Referendum question will lead to 'worst form of irresponsible divorce' - PM
Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi insisted in Parliament this evening that the referendum question as proposed by the Opposition, if approved, would open the door to the worst form of irresponsible divorce.
In a speech during which he occasionally sounded emotional, Dr Gonzi said this was a delicate and important debate which involved the institution of the family.
A stable marriage was the best model for social stability and the best environment for children.
Dr Gonzi said MPs did not have a mandate to legislate for the introduction of divorce, whether it was responsible or irresponsible.
"I was not elected to introduce divorce. None of us were," Dr Gonzi said, and MPs had to respect the wishes of people who expected them to build on the principles they had found.
Dr Gonzi recalled that since the time when the first Bill for the introduction of divorce was published, he had proposed a referendum while somebody else had, at the time, spoken against holding a referendum.
Holding to referendum was the best way forward and he was glad everyone now agreed on this.
Indeed, there was much about which the two sides agreed.
They agreed that they did not have a mandate to introduce divorce, and that once they did not have a mandate, the people should decide whether or not divorce should be introduced. They also agreed that partisan politics should not be involved and MPs should vote on the basis of their conscience.
This had led him, and the leader of the opposition, to grant MPs a free vote, a rarity in the Maltese parliament. This was not a choice in favour or against the government.
The granting of a free vote on something which was so important showed that the issue of divorce was being viewed with exceptional seriousness.
MISLEADING REFERENDUM QUESTION
Dr Gonzi regretted that no agreement had been reached on the referendum question.
In his view, Dr Gonzi said, divorce should not be introduced it went against the common good. In his view MPs should improve the common good for as long as that was possible. Current circumstances did not justify the introduction of divorce, although he acknowledged that solutions were needed for the growing number of marriage breakdowns.
A time might come when divorce would have to be introduced, but statistics showed that the institution of the family was currently still strong. Therefore, one should strengthen what one had, not take measure which would destroy it.
One should not act on the basis of what other countries had done. Decisions needed to be taken on the basis of what was best for Maltese families. To argue otherwise would mean also introducing abortion and euthanasia, but he was sure that no one wanted such irresponsible actions.
Furthermore, one should not declare one's opinion unless it was backed by studies. Was there any study which showed a disaster in Maltese marriages? Or did the figures show that marriage was still valued?
Rather than a collapse of marriage, statistics showed that the people strongly believed in the institution of marriage and did everything to make it a success.
Once marriage was strong and good, why did anyone want to dismantle it?
THE COMMON GOOD
The common good should prevail over all other considerations. This was not religion, although he was proud of his beliefs.
The common good was something which was intimately linked to anyone's involvement in politics. There was no other reason for being involved in politics. Politicians sometimes had to take decisions which were not liked by some individuals but were necessary for society in general, now and in the future.
Nonetheless, Dr Gonzi said, one could not ignore the minorities who had problems, and MPs also had a duty to seek solutions to these people, who wished to build a new relationship with another person in a legal manner which did not render them second class citizens.
Such solutions should help the building of relationships without undermining marriage.
Despite his personal belief against the introduction of divorce, Dr Gonzi said he agreed with the holding of a divorce referendum. He would work to ensure that the people took their decision freely in a serene environment which was not politicised.
The people should be able to make a clear choice between whether or not they wanted to see the introduction of divorce.
He always insisted that the referendum question should be clear and specific. On February 17 he wrote to the Leader of the Opposition to underline that he was making every effort to find common ground on procedure, if not on substance. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition closed the door to constructive dialogue and refused to discuss the wording of the question as proposed in the motion.
Dr Gonzi recalled that he had told Dr Muscat in his letter how, as a lawyer and social policy minister he had witnessed the heartbreak of marriage break-ups and the hardship suffered by spouses and their children. He had, however, also seen people make incredible sacrifices to save their marriage.
Those experiences led him to form the view that the solution to marriage problems was not to make the collapse easier, but to help couples overcome their problems.
He had told Dr Muscat that politicians had a huge responsibility as their actions impacted on the fate of vulnerable members of society. He had therefore invited him for consensus aimed at letting the people take a serene, informed decision.
He invited him to consider two amendments. The first was about the referendum date, and it appeared that this had been agreed and the consultative referendum would be held on May 28.
However, Dr Gonzi said, Dr Muscat’s attitude was insulting, to say the least, since he had thought that he would seek a date which came immediately after the feast of Our Lady of Sorrows.
Dr Gonzi said he had also suggested to Dr Muscat that the referendum question should be clear, specific and reasonable so that MPs could then be able to vote with a clear conscience.
He feared that some MPs were not realising the problems which the question as proposed by the Opposition, would create if the referendum was approved.
Dr Muscat had replied that the whole Labour group agreed that the question should be one that did not create problems of interpretation.
Yet, Dr Gonzi insisted, the question proposed by the Opposition did just that, and it confused the people.
NO-FAULT DIVORCE
The question meant that Malta would have a ‘no fault divorce’ meaning that those who caused a marriage to break down would, after four years of separation, walk away as if nothing had happened.
This reduced the separation procedure to nothing. The separation procedure recognised the responsibilities of the spouses, to themselves and their children. But now it would be easier to go for no-fault divorce, however irresponsible it was.
This meant that the innocent party would have no protection at all. A woman who would have been abandoned by her husband would have no option but to accept the divorce requested by the husband.
Was this good?
It was true that some marriages broke down and new relationships grew which deserved to be recognised, even legally.
But the purpose of the proposed divorce question was to hide the ugliness of divorce.
In terms of what was being proposed, one could walk away from his responsibilities even if he was the one who caused a marriage to break down.
The separation procedure, when it was contested, imposed consequences on the spouse who cause a marriage to break down. But this no fault divorce meant that those at fault could get away with it.
“You are proposing to destroy everything. The only difference from a Las Vegas divorce is that one has to be separated for four years. But in everything else, this is worse than a Las Vegas divorce and the innocent party will be denied the remedies available in separation proceedings,” Dr Gonzi said.
This proposed divorce did not even distinguish between those spouses who wanted to divorce and those who did not.
Should this referendum question be approved, one would no longer need the Family Court since it was irrelevant who caused a marriage breakdown. The mediators, social works, Apogg and the other mechanisms to save marriage would be rendered redundant as the people were being asked to introduce an irresponsible, no fault divorce.
Dr Gonzi said he was appealing to all MPs, in the silence of their conscience, to reflect on whether they were prepared to surrender their values and principles.
Opting for divorce was a mistake, but doing it in this way was irresponsible.
Dr Gonzi recalled that his original proposal had been to first debate the proposed law for the introduction of divorce, and then for the people to be asked to approve or reject the bill in a referendum.
Now the referendum could be held before the bill started being debated. Surely the proponents should have allowed the Bill to be debated first, so that the people would know the real parameters of the proposed divorce and the people could take a clear decision?
This was what the PN executive had proposed. It surely did not mean killing off the referendum.
If the Opposition was so comfortable that it had a majority, why did it not feel comfortable to do, as Ireland had done, to first have a divorce debate and then subject the outcome to the referendum?
The people would then have a clear question, not a confusing one.
Had the Irish method been followed, amendments to the divorce bill would have needed another referendum.
NO REAL GUARANTEES
Dr Gonzi said some wanted to pacify their conscience by arguing that divorce would be granted after adequate maintenance and care for the children was guaranteed.
Yet the opposite would happen.
Could anyone explain how adequate maintenance would be guaranteed? And if the referendum was approved but the Bill did not provide such a guarantee, what would happen? Would MPs then be betraying the electorate?
It was banal for anyone to argue that guarantee meant that one could seek legal redress.
The people were being told that maintenance was being guaranteed, not the right for legal redress.
The proponents should admit they were making mistakes and opening the door to confusion and legal wrangling on interpretation.
WILL OF THE ELECTORATE
As to whether the will of the electorate would be respected, he would say yes, but those who proposed the question should shoulder responsibility for the way they had worded it, and its consequences.
Dr Gonzi stressed that if the referendum was approved, MPs had to legislate in terms of a question which was misleading and introduced the worse form of irresponsible divorce that one could imagine.
He was therefore urging the proponents to reconsider so that agreement could be reached on a simple, clear and reasonable question without any sugar coating.
He hoped that after tomorrow’s vote, the people were adequately informed of the consequences. He was confident that the people would take the best decision.
At the end of Dr Gonzi’s speech, Dr Muscat asked if Dr Gonzi would move amendments to the referendum question.
Dr Gonzi said he had done everything possible to reach agreement with Dr Muscat on the question. Now it was up to Dr Muscat to move amendments to the question he had proposed.
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...
Petrol price up 6c
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...
