Advert
Print
Saturday, February 19, 2011, 19:20

Updated: Divorce: Opposition declines PM's proposal

Accepts referendum and start of motion debate date proposed by PM

(Adds Prime Minister's reaction)

The Opposition does not believe that the divorce referendum question should give space to different interpretations.

In a letter to Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, Dr Muscat said that by replying to a specific question, electors would give a definite opinion on legislation for responsible divorce.

As proposed by Labour, the question will ask people whether they agree with the key elements of the divorce Bill before Parliament, including making divorce available only to couples who would have been separated or living apart for four years.

Labour’s motion also has the support of Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, giving it Parliamentary majority.

While the Nationalist Party had proposed a parliamentary debate followed by a referendum if Parliament approved the Bill, a motion moved by the PL proposed holding a referendum before the Bill is debated.

In a letter to Dr Muscat earlier this week, Dr Gonzi asked for the question put to the public to be limited to a simple “yes” or “no” to divorce.

In his reply this evening, the Opposition leader said that with such a question, people would not have definite parameters upon which to vote.

A Divorce Law, he said, had to follow the principles being proposed in the Bill for it to be acceptable to the PL. These would ensure that if divorce was introduced, it was responsible.

The question proposed by the Prime Minister did not offer safeguards.

It was not a simple question but a simplistic one because it ignored the realities and complexities of the situation, Dr Muscat said.

In a statement issued this evening, the Prime Minister said he regretted that the Opposition leader did not accept his proposal for consensus on the question.

He said he would not be commenting on the Prime Minister’s assertion on the support of the Divorce Private Members’ Bill. However, if the Prime Minister really believed that the Bill did not have majority support in Parliament, it meant that he had never wished for the referendum to be held because his proposal had been for this to be held only if Parliament approved the motion.

Dr Muscat said his Parliamentary group agreed that Parliamentary debate on the motion should start on Wednesday and that the referendum should be held on May 28.

He proposed that a meeting of the House Business Committee is held before the debate on the motion starts to plan the debate.

Dr Muscat said he was available to meet Dr Gonzi to personally explain his reasons and clarify other matters, including points of electoral procedure.

Print
Advert

151 Comments

Post comment

Comments are submitted under the express understanding and condition that the editor may, and is authorised to, disclose any/all of the above personal information to any person or entity requesting the information for the purposes of legal action on grounds that such person or entity is aggrieved by any comment so submitted.

At this time your comment will not be displayed immediately upon posting. Please allow some time for your comment to be moderated before it is displayed.

Your User Profile is incomplete.
Please click here to complete your profile before posting comments.

anthony pace gouder

Feb 21st 2011, 09:50


Politics apart . Don't you realize what a PATHETIC question Dr. Gonzi has proposed
> ''int favur iz-zwieg ? ......b'divorzju iz-zwieg isir gharusija u rabta coff "..... ??????????????

Surely not fit for a serious politician , but a deliberate attempt to terminate (defeat) the Divorce process .

M.Curmi

Feb 21st 2011, 12:38

@Anthony Pace Gouder This is not about politics. It is about either a "yes" or a "no". I did not see/read the question as you stated below. But if this is the case, it's still clear. Whoever is in favour of divorce is against marriage.. It's useless that JPO and co. keep insisting they favour marriage. I already stated it once: to say that one is in favour of divorce because he/she is in favoue of marriage is the same as saying that one who favours life is in favour of the capital punishment, or one who favours elimination of drugs, favours the legalization of them.

M.Curmi

Feb 21st 2011, 07:38

J. Mallia,

it's better if you knew exactly what an annullment is before commenting.....

Abela J

Feb 21st 2011, 09:40

why don't you tell us M.Curmi?

M.Curmi

Feb 21st 2011, 11:29

Because if i do so I'll be "accused" of bringing the Church into the issue......but if you want a simple explanation this would be:

Divorce: a selfish way of looking into a marriage
Annullment: a just way to free someone from a false marriage (a non-marriage)!

but I am sure this won't satisfy your query.....

Abela J

Feb 21st 2011, 13:22

Re. Annulment - that's the way it should be, in theory..
Re. Divorce - go tell it to the beat up woman who faithfully respected her husband unconditionally, in vain, and cannot afford divorce from abroad...

