The referendum is dead, Long live the general election
After all the expectations that it would be the people who would decide whether divorce should be introduced in Malta, it seems possible now that the issue will be decided in Parliament. The member of the executive of the Partit Nazzjonalista will tomorrow be voting on a motion which states that a referendum will be held only if there is a Parliamentary majority in favour of the JPO et al draft. If Parliament says nay, nay it will be, or so politicians and others think.
There are legal and other type of arguments in favour of this position. The argument goes something like this: A referendum can be held only after a motion has been approved by Parliament. The only motion on the subject that Parliament is discussing is the third version of a motion presented by JPO and Evarist Bartolo. A referendum can only be held after this motion is approved. If it is not approved then it is the end of story. Those in favour of divorce should have opted for another way to make divorce legal in Malta. They chose the method they chose so let them jinqlew b’zejthom.
However, there are other aspects to consider. (i) Man and women do not live by legalistic reasoning alone; they also live on perceptions and expectations. (ii) For every move there will be a counter move.
I do not think that legalisationon divorce was ever high in people’s agenda. The cost of living and the economy were (and still are) definitively much higher.
The media tried to keep the subject on the agenda as there was the perception that the subject gives rise to heated discussions, comments on the blogs and more readership of the papers. It has been proven time and time again that what the media project as important is not necessarily what the people really feel as important.
JPO’s decision to present a private member’s bill in Parliament was unfair towards the public and towards his party. The divorce debate was forced prematurely on the country and this could lead to its pre-mature death.
As things were progressing I suspect that JPO – thanks to his sense of pique and immaturity – would have ruined his own cause and ended up as the darling of the anti-divorce lobby. However, that is a different story.
A real politic assessment of the situation shows that the tiny Parliamentary majority of the PN, the unreliability and (in the eyes of many) doubtful loyalty of JPO as well as the crass opportunism continuously shown by Dr Joseph Muscat forced JPO’s unjust measure onto the Parliamentary agenda and made it part of the public agenda. The baby had now been born.
Many people now expect that a decision has to be taken and taken in the shortest possible time span. The country needs to get the divorce distraction out of the way. A perception that the people will decide in a referendum or an election has been created, fed and grown obese. The former seemed to be the preferred and quickest way forward. More and more people came to expect that they will decide. The possibility that MPs can decide the matter in a definitive matter is new to most and this new possibility clashes with the expectations and perceptions that many people have. The motion of the PN goes against the reality as perceived by many people and the manner their expectations had been groomed.
An idea that most probably took time to develop within the party’s apparatus has now been thrust upon the people like a bolt from the blue. Different people are giving different interpretations to this development but no one whom I spoke too (barring party officials) gave the same interpretation Paul Borg Olivier gave to the papers and the one I explained above. None of those I spoke to believe that the real explanation is that being given by PBO.
Most people I spoke to are giving a totally different interpretation. They believe that after counting the votes the PN came to the conclusion that the motion can be killed without a referendum. And they decided to kill it without a referendum. Many are therefore feeling cheated. Others, quite naturally, feel relieved.
One would have hoped that the divisive nature of the subject would not have been exacerbated by a division about the methodology. One would have hoped that there would have been an agreement on the referendum question. One would have hoped that the different sides would have agreed that the result of the referendum would not have been contested before, say, ten years.
This scenario will probably not be possible now. The discussion will now shift from the core of the matter to the manner of the matter. The pro-divorce lobby will try to play up the feelings of those who – rightly or wrongly – feel cheated by this move. They can lose the battle in Parliament. However, does that mean that the pro-divorce lobby would have lost the war? Will they not clamour for a referendum asap or for a decision about the subject in an election? Is it in the interest of anyone to have divorce as an electoral issue? I do not think so.
If the anti-divorce lobby are ready to ditch the referendum if their side wins in Parliament will not the pro-divorce lobby be tempted to take a similar position if their side wins in Parliament?
I know that there is a difference between the two sides. The pro-divorce lobby does not have a Parliamentary mandate to introduce divorce. This is true. But will not the temptation be a big one if they have enough votes in Parliament. They will say: Let us take political responsibility for a pro-divorce vote and let the people vote us out – if they wish – in the next election. In the latter case divorce will be put in the same basket with water and electricity bills, BWSC, employment etc.
How can one solve the legal dilemma mentioned by PBO and choose the best way to proceed? I do not know the answer but I know that whenever politicians want to find a solution they always find it.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
120 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Andy Farrugia
Feb 20th 2011, 20:06
Thanks, Kenneth, and yes, you're right, i forgot to put an "i" in front of will. Good night.
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 20th 2011, 19:42
@ Andy Farrugia:
"Thanks for telling me i am HALF-correct; as you say..."
You're welcome.
"...oh master...",
Master? Just call me Kenneth or Kenneth Cassar.
"...will let you have it your way (by citing wiki-sources) about the difference between grammar and orthography"
Wiki-sources? I haven't cited wiki-sources. And you forgot to put an "I" (or "i") before "will". But that's probably a genuine error.
"...a grammatical error and a personalised form of rendering a particular word in writing/typing. Sorry to persist, but i will continue to type "i" as i wish. Over and out. Have a good day".
I have already made it clear that you have every right to write/type the first-person pronoun incorrectly.
Good night.
Andy Farrugia
Feb 20th 2011, 12:04
Thanks for telling me i am HALF-correct; as you say, oh master, will let you have it your way (by citing wiki-sources) about the difference between grammar and orthography, a grammatical error and a personalised form of rendering a particular word in writing/typing. Sorry to persist, but i will continue to type "i" as i wish. Over and out. Have a good day.
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 20th 2011, 11:40
@ Andy Farrugia:
"It has nothing to do with grammar...(it's orthography)".
That's like saying humans are not animals, they are mammals.
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 20th 2011, 11:26
@ Andy Farrugia:
"Ah, we are now into the field of judging intentions, which may or may not have actually been present: how is this possible? And premodifying our statements with a typical barb -USUAL- aimed at denigrating a person? Typical".
Oh, so you are truly updating your vocabulary through my posts? I'm honoured. And "usual" is not derogatory. It simply means that you do it often. Update that as well.
"It has nothing to do with grammar; but you probably cannot tell the difference between orthography (graphological/typographical features) and grammar".
You are half correct. It is specifically orthographical, but orthography falls under the general subject of grammar.
http://acunix.wheatonma.edu/mdrout/grammarbook2007/ch2.html
Oh come on! You can do better than this!
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 20th 2011, 10:58
@ Andy Farrugia:
"You, of all people, relying on received knowledge!".
Pardon my delay in getting what you meant. I suppose you are referring to "divinely inspired" knowledge.
There are at least two types of received knowledge.
One is practical: Should we drive on the left, or on the right? Should we write "I" in upper or lower case? It doesn't matter much as long as there is an agreed and applied common standard. It wouldn't make a difference if everyone started driving on the right as long as everybody does it that way.
The other concerns truth. Here, things are very different. We would have total chaos if people started believing that you don't die if you jump off a 10,000 foot high building, even if the belief were universal. Truth rests on evidence, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you told me you are wearing a green shirt tomorrow, I would have no reason to disbelieve you, but if you told me that humans are remotely controlled by aliens, I would ask for evidence.
I hope I made myself clear enough.
Andy Farrugia
Feb 20th 2011, 10:55
"You, on the other hand, persist in constantly writing the "I" in the grammatically incorrect lower case." Kenneth Cassar
It has nothing to do with grammar; but you probably cannot tell the difference between orthography (graphological/typographical features) and grammar.
Andy Farrugia
Feb 20th 2011, 10:39
@ Kenneth Cassar
"May I finally remind you that all this started after one of your usual sarcastic comments, namely:"
Ah, we are now into the field of judging intentions, which may or may not have actually been present: how is this possible? And premodifying our statements with a typical barb -USUAL- aimed at denigrating a person? Typical.
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 20th 2011, 10:39
@ Andy Farrugia:
"And i will continue to write "i" in lower case, irrespective of what others state. Have a good day".
No problem at all. You may even write your name backwards if you wish. No one is stopping you.
A good day to you too.
Andy Farrugia
Feb 20th 2011, 10:16
@ Kenneth Cassar
And i will continue to write "i" in lower case, irrespective of what others state. Have a good day.