127 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mr R Calleia
May 6th 2011, 10:49
Dear Mr. Joe Zammit,
Let me point out what Christ also said . Let us call a spade a spade ( I challenge You , our Prime Minister,Ministers, The church and the anti Divorce clan to also voice Matthew 19 ; 9 to your supporters ) Matthew 19 : 9 Jesus said ....I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife/ husband, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman / man commits adultery." No please STOP trying to call out the Boogie Man, it won t work here ! Your Inquistors attitude in this day and age is purely Dogmatic. Divorce is not the reason for destroying a family, regrettebly if a couple heads for Divorce it would have already been demolished. There are people who are and need to start a new life, these are the people we need to think of. You need not get divorced if you think it is not right, that is your free choice, but why deprive others this fundamental right , in my opinion, to the people who truly need it ? This would be... Evil !
Joe Zammit
Apr 7th 2011, 20:40
Divorce is the dissolution of a validly contracted marriage by a human person. It is always a grave sin. Christ himself has pointed this out to us: “What God has joined together let no man put asunder” (Mk 10.9). The Catholic Church in her Catechism speaks clearly about the evil of divorce and says that “it is a grave offence against the natural law” (Par.2384). So Christ and his Church put our minds at rest about the intrinsic immorality of divorce.
This leads to the question of voting for divorce. Morally speaking, voting in itself is an indifferent act. It becomes good or evil according to the object of voting. Voting for something good is morally good, voting for something evil is morally evil. Besides, abstaining from voting against an evil when an evil is at stake is equally evil.
In our case we have no divorce legislation. So, can one vote for divorce without sinning seriously against God? The answer is definitely “no”, because if divorce is intrinsically evil, voting for evil is also intrinsically evil. Abstaining wilfully from voting against divorce is also evil. It is a grave sin of omission.
Dr Francis Saliba
Mar 16th 2011, 16:06
"Can you tell us whether a bill on poġġuti as wanted by the PN who wanted a law on cohabitation makes sense and helps the family Dr Francis Saliba? The Gonzi stand is hypocrisy of the highest order" (Paul Sammut).
Gonzi's stand is not hypocritical at all. The statute book is full of legislation intended to remedy injustices suffered by the victims of antisocial acts such as fraud or negligent driving. The existence of this remedial legislation does not mean that the government approves or condones the crimes of fraud, negligent driving etc. The same applies to any laws intended to protect victims of co-habitation.
John Spiteri
Mar 16th 2011, 13:19
Once in a while - i find myself nodding to everything that the prime minister is stating. this is one of those rare cases. credit where credit is due.
Victor Vella
Mar 16th 2011, 11:57
Let`s prepare the tissues because the PM and his regime are going to make us cry. I could never ever thought that a referendum can be irresponsible let alone the government that is conducting the referendum. X`bicca se jigrilhom tal-PN. Imsieken.
Julian Zarb
Mar 16th 2011, 11:44
I would suggest that those who are blogging about such an important and delicate issue should discuss this as rational and real Catholics and RESPONSIBLE citizens...this is no place for political debate, this is a question ablut the sustainability of our community and families for the future...do we want just another state or country as we see around us Spain,.Italy and the UK come to mind .....wake up and let us realize what is happening TODAY!!!
E Camilleri
Mar 16th 2011, 11:27
Thank you Dr Gonzi for your honest speech. Divorce was not on the electoral agenda of neither the NP nor the Labour Party. Pullicino Orlando forced the divorce issue upon us. Think, in 20 year's time all those marriages which may have made it thru their hard times but opted for an easy solution in a difficult time -divorce - how many of them years later will live to regret their decision and, in addition to this, the brokeness that their children have to suffer in their lifetime as a consequence?
Cecil Herbert Jones
Mar 16th 2011, 11:20
So in a divorce there is a winner and there is a loser? And in marriage what is there? Winner and loser? And what is so worrying the PM, that by divorce the winner loses and the loser wins? Sounds fair to me. It looks like a positive divorce legislation would turn some tables right around.
Lina Caruana
Mar 16th 2011, 11:10
The Maltese family is not only close in solidarity by blood relations but Maltese family law is based on family obligations unlike other countries based on individual rights whatever they may be.Now we have some people whose objective is for the opportunity to remarry because of a failed marriage. Ok. but by what right do they draw a legal imposition on other spouses creating a divisive problem in families because of the option for divorce simply because of an imaginary time bound prescription of 4 years to render a marriage dead. This is marriage murder! Are the issues of a marriage dead also? Is it responsible to brush them off?No fault divorce is the result of too may overlapping families and the rising costs of court and government expenses being shouldered by citizen taxation to serve family functions irresponsibly discarded by irresponsible people. Who will foot the bill , the hard working stable families , the working poor? The electorate should be informed that the family institution will change with great consequences. The divorce bill is not only inappropriate but jumping the gun of a society still family stable.
Joe Spiteri
Mar 16th 2011, 10:37
Can you tell us about whether it is right for some members of the same family to get Church annulments on the fast track and according to the grapevine one person even got two annulments in the space of three years because they are related to a certain person while other have to wait for years on end? Class discrimination perhaps?
Patrick Mallia
Mar 16th 2011, 10:23
Dr Gonzi. Divorce is here for those who have the money to go to another country and stay there for six months so that they become domiciled and get their divorce which is RECOGNIZED IN MALTA.
WHY NOT REMOVE THIS POSSIBILITY BECAUSE YOU ARE DISCRIMINATING AGAINST THOSE WHO DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO GET THEIR DIVORCE IN ANOTHER COUNTRY?
Mhux ta' b'xejn il-qawl Malti li jghid li "il-fula bint il-mizwed u r-razza dejjem tigbed".
D.Galea
Mar 16th 2011, 10:01
God forbid if it required a referendum to legalize homosexuality in this country. Another civil right which is frowned upon by religious institutions. It certainly would have remained illegal to this day.
L. Cutajar
Mar 16th 2011, 09:53
I would like to congratulate the labour MPs Adrian Vassallo, Marie Louise Coleiro Preca and Carmelo Abela, for speaking out against divorce. After hearing their comments and those of the prime Minister I am now more certain than ever that for the time being Malta does not need legalising divorce. It is just a waste of money and disrspect towards the unity of Maltese families.
david debattista
Mar 16th 2011, 09:31
Divorce has no bearing on any marriage. It never did and it never WILL. Mention the word divorce to any normal couple having a normal marriage with all its ups and downs and they will react with dread and foreboding. What make a marriage work is the coexistence of the couple that renders them as having the capacity to nurture the psychological, spiritual *not in a religious context * and physical needs of the children. When people decide to divorce all possibilities of reconciliation has failed even after professional intervention. Those of you who think divorce is detrimental to society are incapable of grasping the whole picture .... The word divorce is just a word, but the negative and damaging psychological effects on all especially the children is not .As for some who think we who are pro divorce use the children as an means to justify our views, tell that to women and their children who are being abused.. This is the real world M Borg, Joe Zammit , Mr Gonzi. As for stabilization of marriage and the family, as I said before we must catch them early first year at secondary school, arm them with the facts!
carmel portelli
Mar 16th 2011, 09:27
If most of the above contributors are so convinced that introducing divorce is good for the country then why do you have to cheat and mislead the uninformed with a misleading question. A yes or no would suffice, the PL has not changed and shall never change shame on all those politicians for putting their personal agenda before that of your country.
Carmel Cilia
Mar 16th 2011, 09:25
One thing the prime minister conveniently forgot to mention: His government already recognizes divorce. People who are today working and living in Brussels can get divorce anytime they want. Cikka who lives in a small village in the north can get eye bruises and broken noses but she cannot get a divorce. Hallina Dr. Gonzi, fejn tajt id-dritt tal vot hieles. Qieghed tghid hekk illum biex ma turix li inti ma ghandekx id- deputati kolla waraajk.
After all what are you afraid off.The will of the people should be your first interest. But as always you have become accustomed to what is in the interest of yourselves and your party. That is shameful. About the common good: is the accepting of thousands of illegal immigrants to a small rock in the mediterranean in the interest of its nearly half a million inhabitants.
'One should not act on the basis of what other countries had done" How short is your memory Dr. Gonzi: do you remember Ireland as a model when you wanted us to vote for Europe. There you never mentioned Divorce.
Today il-paroli ma ghadu jimpressjona lil hadd.