Ramon Casha

Feb 20th 2011, 12:08

Divorce can mean anything, including a Las Vegas style divorce, or a Sharia "men only" divorce, or a cautious responsible divorce such as that being proposed. I would want to know which one I'm voting for before casting my vote.

David Farrugia

Feb 20th 2011, 11:20

Kemm int bravu!!! What about a young woman, beaten, abused and betrayed by her spouse? Are you denying her another chance, just because all is going well in YOUR life??

Mhux ta bxejn bqajna lura fil mentalita hawn Malta!!.....insomma....ahna u l Filippini bilhaqq.

godwin difesa

Feb 20th 2011, 11:50

I am a happy married man and i am not waiting for divorce.It is not right to impose on those
couples who need to divorce which is a minority.It is the church who can impose only the divorce and not our state.So why we are making this issue very important .There even not should be a referendum from the first place this should be an normal law by the members of the parliament and who need to use this law can use it why i as a happy married man impose on those who are not happily married.So please let grow as a free country and let this minority in our society have there wrights in there own country and no need to go abroad as if any Maltese citizen want to have to have divorce now they just need to rent an apartment in Italy or England for only 6 months and then apply but it will coast much more so let make this issue less important cause the only thing what counts in marriage only 1 word LOVE when that disrepair the marriage is finished.

Ramon Casha

Feb 20th 2011, 12:07

No, the words "responsible divorce" is more like "responsible surgery". Certainly surgery is not to be taken lightly and that is why there are rules and standards and safeguards where surgery is concerned, but sometimes surgery may be the only way to treat a condition.

If you think that "taking another person's spouse" is bad, then what you should be lobbying against is cohabitation, not divorce. After divorce, the couple are no longer spouses.

SPace

Feb 20th 2011, 12:10

Mr. Farrugia, there is still seperation for violent cases. And sometimes, though not always, violent, adulterous or other vice tendencies emerge prior to the marriage, and the 'future victim' still goes on with marriage, for some reason or another. I find it hard to accept that such an important change in the marriage institution is done cause people stood indifferent even when trouble starred them in the face or even talked to them.

Granted that problems may emerge also after marriage. However, the common good goes well beyond the eyesight of love, or cupid's stupidity. This has nothing to do with religion. Even civil marriages have to be taken seriously, and entered with a sense of indissolubility. I dont think divorce will help in this.

MBorg

Feb 20th 2011, 12:17

@ David Farrugia

So what do you propose ? To be bravi should we allow this man to get a divorce and in so doing give him a chance to beat, abuse and betray other women ? Note, I wrote " women " there is no limit to the number of divorces one can get. There is no way out, you can never get any good out of divorce.

Forget the now new wording " responsible divorce ". this does not exist. Every divorce breaks up a family, what is responsible bout this ?

People who do not want a straight yes or no for answer in the referendum are hoping that by using this worthless phrase people might tjhink that this kind of divorce is different. What a joke.

victor pulis

Feb 20th 2011, 16:06

How do you explain killing in self defence? Would you equate it with murder? Wouldn't you describe it as justified killing?

David Farrugia

Feb 20th 2011, 11:21

Don't worry mate....a change in government is all that's needed.
Divorce is here to stay....like it or not.

Ramon Casha

Feb 20th 2011, 12:04

Loaded question??? Quite the opposite. It's a specific question, as opposed to the vague one proposed by Gonzipn.

It's quite obvious why GonziPN wants it to be a vague question: They want to scare people that this could lead to a Las Vegas style of divorce. They know that with the JPO proposal, they can't say that convincingly, though it might not stop them from trying. They know, and the population knows, that the actual proposal includes safety measures and prevents quick-fix divorces while allowing truly defunct marriages to be struck off the register while protecting all the parties. It's more difficult to lobby against that.

As for your question, whatever the result of the referendum, and whatever the question is, there is always the possibility of another referendum for three reasons. One, the electorate changes - people who can't vote now will be able to vote in the future. Two, the question could change. If the electorate don't like the question put to them now, they might respond differently to a different question. Three, the electorate might change its mind.