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 20th 2011, 10:08
@ Andy Farrugia:
May I finally remind you that all this started after one of your usual sarcastic comments, namely:
"Oh, that is something i continuously do when i go through what you write; i am constantly updating my knowledge of words and learning new nuances and turns and twists of phrase. In fact, i need to thank you for this".
I'm sorry it backfired. And I thought you would be true to your word, and would "thank me" for insisting that the proper way to write the first person pronoun is in upper case. I guess my expectations were too high.
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 20th 2011, 08:30
@ Andy Farrugia:
"Just to make it clear: the contracted form of "you are" is "you're" and not "YOU'R", as in..."
I know. I mentioned that the contracted form of "you are" is "you're" before you actually pointed out to what contracted form you are referring to, which proves that mine was a one-time typing error.
Again, is that the best you can do?
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 20th 2011, 08:27
@ Andy Farrugia:
"You, of all people, relying on received knowledge! Why is "i" the most insignificant of the letters of the alphabet? Insignificant in relation to what - "a" for instance? What makes it insignificant? Why should any letter of the alphabet be regarded as more or less important than any other? In assessing handwritten tests, any examiner who penalises a student for writing "i" uncapitalised is really splitting hairs".
Don't ask me. Ask Dale W. Simpson, Professor of English, Missouri Southern State College, Joplin, Missouri. He's the one I got the whole quote from.
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 20th 2011, 08:23
@ Andy Farrugia:
"No, Kenneth, i was not referring to "you're"; i was referring to your grammatical mistake or typo "you'R" as in "I sure hope you'r not right, though, .." I have never heard of any established professor who uses "you'r"; would you care to mention even one? Irony, indeed".
Oh, I see. You are referring to what you yourself refer to as my one (in a whole correspondence of several hundred words) typo. Is that really the best you can do.
The big difference is that, unlike you, I will readily admit it was a typo I only did once (and yes, it would be a grammatical error). You, on the other hand, persist in constantly writing the "I" in the grammatically incorrect lower case.
Ah, the irony!
Andy Farrugia
Feb 19th 2011, 21:47
Just to make it clear: the contracted form of "you are" is "you're" and not "YOU'R", as in:
"Oh really? If you say so. I sure hope you'r not right, though, or we'll soon be replacing proper language with SMS-style shorthand."
Andy Farrugia
Feb 19th 2011, 21:32
"I came to be capitalized, not through any egotism, but only because lower-case i standing alone was likely to be overlooked, since it is the most insignificant of the letters of the alphabet." Kenneth Cassar.
You, of all people, relying on received knowledge! Why is "i" the most insignificant of the letters of the alphabet? Insignificant in relation to what - "a" for instance? What makes it insignificant? Why should any letter of the alphabet be regarded as more or less important than any other? In assessing handwritten tests, any examiner who penalises a student for writing "i" uncapitalised is really splitting hairs.
Andy Farrugia
Feb 19th 2011, 21:23
No, Kenneth, i was not referring to "you're"; i was referring to your grammatical mistake or typo "you'R" as in "I sure hope you'r not right, though, .." I have never heard of any established professor who uses "you'r"; would you care to mention even one? Irony, indeed.
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 19th 2011, 20:22
Ah, the sweet irony, when someone who writes "BTW" proceeds to say that my contracted form of "you are" (commonly used in the contracted form by established professors in non-fiction books) sounds like "SMS-style shorthand"!
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 19th 2011, 20:06
@ Andy Farrugia:
"The way i write "i" may appear idiosyncratic but it does not break any grammatical rules"
Why is the first-person-singular personal pronoun, I, always capitalized in English?
"The answer is buried in a history of the English language text—Pyles and Algeo, Origins and Development of the English Language, 4th ed., p. 187:
I came to be capitalized, not through any egotism, but only because lower-case i standing alone was likely to be overlooked, since it is the most insignificant of the letters of the alphabet.
This is found in the chapter on modern English to 1800, meaning in the period from 1500 to 1800. Thus, I take this to mean that the capitalization of I for the personal pronoun was a printer's invention during the early part of this period. I do know that in manuscripts from the Old and Middle English period, the forms were ic (OE) and ich (ME) and were never capitalized in script".
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/faq.htm#
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 19th 2011, 19:53
@ Andy Farrugia:
"The way i write "i" may appear idiosyncratic but it does not break any grammatical rules"
Oh yes it does.
", unlike your use of the contracted form of YOU ARE, which indeed does sound like SMS-style shorthand".
My use of the contracted form of "you are", by which I think you're referring to "you're", is grammatically correct. ( http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/your.html ). Please try harder next time. Try to find a real grammatical error I actually made. I'm sure I have, somewhere. I'm not perfect. It just happens that I admit mistakes when I make them.
"As for your music video, i must say i could only stand about 0.40 sec. of it - enough for me to conclude that it is not the kind of music i appreciate".
Neither is it mine. But of course, it's hilarious to someone who does have a sense of humour.
Andy Farrugia
Feb 19th 2011, 18:52
@ Kenneth Cassar
"I sure hope you'r not right, though, or we'll soon be replacing proper language with SMS-style shorthand."
The way i write "i" may appear idiosyncratic but it does not break any grammatical rules, unlike your use of the contracted form of YOU ARE, which indeed does sound like SMS-style shorthand. As for your music video, i must say i could only stand about 0.40 sec. of it - enough for me to conclude that it is not the kind of music i appreciate.
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 19th 2011, 16:53
@ Andy Farrugia:
I'll end this futile conversation with a music video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj6QqCH7g0Q&feature=player_embedded#at=119
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 19th 2011, 16:35
@ Andy Farrugia:
"Fancy that; you obviously have no idea of the criteria/descriptors used to assess students' writing performance in language testing. Better stick to what you are good at".
Oh really? If you say so. I sure hope you'r not right, though, or we'll soon be replacing proper language with SMS-style shorthand. And THAT would be tragic, although of course, some people would love it...like the ones who otherwise would fail their exams, for instance.
Andy Farrugia
Feb 19th 2011, 14:21
@ Kenneth Cassar
"The real test would be using a lower case "I" in an English language exam, and seeing whether you get a high grade.
But if you insist...go ahead. I'd give you an "F" in upper case ;)"
Fancy that; you obviously have no idea of the criteria/descriptors used to assess students' writing performance in language testing. Better stick to what you are good at.
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 19th 2011, 14:08
@ Andy Farrugia:
A little tip. When you become an accomplished and internationally renowned writer or poet, feel free to take liberties with language. But until you do, your linguistic idiosyncrasies will be perceived as silly errors.
But of course, that's totally up to you, and I'll end it here. Have a happy weekend.
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 19th 2011, 13:53
@ Andy Farrugia:
"BTW, e e cummings used "i" the way i use it ages before me".
Ah, yes, Edward Estlin Cummings (October 14, 1894 – September 3, 1962), who used the lower case letters ONLY in some of his POEMS (poetic license, and all that).
Oh come on...you can do better than that. The real test would be using a lower case "I" in an English language exam, and seeing whether you get a high grade.
But if you insist...go ahead. I'd give you an "F" in upper case ;)
Andy Farrugia
Feb 19th 2011, 13:13
@ Kenneth Cassar
BTW, e e cummings used "i" the way i use it ages before me.
Andy Farrugia
Feb 19th 2011, 11:26
@ Kenneth Cassar
Don't you think that my way of writing "i", at least, serves to help you avoid confusing me from others who may have the same name? Transparency, accountability and all that, you know!
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 19th 2011, 08:38
@ Andy Farrugia:
It is the duty of an educator (whether paid for it or not) to keep insisting until the "student" gets it right ;)
Andy Farrugia
Feb 18th 2011, 21:00
"You're very welcome. Glad to be of service. Now if only you would put what you learn into practice. How about starting by writing "I" properly? ;) "
Jeeez! Do you wish to take us two or three weeks back? Noooooooooooooooooooooo!
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 18th 2011, 15:34
@ Andy Farrugia:
"Oh, that is something i continuously do when i go through what you write; i am constantly updating my knowledge of words and learning new nuances and turns and twists of phrase. In fact, i need to thank you for this".
