anything was a piece of cake. Why, we THE- GANG even had a season ticket to the VD Clinic @St.Mary's Hosp. in Paddington.

Andrew Farrugia

Jan 29th 2011, 18:19

"I fail to see anything wrong with the "tactic" you refer to from "the great divorce debate" (wherever you got it from)."

Did i comment on the tactic? NO, i said: "Readers, get a load of the tactics used in "the Great Divorce Debate" from the humanist website:"
Do you think i made it up? I invented it? Tsk, tsk, so much for your professed belief that you believe in other people's honesty. Will let you check it out yourself if you wish.
Last question: Do you think you would ever, ever, join forces with me on say the protection of animal rights? I doubt it, honestly; i am in your bad books and that is where i will stay. BYEEEE!

Kenneth Cassar

Jan 29th 2011, 15:10

@ Andrew Farrugia:

I've addressed all your points. It is you who kept insisting that you are writing "I" correctly, against all evidence to the contrary.

If anything, the "strategy" was yours. Of course, it failed miserably.

Kenneth Cassar

Jan 29th 2011, 14:17

@ Andrew Farrugia:

"Great strategist, but like i said i have sussed you out finally".

Oh, very clever of you.

Kenneth Cassar

Jan 29th 2011, 14:06

@ Andrew Farrugia:

"...and take note of the epithets like Taliban flying around".

Did I call anyone Taliban?

Kenneth Cassar

Jan 29th 2011, 14:05

@ Andrew Farrugia:

I fail to see anything wrong with the "tactic" you refer to from "the great divorce debate" (wherever you got it from).

It stands to reason that in any single-issue campaign, you will find people who disagree on other issues. But if the single-issue campaign is to be effective, the focus must be on the issue itself, and other differences should as much as possible be put on the sideline.

I believe the anti-divorce movement is doing exactly the same. Nothing wrong with that. It is standard practice in single-issue campaigns.

FR Joe Borg

Jan 29th 2011, 10:02

@ all. Many of the regular readers of this column did not know George personally so I expect that they file in comments about other aspects of this blog. However, many of George's friends sent me comments about him. I appeal to his friends to post their comments here instead of emailing them to me or his family. Let us give public credit to our friend, his qualities and his achievements. Thanks.

Andrew Farrugia

Jan 28th 2011, 22:24

Readers, get a load of the tactics used in "the Great Divorce Debate" from the humanist website:
GV: i am starting this topic today to have a focal point in this FB group for members to put forward any suggestions on how to actively lobby for the introduction of sensible divorce legislation in Malta.
SEB: the most important factor ..... is to have a united front. If this cannot be achieved an umbrella of organisations can be set up to work together to still achieve this.
In Ireland the pro-abortion lobby and the pro-life worked "together" in campaigning for a NO vote on the Lisbon treaty. Both had different arguments but they still subscribed to saying NO....
We have already identified that the campaign is, saying YES to legislate in favour of divorce. The question should always be focused on ......is the common denominator to this campaign - Saying YeS to Divorce. we come from various political backgrounds, religious beliefs and we can agree to disagree on all other matters ...... What unites us together is this cause. I for one I am willing to work with my biggest enemy to achieve a YES vote and shift the balance.

Andrew Farrugia

Jan 28th 2011, 19:47

@ Kenneth Cassar

"..hardly enough reason for one to escape the label of being immoral" I agree with you completely; just have a look on other threads "which you often frequent as well" and take note of the epithets like Taliban flying around; it's as if they're selling hot cakes.

BTW i have noticed how you shifted point of attack from serious stuff to inane comments about how i write "i". Great strategist, but like i said i have sussed you out finally.

Kenneth Cassar

Jan 28th 2011, 18:00

@ Andrew Farrugia:

"And i am not challenging the FORMAL convention of writing "i".

Writing "I" in upper case is not a formal convention. Its the correct way. Don't you agree, or are you actually challenging what all English language teachers actually teach?

Andrew Farrugia

Jan 28th 2011, 16:44

@ Kenneth Cassar

Hahaha! ( And this is honest laughing, not DERISION at you or anybody - with you i have to be extremely careful what to write, problems of non-face-to-face communication , i believe.)
I am laughing because when i type my comments i will write "i" the way i want to write it; jeepers, i am not writing a dissertation. And i am not challenging the FORMAL convention of writing "i". Please regard it as my idiosyncratic way of writing "i". I hope that i have made the way i write "i" clear enough to you.

