Kurt Sansone
PN urged to change stand
Party suggesting MPs be given a free vote
Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando will be asking the Nationalist Party executive committee tomorrow to take a stand in favour of “responsible divorce” after proposing changes to the general secretary’s anti-divorce motion.
The PN executive will debate the motion outlining the party’s stand on divorce in the last of a series of meetings held to discuss the matter after Dr Pullicino Orlando presented a Private Member’s Bill last year for the introduction of divorce.
The original motion moved by Paul Borg Olivier takes a clear anti-divorce stand and proposes a road map on how the decision should be taken.
Dr Pullicino Orlando’s proposal speaks of cohabitation and links it to marriage breakdown. “There are circumstances where a marriage breaks down irretrievably and some seek new relationships that should be considered a family when this is based on love and mutual respect,” his amendment states. It goes on to propose the introduction of divorce to give such couples the chance to get married.
“Without removing the obligations to one another of a couple that chooses to cohabit, the state has the choice in these circumstances to consider that the introduction of a responsible divorce law will bring more order to society.”
The road map suggested in the original motion speaks of holding a referendum on divorce if Parliament approves such a law. The PN is also suggesting its MPs be given a free vote.
The chosen road map means divorce can only become law after going through two stages: a positive parliamentary vote and a yes in a referendum.
From the government benches it is only Dr Pullicino Orlando and Karl Gouder who have publicly expressed themselves in favour of divorce. However, Dr Pullicino Orlando would not be drawn into saying whether his divorce Bill enjoyed a parliamentary majority. “I will be voting in favour of divorce in Parliament and in a referendum if it is held,” the backbencher said.
Mr Gouder was less forthcoming when contacted, insisting he did not want to say how he would vote in Parliament. “There is a process and I will wait for Saturday’s (tomorrow’s) executive meeting,” he said.
For President Emeritus Eddie Fenech Adami the chosen road map was the logical option because the parliamentary process would take its full course without being interrupted.
“From what I can understand there will be no referendum if Parliament votes no but we will have to wait and see because things can change,” Dr Fenech Adami said.
He welcomed the proposal to allow MPs a free vote on the matter despite the party heading towards an official anti-divorce position.
“I think it is a good stand. On principle, the party is against divorce, a position that respects the party’s values but there is nothing strange in allowing a free vote in respect of the divergent opinions within the party,” Dr Fenech Adami said.
The PN’s decision to take an official stand and the suggested road map elicited contradictory reactions from various organisations.
In a scathing attack on the road map proposed by Dr Borg Olivier, the pro-divorce movement described it as “a filthy tactic” to turn a promised referendum on divorce into “a possible referendum aimed at striking down the proposed law”.
Iva movement chairman Deborah Schembri said the holding of a referendum after MPs would have voted yes unfairly created “a twisted double hurdle” for the proposed divorce Bill.
“The Prime Minister’s reason to opt for a referendum was that the government did not have an electoral mandate to introduce divorce and that, on a matter of such fundamental importance, he wanted to see what the people had to say before proceeding. That was a reasonable stance and we did not oppose it.
“However, proposing a referendum only after a vote on the Bill is taken in Parliament completely defeats the purpose of having a referendum. It is a contradiction in terms because those who self-professedly do not have a mandate to represent the people on the issue of divorce would be doing just that if a vote is taken before going to the people.”
Dr Pullicino Orlando and Labour MP Evarist Bartolo, who is co-sponsoring the divorce Bill, form part of the Iva movement, which also includes Alternattiva Demokratika chairman Michael Briguglio.
AD welcomed the PN motion that parliamentarians should vote on divorce legislation.
“Elected representatives should stop being ambiguous and come out with a clear position on the issue,” Mr Briguglio said, calling the promised divorce debate a step in the right direction.
In contrast to the Iva movement’s position, AD said calling a referendum on divorce without a vote in Parliament would have been an abdication of the functions of political parties and parliamentarians.
Mr Briguglio expressed his doubt whether divorce enjoyed a clear parliamentary majority, adding only the presence of AD in Parliament could guarantee a yes vote for divorce legislation.
Progressive student organisation Move urged political parties not to influence the electorate in a divorce referendum. “In the same way Lawrence Gonzi will be giving his MPs a free vote in Parliament we expect him to give people a free vote and refrain from campaigning in a referendum on the basis of a decision taken by his party,” the organisation said.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
34 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mr Saviour falzon
May 31st 2011, 12:26
I don't know Mr.Mario deMarco. But Till NOW, After hearing him many times talking, on various issues ,I think he is a very good person to LEAD in Politics.