You're very welcome. Glad to be of service. Now if only you would put what you learn into practice. How about starting by writing "I" properly? ;)
Andy Farrugia
Feb 18th 2011, 14:50
"Disparaging? Sarcastic, certainly, but disparaging? You need to improve your vocabulary. "
Oh, that is something i continuously do when i go through what you write; i am constantly updating my knowledge of words and learning new nuances and turns and twists of phrase. In fact, i need to thank you for this.
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 18th 2011, 13:52
@ Andy Farrugia:
"Disparaging remarks? Oh certainly not; i leave that to others as in "your own version of the Christian spirit"".
Disparaging? Sarcastic, certainly, but disparaging? You need to improve your vocabulary.
Andy Farrugia
Feb 18th 2011, 13:33
Disparaging remarks? Oh certainly not; i leave that to others as in "your own version of the Christian spirit".
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 18th 2011, 13:27
@ Fr Joe Borg:
My only regret is that your explanation came so late, thus giving someone the opportunity to capitalise on the whole issue by unsuccessfully trying to tarnish my reputation. But perhaps someone might learn from this experience.
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 18th 2011, 12:53
@ Fr Joe Borg:
If you did not have me in mind (and I have no reason for disbelieving you), even though in your own words (Andy Farrugia please note) "(you) can also understand why (I) felt that (you were) addressing (me)", then an apology was not necessary at all. A clarification would have been sufficient.
I thank you for appreciating what you describe as my sincere attitude and readiness to apologise when I find that I am incorrect. After all, if we can't at least trust each other's honest intentions, then what would be the point of any debate?
So apology accepted and I reiterate that in the circumstances, it was not necessary. A clarification (which you have now given) would have been sufficient.
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 18th 2011, 12:32
@ Andy Farrugia:
"AGREED; mercifully, you are so right".
And mercifully you have not made any disparaging remarks about my staff. I wonder why.
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 18th 2011, 12:28
@ Andy Farrugia:
"Oh, did not realise i was eavesdropping on some private conversation!"
It isn't. However, since I'm only asking an acknowledgement or apology from Fr Joe Borg for misjudging me, it is up to him to give it or not, and that's none of anyone else's business.
If on the otherhand, you wish to discuss on anyone's comments (inlcuding my own and Fr Joe's), even if not addressed to you, then you have every right to, since blogs are not private conversations.
But again, when someone asks an acknowledgement or apology from another one person, the issue is between them and no one else.
But nice try...even though not good enough. You have to try a lot harder if you really wish to ridicule me (all in your own version of "Christian spirit", of course). Good luck with that. You'll definitely need it.
fr joe borg
Feb 18th 2011, 12:22
' Kenneth Cassar. Priests are not above apologies. The guy I had in mind when I wrote what I wrote has not apologised. Probably he has not read what I wrote.
I appreciate your sincere attitude and your readiness to apologise when you note that you were not correct. I can also understand why you felt that I was addressing you. If it makes you feel better, I apologise just the same.
Jessica DeBattista
Feb 18th 2011, 11:38
@ Joe Xuereb: “Besides, they so hate appearing to have failed.”
You know Joe, we seem to be moving on parallel tracks here, but with the above quote you have angled away from me. I do not agree with you that “they (women) so hate appearing to have failed.”
Personally I think that when it it the wife who leaves, men can hate to have failed with an even bigger passion - probably because of their male ego.
A woman might hate to have failed as a wife but a man would hate for having lost face in the eyes of his friends and the people he knows. Men are not accustomed to having the wife leaving them, notwithstanding that it is becoming increasingly frequent. They feel smug in their belief that the children will keep the woman from leaving. What they don’t realize is that women are evolving at a fast rate and they are no longer the acquiescent figures who can grin and bear the shortcomings of their husbands.
Andy Farrugia
Feb 18th 2011, 10:29
"In any case, it frankly is none of your business. It's between me and Fr Joe. "
Oh, did not realise i was eavesdropping on some private conversation!
Andy Farrugia
Feb 18th 2011, 10:22
"I would hate to even be in the same room. Thankfully, I don't have to."
AGREED; mercifully, you are so right.
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 18th 2011, 08:45
@ Andy Farrugia:
"I would hate to have this guy as my boss; would not last five minutes".
That says a lot about you, but nothing about me. Actually, my staff were relieved the moment I took over at the office.
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 18th 2011, 08:38
@ Andy Farrugia:
"First he completely fluffs his perusal of what others write...then he grudgingly recants but blames blogger for his vague use of language, finally mutters a half-hearted apology"
Regardless of your spin, the fact remains that I apologised when I acknowledged the possibility of my being mistaken, and apologised once again when Fr Joe Borg confirmed that I was. If you want to believe that my apology was half-hearted, suit yourself, and see if I care.
"but EXPECTS an ACKNOWLEDGEMENT if not an APOLOGY (when he was the sole originator and perpetrator of the whole caboodle)".
Actually, the acknowledgement if not an apology I expect is only for Fr Joe Borg's misjudgement of my intentions. Is that too much to ask? Who started or perpetrated the "whole caboodle" is irrelevant. In any case, it frankly is none of your business. It's between me and Fr Joe.
" and issues yet another barb about priests".
It's up to Fr Joe to confirm or deny my "barb".
"I would hate to have this guy as my boss".
I would hate to even be in the same room. Thankfully, I don't have to.
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 18th 2011, 08:29
@ Lina Caruana:
"Moral issues are not a game of scrabble".
I know. That is why I give moral issues the high importance that they deserve. I even include non-human animals in my sphere of moral concern, for crying out loud! So you need not lecture me on the seriousness of morality.
"You certainly misunderstood and do not realize that you have".
It would certainly help if you point out what exactly I am supposed to have misunderstood.
"The right words cannot available be available unless the concept is undestood now that you mention morals".
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that, but yes, concepts need to be understood.
Lina Caruana
Feb 18th 2011, 07:11
@ Kenneth Cassar.
Moral issues are not a game of scrabble. You certainly misunderstood and do not realize that you have. The right words cannot available be available unless the concept is undestood now that you mention morals.
Andy Farrugia
Feb 17th 2011, 23:21
Unbelievable; arrogance to the nth degree! First he completely fluffs his perusal of what others write, then he insists on his singularly insipid interpretation of meaning, then he grudgingly recants but blames blogger for his vague use of language, finally mutters a half-hearted apology but EXPECTS an ACKNOWLEDGEMENT if not an APOLOGY (when he was the sole originator and perpetrator of the whole caboodle). Additionally, he PERSISTS in demanding an apology and issues yet another barb about priests. Is this guy for real? I would hate to have this guy as my boss; would not last five minutes.
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 17th 2011, 18:01
@ Fr Joe Borg:
Are priests above apologies when they misjudge someone?
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 17th 2011, 17:52
@ Lina Caruana:
"Do you really think that I would have remained a Catholic because I was baptized by my parents?".
I never said, nor implied, that.
"No one would have stopped me if I really wanted to opt out !"
That's what I'm saying. You CHOSE to REMAIN Catholic.
"This is why i said that some sweeping statements made do not apply to me".
I didn't make any.
"One cannot "remain" a Catholic".
Of course one can, unless one converts to another religion or becomes an atheist.
"Some Catholics do give up I know because there are pitfalls in life and they are hard".
While others give up Catholicism despite the pitfalls that come with giving up a majority religion (especially in Malta), as well as the trouble of thinking hard on moral issues instead of simply following set rules, and also despite believers' bonus of an expectation of eternal reward.
Lina Caruana
Feb 17th 2011, 15:53
@Kenneth Cassar
To put it simply. I honestly accepted being a Catholic after I was mature enough to accept that I was baptized and a Catholic. Do you really think that I would have remained a Catholic because I was baptized by my parents? No one would have stopped me if I really wanted to opt out ! This is why i said that some sweeping statements made do not apply to me.One cannot "remain" a Catholic, there is much discovering to do within one's soul for spiritual growth. That is what being a Catholic means.Some Catholics do give up I know because there are pitfalls in life and they are hard, but that is what the sincere Catholic hopes to achieve , not without difficulties. I am also old enough to have traveled already a long way in this life course.
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 17th 2011, 14:34
@ Lina Caruana:
"I wish you would not express words I write for me. My meaning was being and not remaining. That implies that I was baptized and have stopped there with the series of usual connotations according to your belief. How can you choose words for other people? That is very intolerant. Or do you think you made me a favour by helping me to express myself?".
Since I think you meant the above for me (and not Kevin), I'll answer it myself.