Rita Smith
Mar 17th 2011, 13:49
Jien nahseb li int ghandek paroli u mhux il-Prim Ministru. Int ghamilt xi studju fuq id-divorzju jew ghandek xi harness ma ghajnejk u temmen dak kollu li jbellghulek? U int jekk xi hadd imur jaqbez tmur taghmel bhalu? Ha nghallmek fuq fatti mela. Id-divorzju jgib aktar faqar fuq in-nisa u l-ulied. U dan jinhass hafna ghax ma jkunux jistghu jzommu l-livell tal-hajja li kellhom qabel. Rizultat ta' dan aktar nies ikollhom bzonn is-servizzi socjali u allura tizdied in-nefqa tal-pajjiz li f'certi pajjizi jirrapurtaw li tlahhaq biljuni ta" euro. U allura mbaghad jigi xi hadd bhalek u jibda jghid kontra l-gvern tal-gurnata ghaliex qed jghati sussidji l-hawn u l-hemm u int ma tkun qed tiehu xejn u jibda id-dgergir!!!! U dawn jittiehdu mit-- taxxa tieghi u tieghek.
Charles J. Buttigieg
Mar 16th 2011, 09:20
“But the purpose of the proposed divorce question was to hide the ugliness of divorce.” Like aggressive medicine, all forms of divorce are ugly and painful yet it would cure an illness. The disease in a matrimonial partnership is not the availability of divorce, it’s what precedes it. Divorce is the bitter medicine.
Dr Francis Saliba
Mar 16th 2011, 21:22
Not only is divorce a bitter medicine to a Catholic - it is actually more dangerous than the ailment it is intended to cure.
J Gatt
Mar 16th 2011, 09:14
Some refer to the subject as if it was a survey on how strong Christianity in Malta remains, yet for others, it is just another political issue, with the present administration being against divorce, totally backed by the church.
It is evident that for some at least, the priority is not Democracy and the freedom of choice to the Maltese people, but more on pique, imposition of their will on others, just to be proven right and win the argument.
Maybe the question should be,
Should divorce that is against the teaching of the catholic church be banned forever in Malta, YES.
Should divorce be granted for those who choose to take up the option,
NO.
At least we`ll have a choice.
philip cutajar
Mar 16th 2011, 09:12
@D. Vella
Quote: 'So in order to save themselves from the wicked fires of hell(supposedly) those MP's opposing divorce are prepared to condemn a sizeable minority to hell on Earth.
Well by elimination ... according to your comment, it seems that the majority in Malta are living in heaven and that solely a sizeable minority are condemned to hell.' I didn't realize that the only problems in Malta are about inter-marital relationships. It is evident that you are projecting your heaven on Earth unto the fellow Maltese citizens and cannot even realize that there are so many other problems and sufferings.
Can you guarantee to all and sundry that after legislating divorce, the sizeable minority will be living in Heaven? Can you guarantee that a good number of children are not going to be condemned to Hell due to the divorce legislation? Sorry ... the children do NOT just need money for sustaining them but also love, affection and attention.
mario genovese
Mar 16th 2011, 09:09
Sur Falzon, iz-zwieg civili ma ghaqqdux Alla!!! Jekk hawn min izzewweg biss bic-civil ghandu dritt ta ligi civili biex jinhall minghajr ma jkun mar kontra r-rieda t'Alla.
Brian Gatt
Mar 16th 2011, 09:07
Mr Falzon, Please do not insult our intelligence with chest banging mea colpa theories of how Jesus spoke against Divorce etc.. This issue is there are families out there which are living in a legal Limbo, being seperated means that you are still legally married, if you obtain a goverment anullment it will not be fair on the kids because in an anullment you are saying that the relationship never happened. Kids are suffering because they end up being used as a weapon against the other party, they end up having to take sides even if they obviously do not want to. I strongly believe in Marriage and healthy marriages will not be the least effected by the Divorce legislation, and im sure that in a healthy relationship you do not just walk out after a simple argument so my point is everything will remain as is we are only offering a better solution to those who have un resolvable problems, and believe me Mr Falzon, Jesus with his undiminished Love is not happy that His children are suffering and i am sure thte if he where here he woudl do something about it
Carmel Galea
Mar 16th 2011, 08:52
Divors should be a right as it is in most coutries around the world. Why we are making all this fuss about the question? I guess one should be aware of the conceguences and the GOV should explain more about this matter. Yes or No and that is it ! But explain in full details the rights that one will gain or loose to the married couples before they go and vote.
Peter Bonnici
Mar 16th 2011, 08:51
So if I understood correctly, we do not want the majority to impose its will on the suffering minority. Therefore we ask parliament to enact a law that would allow one spouse to impose divorce on the other spouse.
David Caruana
Mar 16th 2011, 08:46
Why are we even discussing this?!
Put the question to the vote in Parliament and the numbers will speak for themselves.
Dr.Gonzi, get off your moral high horse and be honest. We know you're a master orator, but those in a broken marriage need action not words.
Referendum question will lead to 'worst form of irresponsible divorce' - PM
Dear PM, are you serious?!?!?! The question you are proposing will give permission to any future legislator to introduce a Las Vegas style divorce. Are you being honest with the people of Malta or you're just dreading the fact that you might go down in history books as the PM who introduced divorce in Malta?
The circle opened by a Gonzi in the 60's should be closed by another Gonzi - KARMA
Charles Sammut
Mar 16th 2011, 08:41
It is now abundantly clear that Dr Gonzi's personal beliefs and superstitions are seriously affecting his function as prime minister. A lot of what he said was illogical and betrays a critical state of anxiety compounded by his detachment from reality and public opinion. I think that his best by date has passed.
Antoine Zammit
Mar 16th 2011, 08:41
L-iskuzi kollha qed igibu biex ligi tant bzonnjuza ma tidholx, u ħafna sitwazzjonijiet irregolari forst frustrazzjoni, ġlied, u tbatija għat-tfal jibqgħu iċiċċu.
john formosa
Mar 16th 2011, 08:35
Dawk li qed ighidu li l-mistoqsija tad-divorzju m'ghandhiex tkun wahda generika (bhalma ppropona l-Prim Ministru u kif fl-ahhar mill-ahhar kienet dik tal-ahhar referendum dwar is-shubija fl-EU) qedin iwasslu messagg car u qawwi.
Il-messagg hu li 'r-referendum dwar l-EU kien wiehed fazul bhalma kien insista Dr. Sant ghaliex il-mistoqsija kienet maghmula b'mod li tippregudika r-rizultat ahhari tar-referendum.
Il-gwaj ta' dan ir-referendum hu tberbiq ta' flus. Mela fejn irridu nsibu flus?
Long live the CNI!
r.micallef
Mar 17th 2011, 13:36
imma 500euro zieda fil gima sabu flus siehbi..
Julian Zarb
Mar 16th 2011, 08:33
We need to remember that our constitution is entrenched in our own belief as Roman Catholics - we should believe in God who had explicitly handed down a number of commandments, guidelines in today's terminology (if you prefer to use modern talk) and in these guidelines are also stated the importance of those strong family principles we need to uphold id we want to nurture those real community values and morals..but then if we believe that we are supreme and we know it all then we can always decide to bring in that one element that has cursed other societies in the world and has threatened the very fabric of life and community - that element is divorce...it is, therefore a question of real faith and believe against the frugal belief in the idolatary of the material God that plagues much of moderrn society and is the root cause of war, hunger and blasphemy..that is the simple question and that is the real decision we need to make - do we want to live like practicing Catholics or empty atheists?
V.Cassar
Mar 16th 2011, 08:30
Assuming that the speech was correctly reported, I can only state that it is a speech full of contradictions and misplaced rationale.
Did he conveniently forget how many laws passed by successive governments actually never featured in electoral manifestos. This included the infamous pact signed with the Vatican that became the family act as we know it today?
The worst form of irresponsible divorce is the one where the people are asked an open and closed question without any boundaries. If this were the case I would vote no. However if he really believes in the common good of the country and not just the conservative dogma driven section of the population, he would make sure that the people are asked to express their vote first on a proper proposal and then ratify or otherwise by parliament.
Until now as far as I can see the only attempts made by the PN side is to try and stall divorce in Parliament.
This was an opportunity to show statesmanship but instead he turned out to a politician with no room to maneuver.
joe falzon
Mar 16th 2011, 08:01
Hi x'inhi l-mistoqsija tar-referendum, ghan-nisrani l-ghazla hija jekk huwiex favur Gesu' u t-taghlim tieghu jew kontra l-istess taghlim ta' Gesu'.
Fil-Bibbja hemm miktub car u tond: 'Dak li ghaqqad Alla ma jistax jifirdu l-bniedem' u Gesu' tkellem diversi drabi kontra d-divorzju u l-adulterju. Naturalment jigri li l-bnedmin jahsbu li huma jifhmu aktar minn dak li halaqhom u li verament jixtieqilhom il-gid. L-ghazla tal-bniedem dejjem kienet bejn dak li huwa tajjeb u dak li huwa hazin.