M.Curmi

Feb 21st 2011, 07:51

Minn mindu l-hawn id-divorzju sar ghandu x'jaqsam mad-dhul ta' Malta fl-UE? Jien kburi li pajjizi parti mill-Unjoni..u kburi iktar li pajjizi ghadu jzomm il-valuri li sawruh! Ibqa' cert li l-ebda divorzju mhu ha jmexxi l-quddiem il-pajjiz. kif rajna kullimkien fid-dinja id-divorzju gab iktar hsara milli gid. Issa jekk hawn min irid ihallat il-hass mal-qarabghali fuq li dhalna fl-UE affari tieghu. Imma d-divorzju mhux dritt, u t-tieni, ahna ma dhalniex fl-Ewropa ghax "nistghu ngibu d-divorzju"...imma biex il-pajjiz jissahhah u ma jibqax wahdu kif ried xi hadd.

Joseph Vassallo

Feb 20th 2011, 11:49

Mr Zammit, you seem to have mastered the art of cut-and-paste; can't you once in a while write something other than reiteration?

A person who writes this rubbish might be:

a priest looking for an extra pulpit to brainwash those incapable of reason;

someone already brainwashed;

someone who writes it to highlight its stupidity;

a despotic spouse of someone who might make use of the divorce law against him;

or even

a very old person approaching transition but still incapable of understanding that limbo never existed for the dead and therefore must not be imposed on the living.

Which category do you belong to?

Why am I writing this when you are probably past comprehension?

David Caruana

Feb 20th 2011, 10:44

"Akkost ta’ kollox uliedi, jiġri x’jiġri, ibqgħu għidu: “LE GHAD-DIVORZJU, LE GHAD-DIVORZJU!"

"...AKKOST TA' KOLLOX..."

Fundamentalism at its best!

victor pulis

Feb 20th 2011, 16:11

Din l-istess persuna li tibki dmugh tad demm ta' Angelik? Tnixxi zejt taz zebbuga u melh tal mejda? Dan bl-ebda disrispett lejn il Madonna imma lejn dawk il fanatici li jridu jbellghu dawn il fantasiji lill haddiehor.

Dr Francis Saliba

Feb 20th 2011, 11:46

’@Charle J Buttigieg

Requested answers:

Question A. Yes; for example I agree with laws restricting the possession of guns. The U.S.A. recognizes the freedom to own, carry and use guns as a right. I am in favour of laws that restrict of that "freedom". The same applies to the "freedom" to possess, sell and partake of narcotic drugs of addiction.

Question B. - Again yes. I do not agree that the reasonable preventive detention of a dangerous suspect under investigation should be considered a violation of the presumption of the innocence of the accused until proved guilty. A distinction should be made between serving a sentence after a court judgment and the isolation of a dangerous suspect to protect society and to facilitate the administration of justice. This that does not imply that guilt has been proven already. A mentally deranged person who is a danger to society is compulsorily detained in a mental institution without anyone suggesting that he has been deprived of the presumption of innocence and without being awarded substantial "damages" - up to this moment at least.

David Farrugia

Feb 20th 2011, 11:29

Unfortunately, your argument is flawed. It is undemocratic. You cannot trample on people like that. Every citizen has to have his say in a referendum. that is why the question as submitted by Joseph Muscat is good.....it removes a lot of emotion involved... something the anti-divorce camp is trying to ride upon...emotions...sin ..etc.

Joseph Vassallo

Feb 20th 2011, 11:09

As stated, it is the lesser of two evils.

Mark Brincat

Feb 20th 2011, 10:35

Consideringyour scientific knowledge is comparable to that of a bean, I'll refrain from argumenting with you.

victor pulis

Feb 20th 2011, 16:17

Nahseb l-istess entita li tikkawza t-terremoti, l-gharghar, il vulkani, it-tsunami u t-tempesti. l-istess entita li halqet il mikrobi li jmarrduna...answer. in natura u jekk tghidli min halaq in natura nerga nistaqsik ta' hawn fuq.

Mark brincat

Feb 20th 2011, 00:45

please use the website's reply feature.

Are you suggesting i worship every god ... Just in case? Or just jesus?

S. Calleja

Feb 20th 2011, 01:13

Pascal's wager... but if one does not genuinely believe one cannot fool himself that God exists "just in case"... and if God exists He won't be fooled either, so He'll still send you to hell for hypocrisy. On the other hand, if you can't believe and He does happen to exists, I'm sure He'll understand your honesty with your feelings and forgive you for being just... human.