So do you actually mean that you CHOSE to be baptised? If not, you did not choose to be Catholic, although you did choose to remain one.
And trust me to think I was doing you a favour by telling Kevin that you were correct but perhaps did not explain yourself well enough! It now transpires that you were completely wrong after all.
To choose to remain a Catholic, far from meaning "I was baptized and have stopped there", actually means that you actively chose not to stop being Catholic.
I sence a language barrier here...so perhaps we're wasting each other's time.
Joe Xuereb
Feb 17th 2011, 14:25
Correction. Quoting myself: 'They could wait forever as women* who play around prefer the security of the original hearth and home. If he does marry the mistress and he's still ignorant about matters sexual. He'll have been an Alpha......'
*This should have read ''They could wait forever as MEN who play around.....'
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 17th 2011, 14:25
@ Lina Caruana:
"A Catholic is a person who professes a belief based on Christ's teaching.Were I as a Catholic disagree with myself about this fact I will have to choose or seek counsel for my conflict , not from a non Catholic who is not in a position to council me".
Hardly the point. The point is that if a Catholic demands a certain kind of action only because Jesus said so, but then does not follow another kind of action that Jesus also demands, then that Catholic is hardly entitled to lecture non-Catholics on proper behaviour, is he/she?
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 17th 2011, 14:20
@ Jessica DeBattista:
"Thank you for your unasked advice!"
You're very welcome.
"We all have our shortcomings".
Of course we do.
"Modestly speaking, I think mine are amongst the least obnoxious".
I agree. Now please, enough of that attitude. It's only a discussion, and it's not like I was bashing you (literally or metaphorically) or anything of the sort.
Patrik Larsson
Feb 17th 2011, 13:37
Lina Caruana:
If you don't name the person you are addressing then noone will know what on earth you are on about.
I posed a series of challenges to you in my previous post. None of them replied to by yourself. Mainly in reference to your many extremely sweeping statements, all proven to be inaccurate.
Jessica DeBattista
Feb 17th 2011, 10:17
@ Kenneth Cassar: “Not a very good way of presenting an argument. Generalisations can easily fall apart, and with them the whole argument.”
Thank you for your unasked advice! We all have our shortcomings. Modestly speaking, I think mine are amongst the least obnoxious.
Lina Caruana
Feb 17th 2011, 09:58
I can see that writings here keep repeating themselves like cliches of whatever position one takes. What I will not accept is the ways that nonbelievers label other people's beliefs in their own language as an absolute truth. Talking about Catholicism is not about talking of one person only but of a universal institution which in spite of faults have lasted thousands of years. That is what you are finally in discussion about where truths are already substantiated philosophically . Even if everything was correct in debating against , the real question would be how do you proof what has already been proven? That is a vast question which cannot be lightly worked upon to convince people that they are following some myth. I again emphasize that the brand of Catholicism being spoken about is that of a diluted form created out of the adjustments one makes in one's life to justify what one feels is wrong according to the belief held.
Joe Xuereb
Feb 16th 2011, 20:47
2) Time was when women were not financially indepedent even if they worked at all. To be born a woman was a liability. The honour, hers and her family's, the dowry, the inheritance. Yet traditionally, it is the man who proposes marriage never the woman. The local cultures and language evolved their own take on the matter of remaining single. Spinster, 'remaining on the shelf' in English, baqghet fuq l-ixkaffa or an emphatic 'baqghet hemm', 'ma nqalghetx, 'vecchia zitella' and so on. With all this, is it any wonder that many women, once married, will still with marriage through thick and thin. Besides, they so hate appearing to have failed. Again, 'she cannot keep a men' weighs heavily on women. Not forgetting that 'she's a slut' is a label from the least nothing. Whereas with the guys, they're always 'just a bit of a lad'. All these putdowns evolved by men and many women collude because in other women they see competition and danger.
Joe Xuereb
Feb 16th 2011, 20:31
1) Divorce. A male perspective and a female perspective.
The oldest profession because women realised early on man's weakness. Some collude, others resist. Yet others turn a blind eye and 'laugh all the way to the bank'. The typical meal-ticket. Whoever created this procreative line has much to answer fr.
Elsewhere a male commented that with divorce, many women will end up living life on their own. Do I sense the male-speak that says women are only lesbian because they haven't met him yet. Not kidding!
It's a known fact that women survive better on their own than men. Natural nest-makers, women. Queer men are different but they're so not part of the divorce debate.
Some mistresses are happy to remain so. Some dream of marriage to their 'master'. They could wait forever as women who play around prefer the security of the original hearth and home. If he does marry the mistress and he's still ignorant about matters sexual. He'll have been an Alpha male in his first - there has to have been a first - an Alpha in his second to the mistress and still an Alpha in subsequent marriages, affairs.
continued
Evarist Saliba
Feb 16th 2011, 19:49
Five days have passed since this blog appeared, and a lot of (political) water has passed under the bridge which makes most comments no longer relevant. By the time my comment appears it may be irrelevant as well. Focussing on these quick moving developments, and the 'antics' of the chief protagonists, may be more useful for the electorate's verdict in the referendum later this year, and the general election when it is due.
Lina Caruana
Feb 16th 2011, 19:01
Your proof is based on your arguments only. You make sweeping statements, you correct another of what they should think and feel not what they state they do . And then you come out with accusations with proof by a few words. If you want to argue in favour of divorce why don' t you stick to it instead of diverting nit picking. My mind is made up regarding divorce . I have a longitudinal experience of my beliefs. How can i agree with you? Lobbying for divorce means being fair with others who do not want it or you would be doing the same thing that you say other people are doing.
Lina Caruana
Feb 16th 2011, 18:43
@Kevin Cassar
I wish you would not express words I write for me. My meaning was being and not remaining. That implies that I was baptized and have stopped there with the series of usual connotations according to your belief. How can you choose words for other people? That is very intolerant. Or do you think you made me a favour by helping me to express myself?
Kevin Cassar
Feb 16th 2011, 16:25
Fr Joe Borg
"It was simple and elementary but some prefer to understand what they want to understand instead of what it written"
Pot, Kettle, Black! Funny comment coming from a Christian apologist. You have just described how apologists read the Bible and the scriptures (the edited copies of copies that were not completely discarded that is).
Lina Caruana
Feb 16th 2011, 15:36
Statements of intellect and reason are so mixed with human emotions on this page that whenever it seems fit a leeway is often found by analyzing words out of context. Even taking the role of the Bible expert. The difference is a basic one. A Catholic is a person who professes a belief based on Christ's teaching.Were I as a Catholic disagree with myself about this fact I will have to choose or seek counsel for my conflict , not from a non Catholic who is not in a position to council me. Just as I think it is useless to try and convince a person that his beliefs are false which I do not do, I find it a presumption on anyone who does not only disagree with one's belief but wants to correct them by using a different level of thought.I stick to civil marriages and say that another dimension of marriage and family is a choice which many people who think like me accept as a better choice for a way of life. I am one catholic but we are a community. Why should I take Bible lessons from a professed non believer?
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 16th 2011, 13:36
"The divorce debate was forced prematurely on the country..."
Prematurely? So, when would have been a good time?
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 16th 2011, 13:27
@ Fr Joe Borg:
I opened myself to the possibility that Richard Curmi might be right, and in fact apologised just in case I was truly wrong. Now that you say he's right, you again have my honest apology. Everyone makes mistakes, but it takes honesty and a predisposition to value truth (no matter what the truth) to admit the mistake. And I did.
Of course, I can't blame you for replying as you did (even though a much earlier explanation from you would have spared all this), since you couldn't have known the above before it got published. But this brings me to your point that "some prefer to understand what they want to understand instead of what is written".
In view of what I have written here and in my previous post, do you insist that this (some prefer to understand...) applies to me in this case? Or do you agree that everyone can make mistakes (particularly when a particular piece of writing is vague - not saying who makes the argument that "goes something like this...", for instance - but I won't dwell on this.
Now how about an acknowledgement, if not an apology for misjudging me?
Jessica DeBattista
Feb 16th 2011, 12:57
@ Richard Curmi:
Part 4.
Then there are the obvious ones who are desperately clamouring for divorce; their families and close friends etc…. (more “Yes” votes)
Older married couples who can see a way out of an unhappy marriage would welcome it too. In this section it would probably be the women (especially the self-sufficient ones) who would vote “Yes”. Women are getting wise and they no longer want to pamper to the needs of an egoistic man.