Huwa Alla BISS li verament jaf x'inhuwa tajjeb u hazin ghall-bniedem u l-kmandamenti tieghu qedin hemm biex jdawwlu t-triq taghna u mhux bhala impozizzjoni. Ghaldaqstant fid-dawl tal-Kelma Tieghu nistghu naghrfu bhala nsara x'inhija l-ghazla li rridu naghmlu. Nghid ghalija r-referendum ser ikun opportunita' biex dak li nistqarr fil-Kredu, nistqarru wkoll fil-vot tieghu kontra d-divorzju. Ghan-nisrani hija opportunita' li lesti nistqarru li ahna favur it-taghlim ta' Gesu' ghaliex Gesu' BISS huwa l-Iben t'Alla maghmul bniedem.
m.ellul
Mar 16th 2011, 08:33
mela dawk il-persuni li qed jigu abbuzati fiz - 'zwieg' ghandhom joqghodu ghal-kollox basta li insara ux hekk.. u hallina !!!
min vera jkun nisrani m'ghandux ghalfejn jinkwita ghax ha jidhol id-divorzju. ghalija min jitkellem li ghax ha jidhol id-divorzju ha jkonna l-inkwiet hija farsa. l-inkwiet l-individwu innifsu jgibu u hadd ma u nerga nirrepeti, hadd ma jista jimponi fuq hadd. Jekk inti komdu j'alla tibqa hekk u nixtiqlek il-gid u kull kuntintezza, imma li timponi fuq haddiehor li irid joqghod f'kundizzjoni li hi prekarja ghalih, mela f'dak il- kas n'ghidlek tkunx egoist.
JPisani
Mar 16th 2011, 08:52
Sur Falzon
"Dak li ghaqqad Alla ma jistax jifirdu l-bniedem'"...... imma ghax xi hadd imur ma' mara ohra u ghax jhuwa influwenti fil-kariga tieghu.... dan fi spazju ta’ erba’ xhur igib l-ANNULAMENT MINGHAND IL-KNISJA........ Konkluzjoni hija li L-ISQFIJIET HUMA ’L FUQ MINN ALLA GHAX QED JIFIRDU WKOLL. Ma nuzawx ir-religjoni fejn jidhol l-Istat.
Charles Sammut
Mar 16th 2011, 08:55
@ joe falzon
Is-socjeta Maltija illum thaddan nies ta religjonijiet, kulturi u etnicitajiet differenti. Din sitwazjonili tghidx kemm thabbbrek ghaliha l-Knisja Kattolika. Hafna min dawn in-nies jew ma jemmnux f'Gesu, jew jemmnu f'xi alla iehor jew taghlim differenti jew ma jemmnu f'xejn. Min int int biex timponi il-mori tieghek fuqhom? Barra min hekk in-numru ta' Maltin li abbandonaw il-KK qed kull ma jmur jizdied u jigu jaqghu u jqumu mid-duttrina tal-KK.
Ligi tad-divorzju ma timponi xejn fuq memberi tal-KK u m'ghandhomx ghalex jindahlu fil-hajja privata ta' haddiehor bhal ma huma ma jridux min jindahlilhom f'taghhom.
R. Azzopardi
Mar 16th 2011, 09:14
Halli l-fundamentalizmu u l-fanaticizmu u l-fissazzjoni warajk jekk joghgbok.
Joann Bugeja
Mar 16th 2011, 09:37
Spot on ! Issa min irid jifhem ha jifhem...min ma jridx jisma IL-VERITA U T-TAGHLIM tal-Knisja-affarih ! Jien irrid niffaccja lil Alla b'kuxjenza safja...id-divorzju= adulterju f'ghajnejn Alla xorta wahda !!
A. Farrugia
Mar 16th 2011, 10:14
Safrattant is-sagrament tal-ordni sagri ma jinhallx? Dak mhux sagrament ta' Alla wkoll? Hemm hekk nistghu inhollu sagrament igifieri, u taz-zwieg le? Ma nkunux redikoli u nghidu biss li jaqbel. Il-Knisja DEJJEM tevita das-suggett, u ma nistax nifhem ghala. Jekk qassis jiddeciedi li ma jibqax qassis, dan xi jkun ifisser? Li QATT ma kien verament qassis? U xinhuma il-konsegwenzi kieku? Is-sagramenti li fihom kien celebrant, daw isiru nulli u invalidi? Jew jekk jibqghu, mhux qisu jkun sar 'divorzju' bej il-qassis u l-Knisja?? Spjegawli din, u kif tvarja mis-sagrament taz-zwieg.
Joe Demanuele
Mar 16th 2011, 10:30
joe falzon bl-istess argument tieghek il-Knisja m'ghandhiex tħalli qassisin, patrijiet, soprijiet u religjuzi ohra jitilqu u jizzewgu. Mhux Alla stess ikun ghaqqadhom f'dak s-sagrament? Mhux il-Knisja tkun qed thollu? Hawnhekk ma jghoddux l-istess kundizzjonijiet ghas-sagramenti kollha? Din mhix bhal dik li qassisin ma jistghux jizzewgu? Ghalfejn le? Mhux sagrament iehor ikunu qed jircievu?
B. Cachia
Mar 16th 2011, 10:45
Il-Vangelu ma jitkellimx fuq iz-zwieg civili imma fuq dak iccelebrat fi hdan il-knisja u li hu validu f'ghajnejn Alla. Iz-zwieg 'tar-registru' lanqas biss hu rikonoxxut mill-knisja. Ma nistax nifhem x'sens fiha li l-Kattoliku jinsisti li z-zwieg tar-registru ma jinhallx. Hija pozizzjoni bla sens. U lanqas li kieku z-zwieg bir-registru kien sagru, kieku ma kenitx taghmel differenza jekk l-istat ihollux jew le, ghax l-istat m'ghandux influwenza fuq l-aspett sagru tieghu, imma biss fuq dak civili.
U wara kollox fl-ahhar mill-ahhar min hu Kattoliku jista' jizzewweg biss fil-knisja u z-zwieg tieghu jista' jinhall biss mill-Knisja. U l-ohrajn li mhumiex ghandna nhalluhom jaghzlu huma u mhux nimponu r-religjon fuqhom bil-ligi.
c falzon
Mar 16th 2011, 08:01
Oh miskin qabbizli d dmugh......he was emotional. Taf meta messu kien emotional meta Dr GONZI QAL LI SER JIVVOTA KONTRA U BIL QALB SER JIVVOTA KONTRA LI JORHSU L KONTIJIET TAD DAWL U L ILMA.....emm messu kien emotional il Prim Ministru u mela issa. Jew dejjem jew qatt Sur PM mhux meta jaqbel lilek biss. We got the lesson by now.
Keith Tanti
Mar 16th 2011, 08:53
ma tfiequ qatt!! X`ghandu xjaqsam iz-zejt mad-divorzju!! Meta Gonzi kien qal li jivvota bil-qalb, is-SUPER ONE, kienu qatghu il-bicca ta wara, kif jafu jaghmlu!! jivvota bil-qalb li joghlew il-kontijiet tad-dawl ghax ghola iz-zejt u jekk ma joghlewx, ikollu jissussidja il-gvern - u billi jissussidja, ikun qed igawdi dak li jahli id-dawl u l-ilma bl-addocc ghax is-sussidji jithallsu mit-taxxi tieghi u tieghek siehbi!! Qum minn hemm u ibda irraguna! ma naghmlux bhaz-zwiemel, naraw biss dak li jriduna naraw!!
J. Borg
Mar 16th 2011, 07:31
After all this one just notices that the PM isn't leading the party but Austin Gatt is. How is it that he let Austin Gatt close the debate on this motion. IS he so afraid of JPO or of Austin Gatt himself?
Charlie Vella
Mar 16th 2011, 07:14
In principle I have PL beliefs but on this speech, I would congratulate Dr Gonzi as in my opionion he was the only one giving sensible taughts. At the core of a healthy society is a healthy marriage. Altough already broke up marriages should be addressed, it doesnt mean that all marriages shall be more easier to break up. The real victims of broke up marriages are not the parents, but the children. I havnt seen too much about them. Shall they be casted a vote? I still beilive that prevention is better then cure and more education from primary schools should be to address and not the divorce. Deep down everybody would like to have a father and a mother that they are in love together rather then saying ' I have two brothers from my mother and one sister from my father ...... and dont know where they are' as the so called developed countries are saying.
D Vella
Mar 16th 2011, 07:12
What is irresponsible is that this Parliament is willing to shed it's responsibility toward sizeable minorities to guarantee them the freedom and liberty to live their life as they wish.
The Divorce law should have been enacted by this Government and voted for in the house,instead they have chosen to shed their responsibility and put it to an ill and misinformed population in the form of a referendum.That is the bigger sin and one which they will have to answer for when their time comes.