Kenneth Cassar

Jan 28th 2011, 14:21

@ Andrew Farrugia:

"i write "i" correctly and will continue to write "i" correctly".

Really?

"Personal Pronoun “ I ” – Capitalize the word " I " when referring to oneself in the first person. This word is always capitalized, even when used in mid sentence".

http://www.libraryonline.com/default.asp?pID=48

Kenneth Cassar

Jan 28th 2011, 14:12

@ Andrew Farrugia:

"Still persisting in inanity?".

You may believe that too.

"i write "i" correctly and will continue to write "i" correctly. I only use upper case "i" after a full stop and at the beginning of a sentence (note that i write "i" even after a colon), and that is the way i will always write "i"".

"I" (first person singular) in English is always upper case, but if you insist...

"If you find it to hard to read my use of "i" that is your problem not mine".

Not a problem at all. You are the one making such a big deal of it. Mine was only a passing comment. You chose to challenge it. Fine.

Kenneth Cassar

Jan 28th 2011, 13:05

@ Andrew Farrugia:

"Still trying to work your way out of your faulty logic, as in peddling (now there's a new one to add to spinning, weaving, sophism, wriggling and shifting)".

Not really, but you can believe that if you want.

"DELINQUENCY as applied to what is written with DELINQUENT as applied to a person [something i have never done]".

If I was even mildly interested in continuing futile discussions conducted elsewhere, I'd do it elsewhere, not here.

"...as in describing an action and IMMORAL as in describing a person".

I'm not. But it is not rocket science to grasp the fact that it takes an immoral person to knowingly do something immoral. And I already said I believe sophistry to be immoral.

"Two things i can definitely say about you: you are definitely PREDICTABLE and PERSISTENT )".

True, I am predictably honest since I hold honesty high in my list of moral imperatives, and I am also persistent in believing something I hold to be true on available evidence, until better evidence shows otherwise.

"and those are NEUTRAL ADJECTIVES , ie neither positive nor negative".

True.

Patrik Larsson

Jan 28th 2011, 12:47

Fr. Joe:
Thanks for the clarification. I can assure you I wish you all the enjoyment in the world with your gadgetry.

Jessica:
Correct. It's much more than a mobile phone. It's my new best friend, even though mine is only a minor reflection of the phone that Fr. Joe bought. I'm attached to it to the point of my wife giving me weird looks when I use it. It's all a part of us mens' reluctance to ever growing up.

In fact, I think we should all drop the bickering for one week and start discussing gadgets instead :)

Andrew Farrugia

Jan 28th 2011, 12:42

@ Kenneth Cassar

Still persisting in inanity?: i write "i" correctly and will continue to write "i" correctly. I only use upper case "i" after a full stop and at the beginning of a sentence (note that i write "i" even after a colon), and that is the way i will always write "i". If you find it to hard to read my use of "i" that is your problem not mine.

Jessica DeBattista

Jan 28th 2011, 12:11

@ Fr. Joe.

Congratulations are in order here!

So happy to hear that the book “Exploring the Maltese Media Landscape” won second prize in the Malta Book Awards” Well done to you, and your colleagues Prof Mary Anne Lauri and Adrian Hillman!

Also good luck with your new mobile phone which I hear is much more than a mobile phone - as I understand it.

Enjoy your “kapricc” – “extravaganza”. As the Americans would say: “What the heck! We only live once! :-)

Kenneth Cassar

Jan 28th 2011, 12:03

@ Andrew Farrugia:

"i will continue to use lower case "i" in these comments and you have already pointed that out ages ago".

I know. You have every right to, and nobody's stopping you.

"Even then, that does not show anything at all about surmising, since you have printed evidence of it".

Here's where you're totally wrong. Evidence of what happened in the past is not necessarily evidence of what will happen in the future. You might decide to write "I" correctly.