Certainly there will be many, probably of the older generation, who will vote “No” with conviction, but there might also be others who would grapple with their conscience if they are in the situation where their own children are the ones in need of divorce.
Then there is another section of society ( probably in their forties) where the working woman is self-sufficient, had probably already realized herself as a mother and now wants to live her life free from the restricting figure of a husband. In the last I would say that the women are more ready to vote “Yes”.
As I visualize it, it will be a close run.
Jessica DeBattista
Feb 16th 2011, 12:55
@ Richard Curmi:
Part 3.
Let us take the general trend that our country is going through:
The up-and-coming generation has a very tepid attitude towards Christian morals, so one would expect that in their majority, the over 18 would vote “Yes”.
I would say that probably more males in this section would be drawn to voting “Yes”. The females would probably seek the stability of a lasting marriage and might not be very ready to vote “Yes”. The maternal instinct does not limit its influence to childbearing but looks further than that. Women instinctively need protection in a tight family unit.
Young married couples who happen to be happily married would probably still vote “Yes” for though they are not seeking a divorce they are open-minded enough to visualize a situation where they might eventually need it. Women here might have, by this time, shed their romantic notion that marriage is forever so I would say that “Yes” votes would be the preferred option on both sides.
Continued…..
Jessica DeBattista
Feb 16th 2011, 12:53
@ Richard Curmi:
Part 2.
Obviously one cannot really say unless there is a census which would display a convincing picture.
I would say that there is a balance between the sexes for there are other sections of society, which numbers males and females, who would welcome divorce. Likewise there are other sections who would object to divorce. I do not see it as a clear victory - on either side.
This divorce debate has been going on for some time now and all along, I had given my fair share of what motivated people to clamour for divorce.
If my previous post sounded like I was pinpointing just two “sections” of society, I can blame it on the limitation that a blog imposes on the commenter. But I would here like to elaborate further:
Therefore, I am putting down some of my observations about which I had written in previous blogs.
Continued…
Jessica DeBattista
Feb 16th 2011, 12:50
@ Richard Curmi: “You also say that when wrote your first sentence you were thinking of the male population. I do not live in Malta but from what I read I am under the impression that it is the male population which is mostly at the front of promoting the campaign for the legalising of divorce in Malta”.
Part 1.
Well! It might appear to be that the male population “is mostly at the front of promoting the campaign for the legalizing of divorce in Malta”, but my personal observation sees more interest in the women; particularly those in a relationship with a married man and wanting to hold on to him. They live in the hope that their lovers would one day be free from the first wife and therefore ready to commit to a second. That remains to be seen!
Continued….
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 16th 2011, 12:18
@ Kevin:
"I can assure you that no body forced me to be a Catholic" - Lina Caruana.
I think what she actually meant is that nobody forced her to REMAIN a Catholic...which would be true.
Fr Joe Borg
Feb 16th 2011, 12:01
@ Richard Curmi. Prosit Mr Curmi. You immediately understood what I wrote. As you rightly said I was describing the position taken by some not writing what I think myself. It was simple and elementary but some prefer to understand what they want to understand instead of what it written.
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 16th 2011, 11:20
@ Richard Curmi:
On second thoughts (regarding the 2nd paragraph), you could be right...in which case, my apologies go to Fr Joe.
I was assuming (rightly or wrongly, only Fr Joe can say) that Fr Joe follows that line of argument, which he however qualifies by "However, there are other aspects to consider..." in the following paragraph.
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 16th 2011, 11:09
@ Richard Curmi:
The part I am referring to is specifically this one:
"Those in favour of divorce should have opted for another way to make divorce legal in Malta. They chose the method they chose so let them jinqlew b’zejthom".
So may I ask: What other democratic option is there that the pro-divorce movement could legally have taken? And how is "let them jinqlew b'zejthom" to be interpreted other than Fr Joe's own added comment?
Of course, I'm in no way pressuring you to answer the above two questions. You are free to ignore them and we'll agree to disagree, and let Fr Joe (who actually wrote it) choose whether he feels he should explain himself. Of course, you'll understand that, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation showing me to be mistaken, I am entitled to claim that I am correct.
Richard Curmi
Feb 16th 2011, 10:32
@ Kenneth Cassar: I understood the whole 2nd paragraph as Joe's explanation/description of how the "argument goes" so that "they chose the method they chose so let them jinqlew b’zejthom." is part of that description and not an added comment by Joe. At least that's how I read it and I could also be wrong. Maybe you are right we should leave it to the author to clear the waters.
@Jessica DeBattista: I took your first sentence as the enunciation of your belief and that then you proceeded to support it by your argument/s. That is why I still say that for the sake of those genuine pros and the women who are cohabiting and who according to yourself would go for divorce there seems to be a pressing need for divorce because your reasoning points to the contrary of your enunciation.
You also say that when wrote your first sentence you were thinking of the male population. I do not live in Malta but from what I read I am under the impression that it is the male population which is mostly at the front of promoting the campaign for the legalising of divorce in Malta
Patrik Larsson
Feb 16th 2011, 07:50
Lina Caruana:
"Certainly I am not false and I base what I say on knowledge or I do not say it at all to learn from others."
I'm not sure how a person can be "false", but your statements certainly were, as was demonstrated. You made several statements that I challenged you on. You retorded by going on how you are not a hypocrite, as if I had ever called you one.
"Which is why p sweeping statements are made that with divorce legislation relationships can all be regulated and smooth, not further than the fairytale, living happily ever after"
Noone has ever said that. I already responded to this. Why do you keep repeating the same lie?
"The facilitator in such a relationship is not the law but love and respect which many couples possess, Catholic or not."
Well there you have it. First statement I fully agree with. But if the facilitator isn't the law, then why do you need legislation to force them to remain married? Contradiction?
"As a Catholic I believe in God's help for He has blessed marriage."
Not mine, I'm happy to say.
Patrik Larsson
Feb 16th 2011, 07:45
Lina Caruana:
"Once anybody calls another a hypocrite because he does not see the good of something like divorce ,cannot he see the good of non divorce ?"
Yes, which is why I have stayed married.
"Should we say that those who do not see it our way are hypocrites?"
No, have I called anyone a hypocrite?
"I addressed no one in particular. My statements were general not sweeping and gave no one the reason to think that he is not a good father."
I never said you claimed anyone was a bad father, but your comment was extremely sweeping. You said "Pro divorce people never consider the aftermath of divorce legislation". You can't make a much more sweeping statement than that.
"Nothing could be more slanderous than calling me a hypocrite because I say I am a Catholic."
Ignoring the fact that I can think of many much more slanderous things to call someone, who have called you a hypocrite? You actually addressed this comment to me, so I really think I deserve some explanation.
Joe Xuereb
Feb 15th 2011, 23:50
Lest anyone misunderstand my last comment.
Divorce is a civil right for civilised marriage.
I spoke of man's (and woman's) inherent weakness resulting in serial tripping-up, within and without marriage. Inherent because it needs to be so for the species's propagation. If monogamy were automatically, and therefore, easily instinctive, the resultant high-selectivity would be counter-productive (to species growth). We are animals but we have highly-evolved consciousness and recognise that rampant behaviour anything is detrimental to our survival. Meaning that we need to learn to love with our head (the objectivity as opposed to subjectivity in my last comment). Divorce is desirable also requiring the right state of mind. Failing this, it is as destructive as staying in a marriage because of 'iancient texts' attributing to marriage self-serving props to justify the so-called sacrifices because so it is written (quoting bloomin' chapter this and bloomin'er verse that).
Divorce undermines the concept of sacramental marriage? Maybe deep down the authors of such protestations doubt the solidity of the concept of such because ultimatly based on nothing more solid than..........faith? Needs shoring up something terrible hence adamantly, no divorce. In any case, divorce only affects civil-ised marriage, not an ancient biblic-ised version.
Joe Xuereb
Feb 15th 2011, 20:38
Most are familiar with that wonderful phenomenon we call 'being in love'. As in madly, deeply, blindly. And it has to be in order for one(m.) plus one(f.) = baby. This love, by definition is totally subjective, called (easy) chemistry. Many, aided and abetted by all that goes on around us never graduate beyond this subjectivity. Which is a pity (and tragic with it) for true love blossoms - but this time round, with great effor, cerebrally, as opposed to ' easy' that is the primary, fleeting subjectivity. The perennial pleasure -eeker of instant gratification that needs new blood every time).