D Vella
Mar 16th 2011, 06:51
So in order to save themselves from the wicked fires of hell(supposedly) those MP's opposing divorce are prepared to condemn a sizeable minority to hell on Earth. The Secular State can't come quickly enough.
Kenneth Cassar
Mar 16th 2011, 06:43
"I was not elected to introduce divorce. None of us were,"
You were not elected to give yourself a hefty salary increase, either. But you did.
R. Azzopardi
Mar 16th 2011, 09:15
Very good point (btw, i'm a hardcore nationalist)
Dr Francis Saliba
Mar 16th 2011, 05:18
The proposed bill does not make any contribution to a stable family as the basis for a sane society except the introduction of four year cooling period period before changing marriage partners. It is a powerful inducement for any married couple not to make a serious effort to save a marriage passing through a difficult phase, for the sake of the children and the well being of society as a whole. It is a shameful provision of a facile "no fault" uncontested divorce. That is what parliamentarians should keep in mind when voting.
Paul Sammut
Mar 16th 2011, 10:26
Can you tell us whether a bill on poġġuti as wanted by the PN who wanted a law on cohabitation makes sense and helps the family Dr Francis Saliba? The Gonzi stand is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Dr Francis Saliba
Mar 16th 2011, 13:58
@Paul Sammut..
I do not know of any law that legalizes "pogguti". I know of a law introduced to mitigate the de facto injustices that the "pogguti" created for themselves in the absence of any law that legalised co-habitation.
Carmel J Caruana
Mar 16th 2011, 04:44
I really pity the prime minister - he has to keep on acting the 'qaddis' to satisfy the whims of our antiquated conservative lobby - but they put him in power so he has no choice!
Can he please do something useful and suggest an alternative question which would be better than that proposed by the opposition instead of repeating the same stale arguments?
A no fault divorce is the best so that the couple would not have to end up in court and make a spectacle of themselves in front of the public and perhaps even their own children.
Charles Grixti
Mar 16th 2011, 03:25
What does 'worst form or irresponsible divorce' is supposed to mean? I have never known of people who get divorced just for the heck of it. The PM is the one who is being irresponsible here as he is not speaking for those Maltese, citizens like the rest, who are being denied this basic civil right. Get with the programme Dr. Gonzi - or do you mean to say that all those Heads of States that you hob-nob with in Brussels and elsewhere are morally inferior because they have divorce legislation in their own countries?
Joseph Galea
Mar 16th 2011, 00:57
Gonzi: "I was not elected to introduce divorce. None of us were," - dont waste time then, DONT TRY TO DO WHAT YOU were not meant to do and let people decide for themselves.
People in Malta are people like others, with divorce or not they are and will always be broken marriages..
J Micallef
Mar 16th 2011, 00:34
I am personally in favour of divorce legislaion. But in this particular divorce referendum I will abstain or vote against divorce - even if goes against my personal beleifs.
I am so disappointed in the murky games schemed by Joseph Muscat and JPO. IBoth of them proved to be so shallow, and have derailed what should have been a non partisan issue. Muscat is prepared to utilize every occasion for his dirty politics (he does not care about people facing marital problems - he only cares about winning the next election). Regarding JPO, the less said , the better. I will not vote in favour of divorce - I cannot let myself reward the dirty political scheems of JPO / Joseph Muscat.
S Zammit
Mar 16th 2011, 00:27
Pro-divorce lobby too blind to see the trap here. If the divorce question is based on the 4 year period as a guarantee that divorce procedures are not abused, with some help most people will easily convinced to a "No" vote .
Many people want to see others end their suffering and have a second chance but the absolute majority do not want a scenario where their husband, wife, father or mother, son in law and daughter in law, walks out of marriage and into another relationship in the day after, and that such relationship is automatically recognised by the state after 4 years with no second thought on anything else, accept a right of legal redress. Wake up!
If what dr. Gonzi said is true about family oriented institutions, even if pro-divorce will win the first battle, they will most surely lose the war. The anti-divorce campaign will be so easy! Again PN are banking on an utter lack of strategy of their opponents to score 2 goals with one shot. Dr. Gonzi's cards are on the table for a reason. ... and don't count on PBS.
Edward Caruana Galizia
Mar 16th 2011, 00:07
The PM is right to be concerned about introducing divorce in Malta, due to the way the whole issue has been handled. The introduction of divorce in Malta doesn't automatically make Malta a normal weatern country and therefore better than it was before. We are talking about something that is designed to end a family unit. Divorce is a serious affair. It is not what makes us one of the cool kids in town.
Yes, there are people who would benefit from divorce. But let us not forget that the whole of Maltese society, like most Mediterranean societies, is centred around family. We say "Everyone in Malta is related". I believe there is even a song about it. So irresponsible divorce would have huge destablizing effects on the very fabric that holds the Maltese together.
I am in favour of introducing divorce in Malta. But like the PM I believe it should be a responsible choice, made for the correct reasons.
M Bartoli
Mar 15th 2011, 23:47
A fine speech.
M Spiteri
Mar 16th 2011, 11:49
A fine speech – The PM is renowned for his fine speeches but its always JUST speeches..….. u meta tghasar kollox, ikun dawrek dawra tajba u xejn aktar.
albert debono
Mar 15th 2011, 23:36
just when we were warming up to you after your handling of the libyan crisis you have to remind us that , as usual, you will resort to any amount of specious arguments to support your own convictions notwithstanding the fact that you are intelligent enough to know what hardship you are causing to those who genuinely need to close a painful chapter in their lives and start a new one with love and new hope.
Surely you can see that not one solid and happy marriage will break down with the introduction of divorce just as there won't suddenly be a spate of teenage suicides with the introduction of euthenasia.
Please live and let live.
Peter Korsten
Mar 15th 2011, 23:25
"I was not elected to introduce divorce. None of us were," Dr Gonzi said [...]
Indeed, I seem to remember something about lowering taxes.
malcolm seychell
Mar 15th 2011, 23:19
Fair enough you were not elected to introduce divorce, but if people vote in a referendum to introduce divorce you should do it because people come before religion.
Those nationalists MPs who are saying will not respect a referendum vote should be kicked out of the party. The least they can do is like Austin Gatt and do not contest the next general elections.
If people want something politicians have to do. If you don't you are just like many Arab dictators and you are in no position to tell Gaddafi what to do or not.
D. Farrugia
Mar 15th 2011, 23:08
And what exactly is the "common good", Dr. Gonzi? Are we heading towards a historical clash between utilitarianism and deontology? I wonder.
R Agius
Mar 15th 2011, 23:06
The debate right now is about the question to be put to the electorate - it is NOT about divorce! Yet, there is no comment in here that assesses the question itself. I listened to the PM and then listened to Helena Dalli after him. After half an hour I gave up - she did not address the question to be put to the electorate but she spoke about co-habitation and put forward pro-divorce arguments.
What should it be - Yes/No or the narrow question proposed byt the PL.
I am in favour of divorce but not the narrow definition that is sunject to interpretation. That definition will come back to haunt us - mark my words!
R. Gatt
Mar 15th 2011, 23:03
Wara dak li smajt minghand min hu favur il-mistoqsija "verzjoni twila" li tiddettalja l-punti saljenti tal-abbozz tal-ligi tad-divorzju, dwar il-fatt li l-mistoqsija ma talludix ghall-manteniment adegwat imma talludi biss ghad-DRITT ghall-manteniment adegwat, nista' biss nikkonkludi li l-manteniment m'ghandu qatt jittiehed bhala 'forgranted', ghax 'manteniment' u 'dritt ghall-manteniment' huma zewg affarijiet differenti. Dan propju ghaliex mhu se tkun qatt il-mistoqsija nfisha tar-Referendum li tistabilixxi jekk dak id-dritt, skont il-kaz, ghandux jinghata jew le, imma tkun biss l-evalwazzjoni tal-kaz inniffsu li fuqu jiddependi jekk u kif, meta u minn min dan il-manteniment se jinghata. Huwa propju ghal din ir-raguni li l-mistoqsija kif ipproponuta fil-verzjoni twila taghha tizgwida lil dak li jkun. Dak li hemm fil-mistoqsija rigward il-manteniment, u l-ispjegazzjoni taghha kif moghtija mill-promoturi tad-divorzju, huma zewg affarijiet differenti.
Nahseb li l-ahjar lok fejn kellu jigi spjegat x'hemm u x'mhemmx fl-abbozz tal-ligi tad-divorzju ma kellux ikun fil-mistoqsija tar-referendum imma fiz-zmien kollu ta' qabel ir-referendum li suppost gie utilizzat biex jigi spjegat tajjeb x'implikazzjonijiet - pozittivi u negattivi - ihalli d-divorzju f'Malta. Dan iz-zmien flok intuza biex issir kampanja ta' informazzjoni, intuza biex tigi ppoliticizzata l-issue kollha!