At Least till now, I see him like that. I am speaking of the PN.
The Fundamentalists must be controlled, or the damage will be greater than it is now.
Mr michael catania
May 11th 2011, 21:25
Can anyone tell which countries in Europe recognise Catholic church annulments without prior civil divorce.
Ms Francesca Abela
Apr 26th 2011, 22:05
Jeffreym- become a Labourite - then you will get the Divorce Bill through Parliament. otherwise with GONZI you can forget it. This is all a smokescreen,. The church is emotionally blackmailing people, the Nationalist Party is trying to influence people. This whole issue is a farce. We know this Referendum will be won with the NO camp because most Maltese people are total idiots who believe what they hear.
It's the typical 'im allright **** you Jack' mentality!
E. Azzopardi
Feb 12th 2011, 08:10
Hope is eternal and the last thing to die.
Joe Zammit
Feb 11th 2011, 16:27
Dr Paul Borg Olivier is perfectly correct in his analysis of our laws regarding referenda. Those who have other opinions show ignorance of our law.
Among those who have shown this ignorance are those of the pro-divorce movement. Let these study our law well first, and then speak out, otherwise they will speak non-sense as they have uttered in their last press release.
Carmel J Caruana
Feb 12th 2011, 07:43
Dear Mr Zammit,
The law on referenda was purposely written so as to limit the freedom of Maltese citizens to voice their opinion.
You seem to agree with the type of referendum law that we have - and I am not surprised at all. I am also not surprised that the pro-divorce movement was not aware of our 'dirty' referendum law - they are after all the products of enlighted social democracy, not the children of ancient religio-political despotism. Mr Zammit may I also point out that the great majority of readers of this newspaper are tired of those among us bigheaded enough to consider themselves to be the chosen representatives of God on this earth.
James De Giorgio
Feb 11th 2011, 15:45
I propose Pullicino Orlando leaves the party.
Tony Mizzi
Feb 11th 2011, 18:35
Can't agree more
sciortino m
Feb 11th 2011, 18:54
Yeah why do you have to wait for JPO to leave the party? Why doesn't the Prime Minister sack him and remove the whip from JPO?
Dr Francis Saliba
Feb 11th 2011, 20:22
@ sciortino m
Because Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi is not Alfred Sant!
Lorry Calleja
Feb 11th 2011, 15:03
As a Labour Party member througout my life I will be voting against divorse if the issue ever comes to a referendum. I am backing a number of LP members of parliament who will also be voting against divorse in parliament. I hope that other PN members will do the same from their part. This is not politics.
Mike Magri
Feb 11th 2011, 17:03
That`s right Lorry.. This is not politics or anything else.. As far as i am concerned, it is just of another Civil Right as any other, and as of which, ALL EU Countries have... I am also a life long Labour Party member, and i honestly feel that i should vote in favour of the introduction of STRICT divorce laws with the only scope of giving a second chance to the unfortunate ones.. That`s all...
E Compagno
Feb 12th 2011, 07:55
But why would you vote no?
I was married by civil law only. My partner's personality changed drastically and my marriage broke down. My partner has no intention of making anything better.
So why would you vote against giving me the chance to start over? Will i have to co-habit all my life without the protection and security that a new loving marriage gives me? Why? what do YOU get out of it? Is this what you call compassion?
Tommy Vella
Feb 11th 2011, 14:58
X'differenza kien jagħmel kieku l-għażla għall-Ewropa saret hekk? Mhux il-PN proponieha? Il-PN ma kellux maġġoranza fil-parlament? Il-vot ma kienx jgħaddi l-istess bħalma għadda?
MBorg
Feb 11th 2011, 13:32
@ Tony Fava
I think you mixed things . The NP or GonziPN , as you puy it , have not betrayed JPO .It is the other way round . By hil bill JPO not only betrayed his party but all those who voted for him.
The "responsible divorce " he is asking the NP committee to vote in favour for is a joke. Call it what you like divorce is always a divorce. There is nothing " responsible " about it. It just kills marriage.
How can anybody call divorce " responsible " when children are just dumped when their mothers / fathers move on to new partners ?
victor pulis
Feb 11th 2011, 15:14
The same can be said for annullment but i don't read any criticism regarding children in annullment cases. Furthermore, children IN annulled MARRIAGES are considered illegitimate to use a nice word as according to the church they were born out of wedlock.