I know married women, wise and worldly, who tolerate hubby's playing away. They know it's a nine-day wonder. He'll come back for his laundry, hs food, his kids but for creature-comfort of the special kind, he seeks it not on the home-hearth but rather with mistress number nine. And so it goes on. The perennial infant, 39years old going 4. Into serious serial infidelity if married. Or serial monogamist if still unattached (and would do well to remain so. Not mature enough yet. Forever the Peter Pan frozen in time like the delightful statute of same in Hyde Park.
Kevin Cassar
Feb 15th 2011, 19:55
@ Lina Caruana
"I say no to divorce because I have plenty of reasons to say no and because I trust the teachings of Jesus Christ to be able to call myself not only a Catholic but a Christian. My beliefs are also my sentiments firmly embedded and valid."
So first you say that anyone calling you a hypocrite is slanderous and then you give undeniable proof that you are indeed a hypocrite. If you trusted the teachings of Jesus Christ and quote Matthew chapter 19 as your opposition to divorce, let me remind you that in THE SAME CHAPTER, just a few verses down, you may also read what you should do to inherit the kingdom of God. Please come back when you have really followed those instrructions from the same source, who you claim to believe are the word of God.
Kevin Cassar
Feb 15th 2011, 19:45
@ Lina Caruana
"Nothing could be more slanderous than calling me a hypocrite because I say I am a Catholic. I can assure you that no body
forced me to be a Catholic . I accepted it when I became of age."
Yes they did. All the indoctrination at an age when you can hardly tell what is real is indeed forceful behaviour. Just because you happen to choose to continue with the adopted beliefs in adulthood makes no difference at all. In many cases (though not necessarily yours) the beliefs that one is taught at a tender age is the only worldview one knows. This cannot be used neither to argue about the validity or otherwise of the beliefs. Most people know that most of the major formation of character happens between the ages of 2 and 5.
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 15th 2011, 17:57
@ Lina Caruana (part 3):
"Events after the growth of divorce speak for themselves"
Actually, they don't.
"...sweeping statements are made that with divorce legislation relationships can all be regulated and smooth...living happily ever after".
Nobody's saying that.
"The facilitator in such a relationship is not the law but love and respect which many couples possess, Catholic or not".
Of course.
"How much wiser it would be if for the good of future generations good indicators of a successful marriage are considered instead of using the escapist route".
Why not have better preparation, and divorce for when marriages still fail?
"Of course when we are in a situation we cannot see clearly".
Speak for yourself.
"Here lies the harm, for what has been done cannot be undone, by the experience of many".
Sometimes it can, as experienced by many.
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 15th 2011, 17:52
@ Lina Caruana (part 2):
"Certainly I am not false..."
Nobody's saying you are.
"...and I base what I say on knowledge"
Your own knowledge, of course.
"Should I always agree because everybody else is saying so?"
Of course not.
"I say no to divorce because I have plenty of reasons to say no..."
And we say yes because we have plenty of reasons to say yes.
"...and because I trust the teachings of Jesus Christ to be able to call myself not only a Catholic but a Christian. My beliefs are also my sentiments firmly embedded and valid".
As long as you don't impose your religious beliefs, no problem with that.
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 15th 2011, 17:52
@ Lina Caruana (part 1):
"Once anybody calls another a hypocrite because he does not see the good of something like divorce...".
Nobody's doing that.
"Should we say that those who do not see it our way are hypocrites?"
No, not unless there are other things that make them hypocrites.
"My statements were general not sweeping".
Let's just agree to disagree on this.
"My position is that of a practicing Catholic and I am no Hypocrite about that".
I don't believe anyone is saying you are.
"Nothing could be more slanderous than calling me a hypocrite because I say I am a Catholic".
Again, nobody's doing that.
"I can assure you that no body forced me to be a Catholic".
Nobody's saying you were.
d.attard
Feb 15th 2011, 17:48
@ Lina Caruana quote I say no to divorce because I have plenty of reasons to say no and because I trust the teachings of Jesus Christ to be able to call myself not only a Catholic but a Christian unquote.
I do not understand why you should bring in religious marriages when a divorce law has nothing to do with marriages bound by God in a church - divorce only refers to marriages bound by men.
This notwithstanding, can you call yourself Christian when all major Christian non-catholic denominations tolerate divorce?
Scriptures clearly allow divorce in the case of bad marriages bound by God while in Corinthians 7-14 St Paul clearly states that if an unbeliever husband or wife leaves the marriage, than the other party who believes does not remain tied to the marriage not least because the mercy of god is infinite.
May I suggest that you may perhaps stick to the civil aspect of marriage because the religious marriage is not involved in any way or form in the divorce debate. On the other hand if you are proposing that all Maltese should be governmed by Catholic Church law, i suggest you make your position clear.
Lina Caruana
Feb 15th 2011, 17:05
Events after the growth of divorce speak for themselves, not my conclusions. Which is why p sweeping statements are made that with divorce legislation relationships can all be regulated and smooth, not further than the fairytale, living happily ever after. That is not reality. Rights in a marriage relationship are interdependent and unity must depend on the skills in the way these are negotiated. The facilitator in such a relationship is not the law but love and respect which many couples possess, Catholic or not. How much wiser it would be if for the good of future generations good indicators of a successful marriage are considered instead of using the escapist route. Of course when we are in a situation we cannot see clearly. As a Catholic I believe in God's help for He has blessed marriage. But of course one cannot be forced to repair what has been broken by another's tool . Humility in searching for a repair system is hard and what appears to be the easiest way out is always tempting in a desperate situation. Here lies the harm, for what has been done cannot be undone, by the experience of many.
Lina Caruana
Feb 15th 2011, 16:28
There are many false statements I let go out of respect for the other person who is missing some more information he does not have. I do not think that lengthy explanations have a place here as there maybe people who know more or less than me and I like to size myself up in any situation. Discussions are meant to open statements bit by bit not all together. There is never a point in pursuing a mess of ideas altogether. Certainly I am not false and I base what I say on knowledge or I do not say it at all to learn from others.Should I always agree because everybody else is saying so? I do not mind being different so long as I keep my integrity and religious belief for that is my guideline. I say no to divorce because I have plenty of reasons to say no and because I trust the teachings of Jesus Christ to be able to call myself not only a Catholic but a Christian. My beliefs are also my sentiments firmly embedded and valid.
Lina Caruana
Feb 15th 2011, 16:09
@Patrick Larsen
Once anybody calls another a hypocrite because he does not see the good of something like divorce ,cannot he see the good of non divorce ? there are pros and cons on a civil basis .Should we say that those who do not see it our way are hypocrites? I addressed no one in particular. My statements were general not sweeping and gave no one the reason to think that he is not a good father. I do not judge persons but actions which I never like to attach to anyone . Whatever others think is their own thought not mine. My position is that of a practicing Catholic and I am no Hypocrite about that. Being Catholic to me means that when I judge one of my actions to be wrong I own it and do not try to convince others that they should approve of my wrong doing by changing the law. Nothing could be more slanderous than calling me a hypocrite because I say I am a Catholic. I can assure you that no body
forced me to be a Catholic . I accepted it when I became of age.
Jessica DeBattista
Feb 15th 2011, 14:16
@ Richard Curmi:
Part 2.
When I said that I do not see such a pressing need for divorce, I was at that point thinking of the male population who were not in a pressing need for divorce for they were in a convenient relationship without any marital ties and obligations – always ready to flit away to another relationship once the present one had, like the previous one, gone stale.
I went on to mention that women who were cohabiting would welcome divorce, for women more often than not want some sort of permanence. (I dare say that these women would scare away the partners who are not genuinely after regularizing their position.)
And the mess keeps on snowballing
Jessica DeBattista
Feb 15th 2011, 14:14
@ Richard Curmi: “"and another section who are genuinely after regularizing their union especially if there are children from this union. The latter are likely to benefit from divorce," and yet "I do not see such a pressing need for divorce." What kind of logic is this? I reckon that for the sake of that section, whose genuiness you acknowledged, there actually is a pressing need of regularising the whole situation.”