Lawrence Cardona
Mar 15th 2011, 22:46
How come the prime minister is worried a lot about divorce when in our country for this last 20 years we saw the face of family change so much some examples mums at work when the children are being rasied by grand parents, children become mothers cause for me 16 year olds are still children, single mother's an other lie excapted by law i wounder when they where having sex they were hipnotized,separated couples thousands of them, married people living with there new partners the same thousands of them children born out of marridges lots of them and if i continue i need a whole day and the prime minister is worried about the divorce? hello the country is upside down can he at least wake up or else if he want's to keep dreaming he must do so without saying nothing cause what he says is not credible.
Andrew M.
Mar 15th 2011, 22:42
A true leader, who doesn't go back from his words. A person with strong values! Keep it up PM, we need people like you with a clear stand and true visions!
Schembri Ray
Mar 15th 2011, 22:37
The question must be simple - yes or no. If it's good and you want it vote yes and if it's not vote no. No hidden lines! When the farizej told Christ what to do on Sunday, He answered - What shall the master do if his donkey fell in a well on Sunday? The same applies here. We must look at other countries and see if it went for better or worse. Those in favour of divorce are going to vote for it irrispective of the question asked.
E. Cachia
Mar 15th 2011, 22:26
"The mediators, social works, Apogg and the other mechanisms to save marriage would be rendered redundant as the people were being asked to introduce an irresponsible, no fault divorce."
This is not true, as the proposed bill requires that the couple has done everything to reconcile their differences. So if anything, the role of these parties would have to be strengthened. This would be reflected in the proposed referendum question as well.
A. Galea
Mar 15th 2011, 22:25
I look forward towards living in a country which offers legal remedies such as divorce when there is a marriage breakdown. I support the introduction of divorce in secular Malta. We are already some 30 years behind all other countries that offer their citizens this elementary, basic right. I look forward towards living in an emancipated country
M Spiteri
Mar 15th 2011, 22:20
It seems that as always the prime minister is far away from reality. We hear the prime minister speech, full of catchy words, about the family and how we need to strengthen the family….but these are all just words and as usual will remain just words. The realities are the hardships which GonziPN has imposed and is still imposing month and month, year after year on the Maltese families. The escalation in the number of broken families in the recent years is the result of the hardships that GonziPN has burdened the Maltese families with…..off course his is not man enough to admit it.
GonziPN is the incurable disease which these families have been infected. Divorce is now the only medicine available so that these persons can live a new life. Don’t take that away as well.
Ganni Trapani
Mar 15th 2011, 22:19
Grazzi ghal Dottor Gonzi illum sirt naf kemm jien injorant. Dejjem kont nahseb li d-divorzju japplikaw ghalih dawk li z-zwieg taghhom ikun falla ghal kollox. Qatt ma kont nobsor li koppji mizzewgin u kuntenti lesti li jghamlu erba' snin separati basta jkunu jistghu igibu d-divorzju! X'kull wahda wkoll.
Nies ghorrief igibu l-annulament mhux id-divorzju. Dan aktar komdu nismaghhom jghidu.
Etienne Pavia
Mar 15th 2011, 22:06
This should not be a political debate...let's all be mature and think. Why should one deny a right to someone who needs it just because he is against divorce? Those who do not believe in divorce should simply just not make use of it. However, those who deserve to start a new life just because their previous marraige did not work out should be given the chance! It is neither a POLITICAL issue nor a RELIGOUS decision but SIMPLY a RIGHT to human beings. How come only in Malta and Phillipines there's no divorce...is it only us that we think right???
VOTE YES FOR DIVORCE...it gives freedom and second chance to ALL!!!
J Gatt
Mar 15th 2011, 22:04
Get real, `Go Back To The Future`
To 2011 BC (at least)
jesmond zammit
Mar 15th 2011, 22:03
jiena nispera bis serjeta, li l pm qed jifhem il hsara li qed jaghmel bi kliemu , u nispera ukoll li ma jippretendix li hu jibqa jippontifika u ahna nbaxxu rasna ghal dak li qed jghid. l uniku periklu sur gonzi taf x hini , li int kontra d divorzju u jista jkun tkun int li se taghddi din il ligi mill palament , jien ghalijja dan ma jaghmilx sens .
victor pulis
Mar 15th 2011, 21:58
Nonetheless, Dr Gonzi said, one could not ignore the minorities who had problems, and MPs also had a duty to seek solutions to these people, who wished to build a new relationship with another person in a legal manner which did not render them second class citizens.
What exactly does the PM mean by this statement? Regualrized cohabitation maybe?
"A time might come when divorce would have to be introduced, but statistics showed that the institution of the family was currently still strong."
If the PM is afraid that diorce would wreak havoc now that only a miniscule percentage of the population might need it what will happen when the marriage institution is in much worse dire straits? Will he vote in favour when that time comes?
Leonard Cole
Mar 15th 2011, 21:54
Well seeing most of the comments, it is understood that whatever happens in Malta is not for the benefit of everyone but all has to be made political. Red or Blue, I ask who has credibility in parliament ??? Referendum would eventually take place and let the people decide what is best for them and their children and future. Hopefully when it comes to politics in Malta one day we would mature.
mario gellel
Mar 15th 2011, 21:51
@Dr.Gonzi,please note that you are not there to judge. When are you going to stop fooling around with our futur??
Was not the propaganda to enter in the EU not ment to be for all that exist in it???
Like we say in Maltese >> Min xarbu kielu il-bakkaljaw. And that is exactly what you will.
N Borg
Mar 15th 2011, 21:50
This speech demonstrates the enormity of the decision facing our legislators.
I am weeks away from getting married, and I head into this commitment with every intention of entering an irreversible pact. I wholeheartedly oppose the option of voluntarily backing out of this bond (or sacrament), but if I were to vote, I would favour legalisation.
There is a crucial distinction between subscribing to a belief and tolerating it. Although I may disagree with certain elements of Islam, it would be ludicrous to suggest banning its practice. Even if a small but significant proportion voted in favour, it would be hard to ignore their request, as legalising divorce should not preclude a stable marriage for anyone who believes in its sanctity.
And this is where I believe the Church should focus its efforts. By all means, preach in favour of an eternal pact and continue to highlight the social stability that relies on the family as a functional unit, but equally, please exercise empathy and tolerance towards those whose values may differ.
In a society of intelligent citizens capable of critical thinking, gone are the days of imposing religious beliefs by incorporating them into law.
d.attard
Mar 15th 2011, 21:44
Quote Dr Gonzi stressed that if the referendum was approved, MPs had to legislate in terms of a question which was misleading and introduced the worse form of irresponsible divorce that one could imagine Unquote.
The above outburst suggests that our Prime Minister can not be credible on this matter. How can the prime minister consider a divorce that demands a minimum of 4 years seperated etc etc as being the worst form of irresponsible Divorce (ie even worse than a las vegas divorce?)
Giovann Attard
Mar 15th 2011, 21:43
Jghid x'jghid kulhadd, il-mozzjoni tal-Partit Laburista dwar id-divorzju tgawdi maggoranza Parlamentari u nittamaw li dan ikun rifless bl-akbar mod car fil-vot ta' ghada l-Erbgha. Jekk il-mozzjoni tal-PL tigi approvata mill-Parlament, dan ikun ifisser b'mod mill-aktar car li fuq issue importantissima bhal din, il-Gvern m'ghadux jikkmanda maggoranza fil-Parlament li hija essenzjali biex Gvern ikun jista' jiggverna. Jekk jitlef il-vot ta' ghada, il-Prim Ministru ghandu jkun responsabbli bizzejjed u jitlob mandat elettorali gdid.
R. Gatt
Mar 16th 2011, 17:10
Giovann Attard argued: "Jekk il-mozzjoni tal-PL tigi approvata mill-Parlament, dan ikun ifisser b'mod mill-aktar car li fuq issue importantissima bhal din, il-Gvern m'ghadux jikkmanda maggoranza fil-Parlament li hija essenzjali biex Gvern ikun jista' jiggverna."
Giovann: Get of your partisan blinkers and try to understand the very simple fact that this issue is above politics, and as proof to this, both leaders of both parties guaranteed a free vote to the MPs of their respecitive party. So this means that the vote is not one of confidence or no confidence in Government, but one reflecting the conscience of each MP irrespective of their political beliefs!
edwin formosa
Mar 15th 2011, 21:35
“This was not religion, although he was proud of his beliefs”.
A rare man of principles. A great Catholic who lives his faith without compromise in the public square. Some live their faith as if it were a private idiosyncrasy – the kind that they’ll never allow to become a public nuisance. Others search for a way to call oneself Catholic while campaigning as an active opponent to church teaching. It is the kind of arrogance it is expected of them.