C.Briffa

Feb 20th 2011, 07:17

Well said Joseph

C.Briffa

Feb 20th 2011, 15:45

@S. Calleja
Alla hanin imma gust. Alla biss jista jiggudika imma tinsiex li tak il-kmandamenti u hemm il-vangeli.
Inti tista ma temminiex fil-ligijiet tal-istat izda jekk tkun il-qorti pprova uza l-istess argument forsi ma jibghatekx il-habs! Ok. izda hemm post iehor jixbhu!!. tghid ma jighdlekx ara jahasra int ma kontx temmen li hawn il-ligijiet fil-pajjiz mur kun imbierek
Dawk ta' Qabilna dejjem emmnu f'Alla w ghalhekk kien hawn certi valuri tajjba. Ara llum qed nilghabu li sirna kollha ghorief u ara x' ghandna llum, tahwid
Nawguralek habib li terga issib lill- Gesu

C Galea

Feb 19th 2011, 22:43

No.

The PN proposed cohabitation legislation in its electoral program and none of this argumentative mess ever came up.

God doesn't want people having sex outside marriage. Period. Anyone Catholic enough can follow that, whether he or she gets separated, divorced or whatever.

Divorce can exist without that - it's the persons' choice whether to remain sexually active or not.

Cohabitation can't. It will be very difficult for 2 people, separated and cohabiting with new partners. If they didn't want it they wouldn't choose to co-habit at all.

Not directing this at anyone but for heavens' sake people, open up your minds!

A. Borg

Feb 19th 2011, 23:06

Divorce = Adultery= Mortal Sin= Eternal damnation.So the rest of the world will burn in hell except Gonzi and his followers!

J Gatt

Feb 20th 2011, 01:26

Malakija:2:16 "Għax jiena d-divorzju nobogħdu," jgħid il-Mulej, Alla ta' Iżrael,"

Int kont taf li fl`Israel id divorsju hu legalizzat? Spegali jekk jogbok habib

Renald Caruana

Feb 20th 2011, 03:35

Lawrence in Mathew 19-9 Says "NOW I SAY TO YOU : THE MAN WHO DIVORCES HIS WIFE-----I AM NOT SPEAKING OF FORNICATION {EXTRAMARITAL INTERCOURSE} and marries another,IS GUILTY OF ADULTERY.Quote from THE JERUSALEM BIBLE.
IN MALTESE from Karm Zammit says KULL MIN IKECCI LIL MARTU HLIEF MINHABBA Z-ZENA, U JIZZEWWEG OHRA , JAGHMEL ADULTERU. MATHEW.19-9
OUR CHURCH CALL IT ANNULMENT FLOK DIVORZJU

Joseph Vassallo

Feb 20th 2011, 11:04

Ach! So, He didn't say that people must not get divorced... He only said he hates it. It's not quite the same.

Now for something more mundane... Has anyone considered how many marriages of convenience the availability of divorce might create? What safeguards can there be installed against non-Europeans marrying a Maltese national (to obtain EU resident status) only to divorce as soon as the four years are up? Worth thinking about, maybe.

E Formosa

Feb 19th 2011, 21:36

"Divorce is a basic Human Right " ?????? Sur Zammit, qed thallat il-basic human rights mal-pastizzi

Joseph Borg

Feb 19th 2011, 21:44

Jiena lil dik il-mara li telaqha zewgha fil-fjur ta`hajjitha u mar mar pogga ma xi ohra, ma ghandiex tigi ikundannata li tibqa wahed ghal ghomoraghall kapricci ta`zewgha. Ghalekk naqbel mieghu id-divorzju jiena. Pero nerga nghid divorzju responsabli u mhux e la Las Vegas. Iva naqbel perfettament mal mistoqsija li qe joproponu PL u JPO. Nammira niues bhal dawn li ghandhom il-bocci li issue daqsekk delikata gabuha il-quddiem ghal skrutinju tal-poplu. Jiena nemmen bis-shieh li din tad-divorzju mhux ghandux jidhol jew le ghandna insaqsu il-lum 2011, imma x`tip ta`qafas ta`ligi ghanda taddotta Malta biex iddahhal id-divorzlu bhal kumplament tad-dinja kollha. Anke jekk ikun bzonnu persuna wahda biss, ukoll ghandu dritt ghalieh.