Andrew Farrugia

Jan 28th 2011, 12:01

@ Kenneth Cassar

Still trying to work your way out of your faulty logic, as in peddling (now there's a new one to add to spinning, weaving, sophism, wriggling and shifting) DELINQUENCY as applied to what is written with DELINQUENT as applied to a person [something i have never done]. Now you are doing it with IMMORALITY as in describing an action and IMMORAL as in describing a person. Two things i can definitely say about you: you are definitely PREDICTABLE and PERSISTENT ) and those are NEUTRAL ADJECTIVES , ie neither positive nor negative.

Andrew Farrugia

Jan 28th 2011, 11:37

@ Kenneth Cassar

Re INANE comments: i will continue to use lower case "i" in these comments and you have already pointed that out ages ago. Even then, that does not show anything at all about surmising, since you have printed evidence of it .

Kenneth Cassar

Jan 28th 2011, 11:20

@ Andrew Farrugia (part 3):

About you suggesting (or not) that I am immoral, let me just say this. One does not have to call someone immoral to make it clear enough that the other is actually immoral. Saying that one does things that are immoral is effectively calling that person immoral.

Now, I believe that a person who spins and weaves other people's expressed opinions, and who engages in sophism just to "prove" a point one knows is wrong (that's what sophism is), is immoral in my books.

Perhaps I set myself moral standards that are too high for the average person, so I shouldn't complain.

Fr Joe Borg

Jan 28th 2011, 11:16

@ Patrik Larsson. Kapricc is an extravaganza. Not a big one in my case but an extravaganza it still is.

Kenneth Cassar

Jan 28th 2011, 10:43

@ Andrew Farrugia (part 2):

"Even then, let me reassure you that someone like you, who has devoted time and energy in working for the benefit of all living creatures can NEVER be described as immoral".

Thanks, but hardly enough reason for one to escape the label of being immoral. After all, Hitler himself made progressive pro-animal legislation...but where did any of that leave the Jews? But thank you, in any case.

"But you seem to have the usual problem; it is ok for you to vilify and attack others through use of epithets and innuendo".

I don't. But don't bother looking for the evidence.

"When others mildly react to your labeling others, with various derogatory terms, then you get all upset and ask for the moderator's intervention".

I don't care about labels. I do care about libelous comments. There is a difference.

Kenneth Cassar

Jan 28th 2011, 10:42

@ Andrew Farrugia (part 1):

"My, my, my, getting hot and bothered again, aren't we?".

Not at all. Where did you get that impression from?

"Do you have the psychic capabilities of surmising what i might be thinking but i have never actually said or written?".

Not really. But through experience one can expect certain things. For instance I can expect you to write the first-person pronoun "I" in lower case in your next post. Of course you might prove me wrong, particularly since I have mentioned it and so have given the game away.

"Right, let me take a leaf out of your book: provide ONE SHRED of EVIDENCE when i, Andrew Farrugia, ever REMOTELY suggested that you, Kenneth Cassar, are immoral".

Listen...when you will start giving importance to evidence and presenting evidence for your own claims, I will do likewise. Fair deal? Otherwise, I would be just wasting my time looking for the evidence when you couldn't be bothered about your own.

Cont...

Andrew Farrugia

Jan 28th 2011, 10:18

@ Kenneth Cassar
My, my, my, getting hot and bothered again, aren't we? "[Twisting] and interpreting what?" Do you have the psychic capabilities of surmising what i might be thinking but i have never actually said or written? "basically painting me (ie Cassar Kenneth) as an immoral person"??? Right, let me take a leaf out of your book: provide ONE SHRED of EVIDENCE when i, Andrew Farrugia, ever REMOTELY suggested that you, Kenneth Cassar, are immoral. I have never ever entertained that thought, let alone put it down in writing. Even then, let me reassure you that someone like you, who has devoted time and energy in working for the benefit of all living creatures can NEVER be described as immoral. But you seem to have the usual problem; it is ok for you to vilify and attack others through use of epithets and innuendo, but then you argue that you are attacking the message, not the messenger. When others mildly react to your labeling others, with various derogatory terms, then you get all upset and ask for the moderator's intervention.

Kenneth Cassar

Jan 28th 2011, 09:10

@ Andrew Farrugia:

""And that's just for starters." Here we go again, seeking fresh prey, fresh targets. Should be interesting to follow! Wonderful strategist!".

Dear Andrew, a public figure (especially a politician) sets his own self as a potential target. It's all legitimate. If one makes an opinion public, it is legitimate for others to criticise that opinion.