A true Catholic politician who does not waver on the marriage issue in the face of ever increasing pressure to erase traditional marriage from among the natural institutions that still enjoy the protection of the state.
Prosit u grazzi Dr Gonzi
Alfred Gatt
Mar 15th 2011, 21:34
I agree with Dr Gonzi when he said "but those who proposed the question should shoulder responsibility for the way they had worded it, and its consequences." Not only those who proposed the question but those MPs of both sides who will be voting. Then it will become clear those who are in favour or against a strong family institution. The electorate should not forget when election time comes as to the way these MPs viewed the whole matter of divorce.this Trust that tonight, they will listen to their conscience which should by now has been informed and formed on the long term consequences of their vote.
J Brincat
Mar 15th 2011, 21:11
'A stable marriage was the best model for social stability and the best environment for children', says the PM. Yes, but only when the marriage is a fruitful one. But what if the marriage fails because one of the partners is unfaithful and has left the family. What does the faithful partner and his/her children do in the circumstances? Curse his/her luck and do nothing about it if he/she can start another family? What about the right of the children in broken marriages. Today these are non-existent!
Also, not everybody has the right connections to be put on the fast track to get an annulment from the church. Malta is a small country and whispers are everywhere!
No, PM we have our own mind and we can come to our own conclusion.
Joe Busuttil
Mar 15th 2011, 21:11
You and your ministers certainly did not surrender your values and principles when you gave yourselves a 600euro raise a week,and us 116 cents, did you Mr PM? All the PN lawyers and also other PN hugging layers are really giving a poor show of themselves in the divorce argument. Never expected we had so many saints in the place.
pm?
john micallef
Mar 15th 2011, 21:09
dejaqtuna u xebajtuna, qiskom zewgt itfal ma tifthemu qatt, anzi ar, ax dawk ghada piet ghada jmiaturaw u jifthemu, imma into mil- hazin ghal- ar sejrin.
U hadtu zieda!!!
MBorg
Mar 15th 2011, 21:07
Many are coming out in favour of divorce because they think that is will solve everything. Divorce never solved anything it just creats more trouble.
Where one finds divorce one finds that marriages breakups increase every year. The funny thing is that although couples are free to remarry most do not and choose to cohabit instead. So to all those that are saying that they want divorce so that couples can have a second chance at marriage facts tell us that they do not take this chance. Once they go through divorce they realise that marriage does not mean a thing so why get married ?
Women who are in favour of divorce do not know that they will be the ones to suffer most. With this no-fault divorce couples do not go to court so who is going to see that they get enough maintenance ? With a no-fault divorce the courts cannot really help you. A woman can just be abandoned by her husband lose her house and no one will be able to help her. .Labour MPs are ment to have a free vote how is it that they all agree to this loaded question ?
Mike Farrugia
Mar 15th 2011, 20:58
If I were the PM, I would rather resign than go down in history as the one who introduced divorce in Malta. His uncle must be turning in the grave.
Joseph Borg
Mar 15th 2011, 20:53
" You were not elected to introduce divorce ". I helped in getting you elected and HONESTLY I do not regret it. But the availability of divorce has nothing to do with PN, PL, Electoral Programmes, Church, Movimenti LE, Referendum etc etc. . IN 2011 IT IS A CIVIL RIGHT. AND ABOUT TIME !!!
j.camenzuli
Mar 15th 2011, 20:48
The divorce question should make it clear that the person who caused the marriage to break down and if found guilty should be liable for all expenses including maintenance of the innocent spouse and children if any plus should provide adequate lodgings for the innocent spouse and children and any other expenses for the life style it was accustomed to.
GEORGE JOSEPH
Mar 15th 2011, 20:41
x' QIEGHED JINKWITA LILL GONZI - IL-VOT FIL-PARLAMENT JEW ID-DIVORZJU, LI HUWA DRITT TA' DAWK LI MA JISTGHUX IGIEBUH MINN PAJJIZ IEHOR?
J Farrugia
Mar 16th 2011, 07:55
Ohlom George Joseph. Il-Prim Ministru m'ghandhu xejn minn xhiex jibza. Il-PM m'ghandhux bzonn divorzju. Ma weghdux fil-Programm elettorali tal-PN. Ha jibku u jinkwetaw in-nisa li llum minghalihom ghandhom ir-ragel u ghada jsibu ruhhom abbandunati flimkien ma uliedhom ghal xi wahda zghira iktar minnhom. U l-faqar jizdied, il-flus jieqfu u wara x'jigri? Suicidji? Qtil? Iktar kriminalita' minn ulied abbandunati minn min suppost huwa responsabbli minnhom? Il-Minoranza m'ghandha qatt tiddetta lill-maggoranza tan-nies li jridu jghixu civilment u onestament. Min hu zgangat, dak barra. zgangat ser jibqa. Mela Gonzi qed jappella ghas-sens komun ta' dawk il-MP Laburisti li fil-wicc jghidu li ghandhom principji serji kontra d-divorzju u issa ntrabtu minn bicca firma fuq mozzjoni tal-mexxej laburista. Dawk principji sani? Meta titkellem fuq moralita' Adrian Vassallo ikun jaqbillek tghalaq halqek issa, ghax nixluk b'ipokrisija li lest tbiegh ruhhek ghal bicca firma fuq bicca karta tal-incova. Meta tiftah halqek Carmelo Abela u Marie Lousie Coleiro Preca oqghodu attenti, ghax bieghhhejtu ruhhkom biex minghalikom tghamlu dispett fuq il-PM u l-PN. Basta ppurcinellajtu spalla ma spalla ma' Zwieg BLA DIVORZJU. Ghar-ritratti biss kontu tajbin. Ghal xejn iktar ghax xorta ffirmajtu mozzjoni favur id-divorzju. Ghajb ghall-Ipokriti.
Paul Borg
Mar 15th 2011, 20:39
Re: 'Worst form of irresponsible divorce' - PM..
I believe that the word divorce in this phrase should be dropped and re-phrased as 'Worst form of irresponsible PM'
jbusuttil
Mar 15th 2011, 20:52
Instead of commenting you should hear the PL representatives making their speeches in parliament they talk about everything except about the motion that they themselves are proposing. How sickening.
The Prime minister this evening showed one and all the implications of the motion, I must admit that I never realized what a lot of loop holes exist.
Denis Pace
Mar 16th 2011, 08:06
I beg to differ. That is a very unfair comment - probably partisan. You may not agree with his reasoning, but you have to respect the argument. Dr.Gonzi could have postponed this debate. After all, he has no mandate to introduce Divorce.
I, for one, believe that Divorce should be on the cards of any legislator. I agree that divorce can be of help to a no. of broken marriages.
The argument is NOT that. It is about how to get a divorce.
Suppose a husband runs off with another woman, leaving wife and kids to fend it alone. All he has to do is to co-habitate with his new partner/s for four years. Then he automatically gets a divorce. His ex-wife is now faced with endless visits to the courts, pumping euros into lawyers pockets along the way, so that, PERHAPS, she could get legal redress.
I am sure we can come up with a MORE DECENT FORM of divorce.
As it is, LAWYERS stand to gain......just look at the UK bill for Divorce.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/savings/2787797/Miss-Pennypincher-the-cost-of-divorce.html
Shaun Azzopardi
Mar 15th 2011, 20:34
"A stable marriage was the best model for social stability and the best environment for children."
Obviously, and any couple who is seeking to divorce cannot be considered to be in a 'stable marriage'. I can't fathom how people seem to think that the introduction of no fault divorce legislation would lead to spouses spontaneously deciding to divorce.
People, at least most of them, are not idiots. They're not going to divorce left right and centre unless they have adequate reasons.
As Arnold Cassola pointed out during a Bondi Plus debate on divorce, the government didn't have a mandate to increase the MP's wages but it increased them nonetheless. Why the double standard? The government didn't have the mandate to do a lot of things. The point is the government never ever stays with the limits of what it is mandated to do by the people. That would not be practical.
What does this have to do with conscience? It has to do with rationality and law.
And what's this about divorce destroying the institution of marriage? How exactly will it do that? That a contract can be dissolved does not destroy the concept of a contract.
J.Attard
Mar 15th 2011, 21:22
@Shaun Azzopardi
"And what's this about divorce destroying the institution of marriage? How exactly will it do that?" there are a number of reason's and I'm no specialist , but according to my brother who is a divorce lawyer in the u.k a number of people see divorce as just an easy way out , when the going gets tough.. destroying the institution of marriage of course. He cant complain though cause he earns a living out of it ;)
Peter Bonnici
Mar 15th 2011, 22:30
'That a contract can be dissolved does not destroy the concept of a contract.'