Frans Zammit

Feb 20th 2011, 00:01

Yes Mr Formosa, it's a basic human right like civil marriage, the right for a single vote and the vote for woman, homosexuality and adultery as non criminal acts!
However, please, reread well and do note that I've said "Yes, let’s legislate in a responsible manner." NOBODY said it's a "pastizzi", or rather, somebody did here, but in an erroneous way! All of us do their very best not to take the road of Divorce. It's not a pleasant walk around indeed, but in some occurrences it is the less negative solution for a second chance.

Well said Mr Joseph Borg. A responsible and mature way. All the above-mentioned are considered as Basic Human Rights today and none of them are there to safeguard the majority! Minorities have rights!

Muscat Pat

Feb 20th 2011, 00:38

Le! ; tibqa mizerabli ghal ghomrok thares lejn il-hajt human right!

E Formosa

Feb 19th 2011, 21:58

Dr Gonzi kien dejjem car u konsistenti. Dejjem ried li d-divorzju jiddecidieh il-poplu. Disgusting kull min jimxi mal-kurrent popolari ghax m’ghandux direzzjoni. Per ezempju tipprova timpressjona li l-Unjoni Ewropea mhix tajba ghal Malta u, ghax jibqa f’wiccek tibdel id-diska. Taf ghal min qe nghid hux hekk ? ghal dak li issa jrid ir-referendum wara li ddikjara kemm il-darba li mhux il-poplu ghandu dritt jiddeciedi l-kwistjoni tad-divorzju. Divorzju hu divorzju . Min irid jahbi l-kruha tad-divorzju b’hafna deskrizzjonijiet sbieh irid iqarraq. Divorzju wiehed biss hawn. It-taparsi kundizzjonijiet li jintroducuh bihom finalment jispiccaw u jsir easy divorce minbarra l-isem. Anki l-kaz ta l-Irlanda jidher li min ried ibexxaq il-bieb kellu f’mohhu ftit zmien biex jifthu berah

L Cardona

Feb 19th 2011, 23:33

@ E Formosa
Meta persuna bhalek tikteb u tikteb bla ma tipprova tifhem lil haddiehor, imma trid tghid taghha biss hija persuna miskina.
Il-mikbi Herbert Ganado tal-Partit Demokratiku Nazzjonalista kien jghid li il-prostituzzjoni hi a necessary evil u dan kien jghidu fis-sittinjiet! Kellu ragun biex ibiegh. Billi nghidu li ahna kontra l-prostituzzjoni, li min imur ma prostituta jaghmel dnub ecc., il-prostituzzjoni kienet ghadha u se tibqa hawn Malta u qatt ma tihder li ktibt kontiha. Kieku min flok indahhlu rasna fil-ramel u nghidu biss li l-protituzzjoni ma rriduhiex mhux ahjar li nirregulawha u ninurzaw li dawn in-nisa u anke rgiel jasghmlu check ups regulari halli nnaqsu t-tixtrid tal-mard.
L-istess haga d-divorzju. Kull min ikollu l-isfortuna li japplika ghad divorzju zgur li mhux sejjer xi xalata. Hemm diversi ragunijiet ghaliex zwieg jista' jisfaxxa kompletament. Ha nsemmi ftit - adulterju, inkompatibilita, sakra, loghob tal-flus, uzura, u swat fost ohrajn. Ipprova ifhem lil dik il-parti u t-tfal taghha li qed issofri xi wiehed jew tnejn min dawn il-kagunijiet kemm hi u t-tfal taghha qed tghix f'ambjent sabih. Int u min hu bhalek irid ikompli jsallab lil dawn il-povri nies. Grazzi habib.

E Formosa

Feb 19th 2011, 22:08

Id-divorzju hu dritt tal-bniedem li jinxtara minn fuq il-monti biex , min ikisser zwieg b'raguni ta swat u abbuzi ohra jkollu cans jerga jizzewweg biex jerga jaghamel l-istess

Ramon Casha

Feb 20th 2011, 12:10

In-nies ivvutaw lill-membri parlamentari, mhux lill-partit.

Charles Sammut

Feb 19th 2011, 21:03

Equations do not seem to be your strong point.

Broken marriage + divorce = new marriage
Broken marriage - divorce = cohabitation
Good marriage + or - dicorce = good marriage

MBorg

Feb 19th 2011, 21:29

@ Charles Sammut

I am afraid you left out a very important equation to your list. One that is being used over and over wherever there is divorce.

Broken marriage + divorce + divorce + why bother = just cohabit .

It is so easy, out with the old in with the new. Why go through all the trouble of marriage ? That is how divorce kills marriage.