Part 1.
I do not think it is fair to pick my opening sentence and fit it in where you think it would best make an impact against my argument!
An argument in a blog unfolds in a manner pretty much the same way it unfolds during a face to face argument. One starts by affirming something one believes in and as one starts to propound on it, other nuances alter certain aspects of the issue being discussed.
Continued….
d.attard
Feb 15th 2011, 13:58
So the referendum is not dead after all. The spirit of inclusivity (perhaps) is. Those who are unable to tolerate anything that is not their own lifestyle is suffocating this country so. Yet I suppose we just have to go through the natural process of inclusivity and wait for the unilateralists to dwindle to a number that will finally make society inclusive. In the meantime we shall continue to cohabitate no problem, as long as the psedo-pious-anti-divorce-anti-marriage gang dictates so.
Patrik Larsson
Feb 15th 2011, 13:55
Lina Caruana:
Part 2 of 2
"Then how is it you never mention disadvantages or is it all rosy ?Tell us whether all divorce relationships work out well and better? Or you will also be hypocrites"
I'm not sure who you are addressing, nor am I sure why you make an admission that the church is hypocrites (...you will also be... that states that the church is hypocritical and we will also be).
Not to mention the absurdity to use the oxymoron "divorce relationship", why on earth would anyone expect them all to work out well and better? It would be like claiming that unless all marriages work out for the better, we shouldn't promote marriage.
Of course there are disadvantages to marriage breakdowns. They are, in and of themselves, a disadvantage and a sign of things gone wrong. What else needs to be said?
You have made so many sweeping statements, most of them demonstrably false. Can I make a suggestion you stop and think before making the next one.
Patrik Larsson
Feb 15th 2011, 13:53
Lina Caruana:
Part 1 of 2
It's almost unbelievable how much you get wrong in just two simple posts...
"Are you sure you understand the difference between advancement of women and feminism?"
Yes, one promotes the other. You figure out which is which.
"Holding a position as an individual with full rights as if you are not committed in a marriage relationship did not work out well."
Why wouldn't you have full rights, even though you are committed in a relationship? I'm married myself. I have never seen myself as not having my individual rights respected.
"Pro divorce people never consider the aftermath of divorce legislation, single impoverished women and children, a mess of overlapping families,loss of family solidarity and family belonging an ,complete loss of knowledge of parents' whereabouts. "
Yes, we do. What a ridiculous and slanderous argument. I'm pro-divorce and I'm also a father and you think I haven't considered the effect on children in cases of break-ups. If you have any decency in your body you will retract that statement.
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 15th 2011, 13:28
@ Jessica DeBattista:
My reply hasn't been published yet, but I completely agree with Patrik Larsson's reply to you. You'll probably take offense again, but I think you generalise too much. Not a very good way of presenting an argument. Generalisations can easily fall apart, and with them the whole argument.
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 15th 2011, 13:26
@ Richard Curmi:
"No Fr wasn't having any fun. Please peruse the paragraph and I'm sure you'll agree".
I don't. Care to explain?
Richard Curmi
Feb 15th 2011, 10:34
@Jessica DeBattista: "and another section who are genuinely after regularizing their union especially if there are children from this union. The latter are likely to benefit from divorce," and yet "I do not see such a pressing need for divorce." What kind of logic is this? I reckon that for the sake of that section, whose genuiness you acknowledged, there actually is a pressing need of regularising the whole situation.
Yes there may be those who seek to destroy anything dear to the christian tradition and yes there would be others motivated only by self interests; but do you really want to put these in the same group as that section who are genuinely seeking to regularise their union for their chidldren's benefit? After all you saw some benefit for them in divorce. Now will you keep denying them this opportunity or are you still deciding which way to go?
And another thing; is it fair and realiable to draw conclusions on the basis of the very few cases you know of?
I am not saying that divorce is going to solve all the problems but have we got any better way of regularising this mess?
Patrik Larsson
Feb 15th 2011, 09:02
Charlie Borg:
To compare this government to the regime of Egypt is not only incredibly inaccurate and slanderous, but it is also a great insult to the people of Egypt who have for years suffered in ways that are better imagined than described.
Patrik Larsson
Feb 15th 2011, 08:59
Jessica DeBattista:
To illustrate the point, imagine if I were to argue that all that are strongly opposed of divorce are either spouses who cheat and don't want their spouse to get away, or women who lives comfortably of their husbands salary and simply doesn't want a job.
The above two groups surely exist, but imagine if I were to push that all those strongly opposed to divorce were opposed for one of the two reasons above. It would be ridiculous.
Patrik Larsson
Feb 15th 2011, 08:57
Jessica DeBattista:
"...the ones who would simply go against anything that the Church holds dear, and another section who are genuinely after regularizing their union especially if there are children from this union. "
Not to express the offense taken by that sentence, let me offer you at least two more possible reasons why you would push for divorce. The first kind would be those who have people they love and care for that are negatively affected by not having access to divorce. That type of proponent of divorce would be closely related to your second type, but it's still important to highlight the fact that people can push for divorce for non-selfish reasons, in contrast to the two types you highlighted.
Another kind, which is also a natural extension to the above, are those who genuinely believe that not having divorce is having a negative impact in general and that it diminishes the individual rights of our fellow members of society.
I happen to belong to both types above and I think you should stop and think slightly longer before trying to define all in favour of divorce as doing so of strictly selfish reasons.
victor rodenas
Feb 15th 2011, 08:07
The referendum has resurected.Let it be, Vox Populi Vox Dei. My opinion is that Divorce is not on the doorstep now, but since the ball started rolling....it will be in this decade.
Joe Xuereb
Feb 15th 2011, 00:01
To the Maltese who choose to have a marriage union sanctioned by their religion, let them. Divorce would not apply to them or affect them in any way.
To the Maltese who opt for a civil marriage and to any other non-Maltese residents living in Malta, of any belief system or none, divorce would be an option open to them. In which case all that is needed is legislation allowing divorce. No referendum, no angst, no sweat. End of story.
To anyone still suffering from the vapours and hot flushes at the thought of infiltration of divorce, rest assured that the marriage to be underminded, IF AT ALL, will be civil marriage not the religious one. That will remain intact. So to speak.
To anyone contemplating remarrying after divorce: if you think happiness and fulfillment is a succession of different bed-partners, please learn that it is not. Maturity grounded in realism is what is needed. Tough I know. But then, anything worthwhile has to be hard graft. Has been so since forever.
Kevin Cassar
Feb 14th 2011, 18:14
@ Jessica Debattista
"I think the ones who are really pushing for divorce are the ones who would simply go against anything that the Church holds dear, and another section who are genuinely after regularizing their union especially if there are children from this union."
I "think" that you are completely missing the point and showing that you do not really understand those who, according to you, "go against anything that the church holds dear". If the church holds life, love towards all people, empathy, charity, forgiveness and peace (among other things) dear, then your sweeping statement has no grounds at all. If on the other hand you refer to delusions, like believing that by not legislating for divorce then marriages somehow are stronger, even when they are in total disarray, then yes of course. If the chuch holds dear such delusions then I, and many others like me, will go against anything (that does not make sense) that the church tries to hang on to, for the sake of not appearing "weak". The biggest delusion that the catholic church holds on to is the idea that change is a sign of weakness, when the truth is usually the opposite.
Lina Caruana
Feb 14th 2011, 15:32
Are you sure you understand the difference between advancement of women and feminism?
Holding a position as an individual with full rights as if you are not committed in a marriage relationship did not work out well. Pro divorce people never consider the aftermath of divorce legislation, single impoverished women and children, a mess of overlapping families,loss of family solidarity and family belonging an ,complete loss of knowledge of parents' whereabouts. How can you say that true Catholics are hypocrites. Then how is it you never mention disadvantages or is it all rosy ?Tell us whether all divorce relationships work out well and better? Or you will also be hypocrites
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 14th 2011, 13:17
@ Richard Curmi:
"..so let them jinqlew b’zejthom - No Fr wasn't having any fun. Please peruse the paragraph and I'm sure you'll agree".
I have a better idea. Why don't you give me your own interpretation, for I still see it the same way. Of course, I could be wrong, but you can't blame me for thinking I'm right, particularly since even Fr Joe didn't feel the need to correct me.