Thats the whole point. The argument here is that No fault divorce allows one to obtain a divorce without the consent of the other spouse. Now how many contracts do you know of are cancelled at the express wish of one party only? None !
Shaun Azzopardi
Mar 16th 2011, 10:29
@ J.Attard
That a few couples tend to take the easy way out and divorce doesn't destroy the whole institution of marriage. It's like saying that because two people are able to get married for the sole purpose of granting one of the partners the legal capacity for residence then that destroys the whole institution of marriage. It's ridiculous. :P
Anyway, such people who choose the 'easy way out' can do so without legal divorce. They can just decide on their feet to go away.
That legislation legally recognizing divorce doesn't exist in this country doesn't mean effective divorce doesn't happen.
And anyway, waiting for 4 years separation to get a divorce isn't really the easy way out. :P At all.
@Peter Bonnici
Normal contracts no, but marriage is not a normal contract. People can't be expected to be tied down legally to another person when they no longer have a committed relationship with them. Marriage is not a normal contract in that it's not merely a legal or business contract and in that the real world human relationships are dynamic. Civil Marriage, in Malta, assumes an unwarranted degree of static-ness.
Peter Bonnici
Mar 16th 2011, 15:17
@ Shaun. It was your comparison not mine; and secondly, it is like any other contract whether you like it or not. Contracted business partners have to put up with eachother or put out, even if one ends up sleeping with the other one's wife. People need to grow up and take responsibility for their actions.
Shaun Azzopardi
Mar 16th 2011, 18:35
@Peter Bonnici. And it was an analogy that was meant to show a specific point, not to be extended to other points. Namely the point that it is ridiculous to say divorce destroys the whole institution, the whole concept of marriage.
You can't force someone to be in a relationship. Sure people should work on their marriage in times of distress but we can't force them to. Ultimately they must decide, it's their relationship. They are the ones better equipped to understand their situation, not us. We don't know all of the variables. We don't know their feelings. And feelings are the major part of a human relationship, and unfortunately overtime these feelings towards our partners may change.
Again yes people must take responsibility for their actions but they are the ones who should decide how to do this, not us. Otherwise it's just tyranny and removes any value choosing the good choice would have.
And anyway divorce legislation doesn't enable couples to break up. It only recognizes this. Married couples break with and without divorce, their legal status just doesn't change accordingly.
D Attard
Mar 15th 2011, 20:30
'A time might come when divorce would have to be introduced, but statistics showed that the institution of the family was currently still strong.' - Dr. Gonzi, may I remind you that statistics are numbers, they generalise and don't portray a real picture of the situation! Have you considered how many people still live in a false marriage because they don't have the means to get divorce abroad, or are afraid of the stigma that seperation creates on our islands?
It's time we stopped the hypocrisy, and gave divorce to those who really need it - and the Prime Minister should NOT impose his personal opinion on the MPs or the elctorate!
J.Attard
Mar 15th 2011, 20:26
I , as a free voter have to congratulate dr gonzi on his speech, he really made sense. Divorce is a very debatable topic, and there is no definite right or wrong. It may be seen as step forward , BUT .. from history of other countries who introduced divorce recently , it shows otherwise ....
D. Attard
Mar 15th 2011, 20:39
'It may be seen as step forward , BUT .. from history of other countries who introduced divorce recently , it shows otherwise ....'
Divorce isn't the cause! It only exposes what has been going on for years now, and legalises it. We'd be hypocrites to say that divorce isn't needed in our country - where are our democratic ideals of majority rules minority rights? Those who need it, even though they are a minority, should not be hindered by the rest.
C Gatt
Mar 15th 2011, 21:27
J Attard should explain his statement : "BUT .. from history of other countries who introduced divorce recently , it shows otherwise ...." All that history has shown is whenever the legal framework of divorce was created, the legal framework for divorce was also created soon after. Divorce is not a new phenomenon. it is part of the way society has organised itself since the days of the babylonians. Despite what the doom mongers like to say, it is actually a mark of civilisation, providing an orderly and equitable solution to a problem. In other words not having divorce as part of a legal system is proof of an uncivilized society.
As for the PM's reasoning that laws should be decided on the basis of numbers, well what can I say except that is surely the way to irresponsible law making. Laws are made on the basis of justice and ethics, No matter that it is one person or many who need a law to protect them. Unfortunately, once again, this PM shows a lack of the higher thinking when discussing this (and other)subjects. Once again he fails to see the bigger picture!
Gianninu Saliba
Mar 15th 2011, 20:22
If Dr. Muscat is not prepared to move amendments to the question to make it simple for one and all to answer, then I suggest that Dr. Gonzi should, with effect from next week rush the parliamentary debate of the proposed divorce bill and and see if this will be passed in parliament. If the outcome would be in favour of the proposed divorce bill, then we will have a referendum on May 28. Of course the question will then have to be changed.
David Farrugia
Mar 15th 2011, 21:00
Who do you think Gonzi is to change the question? Currently he only forms part of a parliamentary minority.
Paul Pace
Mar 15th 2011, 20:18
Dr. Gonzi,
Two things you should know. The first is that you lost all credibility on this topic so your argument is totally unbelievable. Second the arrongance within your MPs on this subject will make you lose the next elections by at leasts four seats in parlament
Denis Pace
Mar 16th 2011, 08:08
I agree with Divorce and I also agree with Dr.Gonzi's arguments.
If we are to introduce Divorce...not in a re-cooked "Irish" broth.
Paul Barrett
Mar 15th 2011, 20:17
Quote: Dr Gonzi said, one could not ignore the minorities who had problems, and MPs also had a duty to seek solutions to these people, who wished to build a new relationship with another person in a legal manner which did not render them second class citizens. Unquote.
Unless bigamy is being proposed as an alternative legislation to divorce, the whole of the argument in this article is totally destroyed.
S. Vella
Mar 15th 2011, 20:07
"A stable marriage was the best model for social stability and the best environment for children."
Not one stable marriage has ever filed for an annulment or divorce. What are you going to with the unstable marriages? Force them to live together? If not, a separated or annuled couple's children are still not living in the ideal environment. Allow annulment, separation and divorce (already available for couples changing residency abroad) or ban all three. At least it will be a consistent decision reflecting your beliefs.
It is irresponsible and a cheap tactic to equate divorce legislation with the introduction of abortion or euthanasia. Anyway both are available - just a plane ticket away.
Steve Borg
Mar 15th 2011, 20:06
The PM should be honest and just admit that the D word sounds like the plague to him. Completely out of touch with reality...
A. Borg
Mar 15th 2011, 20:05
I always voted Labour except in the EU referendum but I have to admit that I totally agree with you on this issue Dr.Gonzi. No one and I mean no one has the mandate to legislate for the introduction of divorce in this legislation.
David Farrugia
Mar 15th 2011, 20:28
That's why there is a referendum now. So you give direction to the legislators.
A. Brincat
Mar 15th 2011, 20:01
The reason why more people are separating is because they spend less time together in order to be able to pay higher bills, repay an impossible house (apartment) loan and trying to make ends meet whilst living a decent life. This is in contrast to those people who the PN selects to earn hundreds of thousands and who later finance PN operations/fund raising activities. This government goes against whatever is preached at Sunday mass. PN Christiandemocrats??? Yeah right !!!
S.Agius
Mar 15th 2011, 20:20
agreed... capitalism = short term pleasure but long term problems.
Doris Mallia
Mar 15th 2011, 22:27
So true ... what is even more pitiful is that whoever is in government, these people will always be leeching out our children's and grand-children's blood because they have fully captured the political system.
R.Gauci
Mar 16th 2011, 07:43
Spot on mate! But who is living in a Golden Tower and have any kind of perks guaranteed can't understand this!
K.BORG
Mar 15th 2011, 19:57
WE GOt YOUR OPINION...NOW LET US VOTE!!
l fenech
Mar 15th 2011, 19:57
Speak for yourself Gonz.
Denis Pace
Mar 16th 2011, 08:09
and for us as well.......
john vella
Mar 15th 2011, 19:51
Sir,
Allow me to say as an Independent voter that hearing the Prim Minister he sure did his home work and made sense. Prosit!
Wow! what a difference to the speak that is following him, what a difference, she is getting everybody in her argument other why she is in favor.
M. Fenech
Mar 15th 2011, 21:59
How honest you are!! All the people who agree with Gonzi are independent voters!! Wow!! That proves that many Nationalists, who are not independent voters, will vote in favour of the introduction of divorce!!! YES FOR DIVORCE!!!!
Peter Borg Olivier
Mar 15th 2011, 22:02
Well said Prime Minister Gonzi !
Klaus Pedersen
Mar 15th 2011, 22:03
Say what?