@ Mario gellel

What is clear in a proposal made up of a loaded question ? Why are many afraid of a straight yes or no ? Do they think that by using the word " responsible " they might fool people ?

david debattistad

Feb 19th 2011, 21:30

@ Joe Zammit, If that is the case, that is we are still in reality so primitive than I will renounce my Roman Catholic Faith, As for Mr Gonzi he will do anything not to get involved in having divorce in Malta. If you cannot handle the responsibility then resign. The time has come to go into battle. We are sick of this BULL! TO BATTLE if need be no more dictators telling us how to live our love life. Bull......

edwin formosa

Feb 19th 2011, 22:15

œ@ Charles Sammut
You simply dismiss Joe Zammit's opinion because he is religious. Sadly, your culture is in the thrall of a new fundamentalism, which has been selling us the ridiculous idea that any religious affiliation disqualifies one's competence to comment on social and practical issues. You secular fundamentalists are the new totalitarians. You want to disqualify those with opposing views from expressing their opinion.

Ramon Casha

Feb 20th 2011, 06:50

@Joe Zammit: Since you are so concerned about the Catholic position on this, may I quote to you an extract from the official Catechism of the Catholic church:

Paragraph 2383:
"If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense."

The Maltese version states:
"Jekk divorzju ċivili biss jista' jiżgura ċerti drittijiet leġittimi, bħalma huma l-kura tat-tfal u l-ħarsien tal-ġid, dan jista' jiġi tollerat mingħajr ma jkun hemm ebda ħtija morali."

David Bonello

Feb 19th 2011, 21:22

"deceit of the devil"

The deceit of the devil is making people believe they can oppress their fellow human beings on the basis of what they believe in. We are so intelligent to pin point this when Muslims, or Jews do it, but we cant realize when we do it ourselves all the time.

a.buhagiar

Feb 19th 2011, 21:20

Kemm inti zbaljat Mario. I will agree with you if Joseph will add to his proposed question " the law giving the couples four years living apart before divorce will stand for the next thirty years". This will not give a chance to any one in the following years to change the law with a simple majority in parliament. This is coming from a floater.

edwin formosa

Feb 19th 2011, 22:20

Divorce is divorce. No sugar coating will change its horrible perception. Gonzi is treating divorce as divorce and rightly expects the referendum to adress divorce as divorce

edwin formosa

Feb 19th 2011, 22:28

Divorzju wiehed hemm. Gonzi m'ghandu bzonn ibella xejn lil hadd ghax il-kruha tad-divorzju jammetiha kullhadd. Jekk hawn min jghid li bid-divorzju wiehedd jista jibda mill-gdid, allura bl-istess argument wiehed jista wkoll ikisser mill-gdid u .....nibqghu fejn inkunu.

E Formosa

Feb 19th 2011, 22:31

U dak li daqqa ma jridx referendum u daqqa jrid referendum.......fair u correct !!!

E Formosa

Feb 19th 2011, 22:36

Ghandek zball Roderick. M'hemmx minn x'hiex tibza jekk mistoqsija tinsisti li tkun cara. Jibza min irid jahbi l-qrusabiz--zokkor

david debattistad

Feb 19th 2011, 21:38

Because he thinks the people are stupid, I smell a Rat John Cardona, Do you smell him.

MBorg

Feb 19th 2011, 20:31

Who are you trying to fool ? If people want to divorce, they will divorce. Do you think that it is difficult for a couple to live apart for four years and to file for divorce after that time ? Who is going to stop them from doing the same many times over ? No one, there goes your responsible divorce.

Saying that divorce can be responsible is a farce, . There is nothing and can never be anything responsible about divorce.

The pro-divorce are afraid of a straight question and want to put conditions on the hope that people will get a feeling that divorce being offered is good. There can be nothing good about divorce, and the referendum should be a straight question with a straight " yes or no " for answer.

L Cardona

Feb 19th 2011, 22:28

Would Lawrence Gonzi accept a YES vote and legislate in favour of divorce? Or some hidden hand will stop him from doing so?

David Gatt

Feb 19th 2011, 23:50

jekk ma knotx fil qamar dan l-ahhar f'intervista JM qal li se joqod al mandat li jati l-poplu.