S. Gruppetta
Feb 11th 2011, 13:14
There should be a distinction between a church marriage and a state marriage. The issue of divorce relates to a state marriage and NOT with regards to a church marriage. Thus if the government had created a marriage between two people, it has the right and duty to dissolve it IF a marriage fails.
People should have a right to re-marry if they are unfortunate enough to have to go through the pain of marriage failure. People who are against divorce clearly have never born such a hardship and it is sad to think that in a modern economy such people want to impose their view on others who are actually going through marital problems.
@Joe Zammit: Months ago I read one of your comments where you stated that what God creates no man can dissolve. You are right in this respect BUT it has nothing to do with the Divorce argument! A state marriage is created by the Government (and NOT God) thus the Government should have the power to dissolve it!
Lina Caruana
Feb 11th 2011, 12:56
Apart from Religion divorce issues carry heavy responsibility for politicians. In real terms divorce was believed to be as a natural evolution of the family boosted by feminism ,not advancement of women, and the lack of a family perspective in earlier forms of socialism , now rejected. Now greatly debate from different micro studies leaning towards political perspectives . Even if some convergence between Marxist and demo christian views re family occurred , the seeds of the two perspectives are still visible and tangible. It was said that the family has sown the seeds of its own destruction during the 60's and 80's by the growth of divorce meant to solve family issues.Results show otherwise. Why drag the country into this debatable and uncertain situation when we have more stable families still preferring the traditional forms of family. Once radical upheaval of the family occurs there is no way you can turn the clock back, as many countries would wish to do now. And that is a serious responsibility for politicians who for their own reasoning want to jump the gun.
E Compagno
Feb 12th 2011, 08:03
On the contrary.. I think divorce would be the best thing for us. And here is why i believe so:
You say, that we are more inclined to producing families. Our marriage rates are higher than abroad, because maltese people still believe in marriage and strong families. But when families break down, when there is domestic abuse.. it's not feminism that urges the separation. It is the natural way we all seek peace, calm, love and happiness. We don't want to be in that kind of situation all our lives.. so because we can make it alone, we leave.
Now given that even then we STILL believe in a strong family bond, we end up finding someone we know we can live with and we do so. Divorce is going to make this an easier process.. the process to forge new better families in a legal frame called marriage. And all because we believe in marriage so much, that we want to re-marry as opposed to not marry at all, as what is happening abroad.
S Borg
Feb 11th 2011, 11:52
@ Joe Zammit: I wish to thank you for helped me to make up my mind to vote YES for divorce. I am happily married and do not advocate divorce, but I also believe that I should not impose my believes on to others. People like you who are imposing their will are acting just the same as the Taliban but carrying a cross instead. Thanks again for helping me to come to decision with a clear conscience.
Wilfred Camilleri
Feb 11th 2011, 13:50
Get over it S Borg. He's iust expressing his opinion like everyone has a right to do. If you're voting Yes because of what he's saying, you're very insecure!
Gregory Abela
Feb 11th 2011, 19:03
@Wilfred Camilleri I think Mr Borg has a point. I dont like fanatics or fundamentalists neither in sport, nor in religion or politics or anywhere. If Mr Zammit is so convinced about divorce, there must be something wrong and my bet is to vote the other way.
Joe Zammit
Feb 11th 2011, 10:45
The great majority of PN supporters are against divorce.
The great majority of PL supporters are against divorce.
The great majority of Maltese and Gozitans are against divorce.
All these majorities are positive people: in favour of the indissolubility of marriage.
Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed!
Patrick Pace
Feb 11th 2011, 11:54
Anke jekk hawn nofs tuzzana biss li jridu divorzju, ukoll ghandu jidhol, minn hu kontra, ma juzahx, fl-ahhar hemm il-hallieq jigudikana. Sirna pajjiz tal-pogguti. Minn irid id-divorzju ghax jemmen fiz-zwieg u mhux jibqa poggut.
victor pulis
Feb 11th 2011, 15:16
Joe after you win the battle against divorce prepare your troops for the battle against legalised cohabitation...or will you sit that one out if your infallible catholic apostolic church keeps its mouth shut?
Paul Barrett
Feb 11th 2011, 16:34
You have at last identified one of the major stumbling blocks in the pro-divorce movement, that is of course the perceived "majority" against divorce. What the majority have failed to take in is that divorce legislation will not, does not and can not apply to them should they not wish it to do so. Divorce legislation is for the minority of those stuck in limbo following legal separation following a totally dead marriage. Divorce legislation does not weaken a marriage that is already dead any more than an annulment or legal separation already does. All divorce legislation will do is allow the more responsible members of society to take full legal responsibility for their new partner in life and legitimise their children in a recognised legal family unit by virtue of a civil marriage. The Roman Catholic Church does not recognise divorce - this will not change with local divorce legislation.