As for the "just for starters" comment, feel free to twist it and give it your own interpretation. After all, I'm used to your tactic of "shooting the messenger, not the message".

Dr Austin Gatt's several contradictions have already been exposed elsewhere (the moderator won't publish the link, but you're a frequent visitor there), and it would take too much space to list them all here. So I won't even bother. After all, not much can be expected from someone who seriously thinks that describing someone "conservative" is undemocratic.

Enough said. Now you can have your fun attacking things I never said, and basically painting me as an immoral person.

m.portelli

Jan 27th 2011, 19:00

Yes bully for him 'Dr. Gatt ! Best piece of cognitively dissonant writing so far this week. Hope he keeps them coming too, its very rich data! Catholic principles and values indeed! Nice bit of pick n'mix more likely.

Andrew Farrugia

Jan 27th 2011, 17:26

"And that's just for starters." Here we go again, seeking fresh prey, fresh targets. Should be interesting to follow! Wonderful strategist!

Patrik Larsson

Jan 27th 2011, 16:56

Fr. Joe:
Google translates "kapricc" as extravagance. Is that a fair translation?

Almost 8 years in Malta and I still struggle greatly with the language. The fact that Google finally translates from and to Maltese is probably going to retard my learning even more.

Patrik Larsson

Jan 27th 2011, 16:52

Fr. Joe:
You're welcome.

You should also be slightly ashamed for leading me into temptation. The Desire Z is a lovely little machine. I'm very jealous. Good choice though.

Fr Joe Borg

Jan 27th 2011, 15:55

@ Patrik Larsson. Thanks for your kind words about George. Re-HTC. I finally bought an HTC Desire Z. It's a great phone. It's, as we Maltese say, a kapricc, but we all have our weaknesses.

Kenneth Cassar

Jan 27th 2011, 15:45

"Austin Gatt’s opinion piece in The Times of Wednesday 26 is one of the best pieces I read about the on-going divorce debate for a very long time".

Really? Then I suppose you don't find any problem with the claim that someone calling a conservative "conservative" is being undemocratic. And that's just for starters.

d.attard

Jan 27th 2011, 15:42

Yes, it will be good to hear more about dr gatt's moral challenges, especially why his moral ruler seems to have no problem with cohabitation, which is an outright sin by church law, but has a problem with a marriage in the wake of divorce, a situation that is commonplace with many practicing catholics especially in north america, where divorce is often followed up by annulment, in many cases within six months from application.

Sylvana Magro

Jan 27th 2011, 15:38

I wish Gorg can read it too. Perhaps he is and laughing his head off. Daqs kemm kien jobgħod il ftaħir fuqu.

A D Crespo

Jan 27th 2011, 15:28

Heartfelt condolences Fr Joe on the loss of your friend.

When I worked in a Church agency in the 90s and part of the noughties, part of my work entailed overseeing publications of this organisation. Whenever we worked with Mr Fava, he was always extremely courteous and very professional. Most of all, I always had the impression that he knew how best to present our material since he had the Church at heart and knew what made her tick. Best of all, it was always a pleasure to liaise with him on our projects because he had a very subtle sense of humour that made working with him that little bit more enjoyable. On writing this, I realise that all this can also be said of you. Maybe that is why you two got along so well.

May he rest in peace.

Joseph Abela

Jan 27th 2011, 12:56

'In Praise of Austin' ... Well, naturally, you would, wouldn't you?

Patrik Larsson

Jan 27th 2011, 12:18

Three things:

I think we can all offer our condolences for the loss of your dear friend. Even one such as myself, foreigner and all, knew well who George Fava was and his contributions to the local media scene. Contributions that I'm sure won't die with him. A sad loss.

Secondly and perhaps very apparently, I don't agree one bit in regards to Austin Gatt's editorial. He didn't address any of the real concerns, nor the criticism. He didn't present any facts, or rather no facts that he could back up. It was emotional mumbo jumbo and a far stretch from what I would have expected from him.

Thirdly, and much more important than the divorce issue, which HTC did you go for? HTC is, in my very strong opinoing, currently producing the best phones in the world, by a far stretch. I have a wildfire myself, which is their budget model, yet with a better build quality than many of the much more expensive competitive phones. Gadget freak as I am, I have never been able to motivate myself to spending much money on phones.