Kenneth Williams

Feb 19th 2011, 20:32

jekk taqra l artiklu sew kollox hemm jinftiehem

Mark Brincat

Feb 19th 2011, 20:21

Dear Joe, there is no god.

You are dedicating your life to an imaginary friend.

Yours truly,
Mark Brincat

Anthony Borg

Feb 19th 2011, 20:24

Hu daqsxejn break, my friend !

enrich galea

Feb 19th 2011, 20:47

joe is right of course. Those wishing to introduce divorce will burn in hell for eternity. when will the population learn that we are here only to follow god's law - no liberal MPs whims will change that - the law is dictated by the one and only god. Seperated couples who meet somebody else are committing adultery if they consummate their affair. This is a mortal sin and they will also enjoy hell for eternity, probably together . There can be no middle way. This is not a pick and choose menu but the moral law of god. divorce will never come to malta - just accept it.

Joe Cassar

Feb 19th 2011, 21:40

@ Enrich Galea

So where was God when divorce was introduced in the rest of the world?

S. Calleja

Feb 20th 2011, 01:14

@ Enrich... I'd rather spend eternity in hell with a loved one, than eternity in heaven with people who write these type of comments.

Ray Buttigieg

Feb 20th 2011, 09:48

@enrich galea

who are you to impose your believes in the name of God. God left men free to sin and if obtaining divorce means a sin, than god has left men free to chose divorce if he so wish to. People like you should be shipped to Iran

jbusuttil

Feb 19th 2011, 19:53

Checkmate when the Yes vote is lost, Checkmate if PL wins the election, and Checkmate Malta because PL might win the election and poor Malta looses.

P. Farrugia

Feb 20th 2011, 07:46

@ J. Busuttil,

Izjed milli qeghda titlef???!!! impossibli!!

G.Mangion

Feb 19th 2011, 19:37

Charles J. Buttigieg

Welldone what for ???

The PM's proposal A very striatforward one ! YES 0R NO ,
what the heck is joseph afraid of ? The P.M had showed him the most easy way ........

jPisani

Feb 19th 2011, 21:08

@G.Mangion
IVA JEW LE nistaqsik jekk trid pastizz jew xi pasta...... lanqas jekk xi hadd joffrilek impjieg ghax ukoll tistaqsih - il-paga, kundizzjonijiet, hinjiet u iktar. Il-poplu jrid ikun jaf mhux jekk id-Divorzju jidholx jew le imma il-kundizzjonijiet. Gonzi qieghed jinsulenta l-intelligenza tal-poplu, fosthom anke s-segwaci tieghu. Qed jibbaza fuq dawk li d-divorzju huwa xi DNUB MEJJET bhal ma kien bezza zijuh fis-Sittinjiet.
Il-poplu huwa intelligenti u ghandu jkun irrispetat. Ghalhekk il-partiti jaghmlu l-manifest elettorali biex il-poplu jivvutalu ghal dak li se jkun qed iwieghed. Mhux sempliciment IVA JEW LE.

Charles J. Buttigieg

Feb 20th 2011, 08:19

@ G Mangion.
If you care to answer these two questions I'll give you my reply?
Question A. ‘Would you accept a law denying certain freedoms to citizens?’

Question B. ‘Would you accept a law to empower our courts to deny bail to an alleged criminal accused of a crime when provisional liberty offers a threat to fellow citizens or to a fair hearing during the court proceedings?’

G. Mangion

Feb 20th 2011, 12:00

@ Charles J. Buttigieg & jPisani:

these are silly Questions what hae they to do with DIVORCE ??

Divorce is a fatal Error of all Human Race ! it would be better of to ...................... !
Remember that Divoce is NOT a Pastizz or Pasta: lol

Advert

Similar Stories

Popular Stories

  1. Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...

  2. Updated: Woman dies in car crash

  3. Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...

  4. Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses

  5. The end of the bar that ‘never closed’

  6. Bundy does not know whether to...

  7. Updated - Jason Micallef demands...

  8. This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...

  9. 'No need for early election if PM's...

In Discussion

  1. Updated - Jason Micallef demands...

  2. Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...

  3. CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...

  4. Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...

  5. Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...

  6. Updated: Labour would give...

  7. CABS drone shot down

  8. Second group of migrants arrives

  9. Adrian Vassallo in scathing...

Advert

Copyright © Allied Newspapers Ltd., printed on - 02-06-2012 - This article is for personal use only, and should not be distributed