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 14th 2011, 13:13
@ Jessica DeBattista:
"I think the ones who are really pushing for divorce are the ones who would simply go against anything that the Church holds dear...are likely to have the satisfaction of getting it their way".
Let's assume what you're saying is true (and it obviously isn't...for this would mean that they would campaing in favour of murder and theft...which would be absurd).
Now, there is a simple way of denying these ghosts (since they don't actually exist) the satisfaction, and that is for the Church to stop using religious reasons to oppose what is purely a secular issue. Of course, this does not mean that the Church should not outrightly say that Catholics should not divorce. It may and it should. But religious views should never be imposed.
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 14th 2011, 13:05
@ Jessica DeBattista:
"I do not see such a pressing need for divorce".
I would certainly hope not....for you, that is. But while you understandably feel no pressing need for divorce, others whose marriage has failed and wish to remarry, do see a pressing need for divorce. And that's what matters.
Jessica DeBattista
Feb 14th 2011, 11:36
Part 2.
Some of these men in fact are still attached to their previous wives and only lament that the sexual excitement is the only thing that is missing. They fear that the novelty of a second marriage would wear off in time and they would find themselves in the same situation as their previous marriage.
They prefer to cohabit and live day by day.
It is an immature reasoning on their part but infortunately that is the type of society that has developed.
The female population might number a lot of voices in favour of divorce for the reason mentioned above. As I see it this can only result in a balance between the “No” and “Yes”votes.
I think the ones who are really pushing for divorce are the ones who would simply go against anything that the Church holds dear, and another section who are genuinely after regularizing their union especially if there are children from this union.
The latter are likely to benefit from divorce, the former are likely to have the satisfaction of getting it their way.
Jessica DeBattista
Feb 14th 2011, 11:33
Part 1.
I do not see such a pressing need for divorce.
I observe the broken marriages/new relationships around me and take them as a sample of what is actually happening, to try to understand who, and why the legislation of divorce is being pushed so forcefully.
I think a section of the male population are in fact againt divorce. They do not see how society can be any different/ better with or without divorce. Marriages will continue to break down pretty much at the same rate and men who have entered into another relationship are not very eager to have their new partner cajoling them into a new marriage.
In fact I am aware that some men are set against divorce for they are conveniently in a relationship which is serving them well without any unnecessary ties which they feel can only complicate matters.
Continued….
Richard Curmi
Feb 14th 2011, 10:30
Blogs ago I dared say that I didn't believe that a referendum on the legalisation of divorce will solve anything because of the fanatical political situation that exists in Malta. Referenda in Malta can be easily manipulated so as to aobtain the pre-ordained result.
After promising a referendum on the ground that the present govt. has no mandate to do so, it is now going to be put to the people only if Parliamet says yes.
As I see it this is unfair to both sides of the equation. If the members of Parliament or their majority vote 'No" then that's it and the pros have no chance of testing where the people really stand. On the other hand if the majority of or worse still all the MPs choose to vote 'Yes' so that there can be a referendum, many electors might perceive the MPs' stand as in favour of the introduction of divorce and that would be very much a plus for the pros. What a pickle!
@ Kenneth Cassar ..so let them jinqlew b’zejthom".
No Fr wasn't having any fun. Please peruse the paragraph and I'm sure you'll agree.
d.attard
Feb 13th 2011, 20:21
@ Lina Caruana surely divorce has been an enabler for women and a route away from a pernalistic and autocratic culture. I can understand a few men not wanting divorce as it may weaken their comfy life, but for women, who have all the protection in the world, to renounce the divorce option is to me mind bogling. nd why keep using children in this debate? No one wants a marriage to break down and the impact on children can be catastrophic. Is it so hard to comprehend that divorce comes at the end of a process that includes seperation as the marriage dies? We all want to live for ever but unfortunately that can not be the case. Similarly I am sure that we all want all marriages to be magic experiences to give children the best possible. Yet unfortunately marriages do break down and divorce provides an option to restructure also for the benefit of kids. As things stand without divorce kids just have to go through the horrible death of the marriage of their parents without much hope of a bright tomorrow. There goes I using children myself in the argument. Appologies
Patrik Larsson
Feb 13th 2011, 17:03
Lina Caruana:
What utter rubbish. The feminist movement have empowered women to function beyond the role of being baby machines and cleaning equipment.
Single mothers have always been there, with or without divorce legislation. What feminism have offered them is a way to become self sufficient and be able to provide without having to recognise her spouse as the sole head of the household.
Charlie Borg
Feb 13th 2011, 15:28
Talking about the referendum? I tell you how things happen in Malta, look at exiles pitch they took the stairway of government, pathway of government, stolen from the public and nobody knows anything about it. Nor member of parliament in PL nor Sliema council and now you tell me we have to do a referendum on divorce? This government is like the regime of Egypt, if the government wants to do something he just does it and then hides behind an accuse that a referendum could not happen, that's the PN's way, we got used to it now, they are all lawyers, and many lawyers are liars.
Dr Francis Saliba
Feb 12th 2011, 20:50
"'But will not the temptation be a big one if they (the resident prodivorce lobby in parliament) have enough votes in Parliament. They will say: Let us take political responsibility ( better called irresponsibility) for a pro-divorce vote and let the people vote us out – if they wish – in the next election" (Fr J Borg)
Savvy politicians would keep in mind the possibility of an abrogative referendum even before the next election as also the strong trend being shown in the on-going The Times on line poll.
Lina Caruana
Feb 12th 2011, 11:05
As a women I strongly believe that it is woman as mother who should carry the day against the introduction of harmful legislation which will enslave women not as in their unique role of giving birth whatever else they do . Who can understand better male and female? After all practice shows that it is women and children who suffer the most both financially and emotionally .By boosting divorce laws ,getting more lax with time, feminists have rendered their position more vulnerable as single mothers. Who does not know that? Good women and mothers whether they work or not , reflect the society they create. When their standards go down society goes down with them . This is what women should strive for ,for it is them who make or mar society with love and care or unbridled invincible egoism.
Franco Farrugia
Feb 12th 2011, 10:49
Father Borg, and do you think that with, or without the referendum, with or without official divorce in the country, couples who are in difficulties or who are no longer in love with each other will stop separating? Because if that is what you think, then you are so detached from reality that you would even make an ostrich blush! With or without the PN, the clock will continue ticking away!
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 11th 2011, 16:59
"They will say: Let us take political responsibility for a pro-divorce vote and let the people vote us out – if they wish – in the next election".
Sure...let's make a single issue determine the outcome of a general election! I think not. That's a very immature way of doing politics.
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 11th 2011, 16:28
"Those in favour of divorce should have opted for another way to make divorce legal in Malta".
Yeah, right. A revolution Egypt-style, I suppose.
"They chose the method they chose".
They chose the only option there was.
"...so let them jinqlew b’zejthom".
Very Christian of you, but go on, have your fun at the expense of other people's misery.
Patrik Larsson
Feb 11th 2011, 16:21
Part 2 of 2
While seeing merit in the argument that divorce have implications on other areas of society, I still don't fully buy it. Divorce should be an isolated question, leaving general elections to decide on matters vital to all areas of society, as you recognised in your contribution. As many of you might have noticed, I feel quite strongly in favour of divorce legislation, but were I to choose between voting for a different party or not have divorce introduced, the latter is an easy choice.
I realise with the above I answered nothing of your final question, but truth be told, I'm as curious as you are in finding a solution. It's quite a pickle.
Patrik Larsson
Feb 11th 2011, 16:21
Part 1 of 2
I can't help but feeling there is a great contradiction between claiming that divorce is low on people's agenda, yet state that divorce should be decided in a referendum, as you proclaimed in last weeks post, as well as your Sunday column. I'm not sure you agree on this and had a small change of mind since last week, or if I might just imagine the contradiction. It seems like there was a lot of hidden complexity in the whole divorce debate that is only now springing to life.
I fully appreciate the logic that a bill has to be passed in parliament before being left to a referendum, but there is also a problem in forcing this into a decision to be taken in a general election. People who feel strongly about divorce might vote in contradiction to their other values, while people who, justifiably, sees that voting for a party holding their view on divorce would be ruinous to other parts of their lives.
victor rodenas
Feb 11th 2011, 16:08
I am ignorant in the matter so I am asking a pertinant question.....can a referendum be made by collecting an amount of signatures?