Patrick Bellia
Feb 11th 2011, 10:39
Ghala ma sarx l istess ukoll meta konna ha nidhlu fl EU? jekk jghaddi mill parlament kien isir referendum ghad dhul ta Malta fl EU jekk ma jghaddix mill arlament ma konnix nidhlu. Tattika biex id divorzju ma jidholx din u xejn aktar, Imma l aktar haga vili hi li jekk jirnexxilek igibu min barra l pajjiz ghax tkun tista thallas jigi rikonoxxut hawn, allura persuni li ma jistghux ihallsu dawk ma ghandomx dritt daqs haddehor, L unika triq li baqghalek JPO biex forsi tiehu r ragun u jidhol id divorzju, hu li tella l kaz quddiem l EU u quddiem il qorti tad drittijiet tal bniedem ghax ghalija dan hu ksur kontra d drittijiet tal bniedem. L EU tghidlek li ma jistax ikollok diskriminazzjoni tal Kultura, sess, kulur etc allura din x nghidula li nista ngib id divorzju minn barra u mhux f pajjizi.
Simon Borg
Feb 11th 2011, 10:33
I wish to thank all those arguing a NO vote on the basis of religion for helped me to make up my mind to vote YES for divorce. I am happily married and do not advocate divorce, but I also believe that I should not impose my believes on to others. People who are imposing their will via a political party stand are acting just the same as the Taliban but carrying a cross instead. Thanks again for helping me to come to decision with a clear conscience.
Wilfred Camilleri
Feb 11th 2011, 13:54
Not all those arguing a NO vote are doing it on the basis of religion. Many believe that divorce will weaken marriage and the family resulting in a negative impact on society. If you are voting Yes for divorce because of people who are not in favour of divorce are voicing their opinion, it only shows your lack of conviction.
E Compagno
Feb 12th 2011, 08:21
Mr Camilleri, divorce does not weaken a marriage.
People who fear divorce for non religious reasons are people who are insecure. They are afraid their wife or husband might run off and marry someone else and have babies, and the thought of this kills them. They see their own imagined anguish and come to a quick conclusion: Divorce is bad.
However.. imagine your spouse changes. Imagine they bail out of their promise to you and you are left hanging on to the threads of what was your marriage. You go through a separation. Your assets are divided, you don't inherit each other. You're not allowed to even call cos you may be accused of harassing your partner. They are free to go on and live their life.. while you hang.
Are you still in favor of hanging in limbo to.. well.. the shadow of what was your marriage? The idea of your dreams? Cos you see.. that is all happening now. We have no divorce and what i just described is reality.
Divorce would sever the invisible meaningless ties that exist after separation, so we can move on to happier stable marriages.
tony fava
Feb 11th 2011, 09:55
Dear JPO . Please why dont you give it up. Your own party and indeed GonziPN have betrayed you. There's no way out but to quit your party while there is still time. Are you that blind that you cannot see the writing on the wall ?
Philip Hili
Feb 14th 2011, 11:41
Dear Mr Fava,
You are VERY wrong when you say "Your own party and indeed GonziPN have betrayed you."
All Maltese and Gozitans - Labour and Nationalist supporters know it is the other way round and that the promoter of this private member's bill betrayed both his party and his constituents.
If you were living on this planet prior to the last general elections and followed the election campaign of both political parties, you should know that none of these parties ever mentioned the issue of divorce.
To add insult to injury, this private member's bill was presented behind the Party's back and at not time the promoter discussed his private agenda with the Party to which he should be loyal.
As to your advice to the promoter of this bill, where you advised him to quit the party, I agree with you "anzi", I add, "THE SOONER THE BETTER". Although the PN welcomes people of different opinions, in my opinion, there is no place for people who are not prepared to adhere Party's rules and betray the electorate.
H Dempster
Feb 11th 2011, 09:25
My dear JPO, I feel sorry for you and your Pro divorce group because the way i see things Big Daddy will outwardly tell the people that all PN will have a free vote , but inwardly this is not the case and he will do any thing withing his power to break you. I am in your favour and will back you up.
John Schembri
Feb 11th 2011, 10:12
If big daddy really controlled like he should control this MP would have never been on the nationalist side, but he would be on the side that picks up all !