Update 3: JPO defends no-fault divorce, hits out at PM's comments
Stands by divorce referendum question
(Adds more details)
Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando this morning defended the divorce referendum question proposed by the Opposition and rebuffed criticism made yesterday by the Prime Minister. He also defended the concept of no-fault divorce.
Speaking in Parliament hours before Parliament votes on the Opposition motion for the holding of the divorce referendum, and the related question, Dr Pullicino Orlando said this was a historic debate as the family was at the heart of society.
However, some MPs were giving too narrow a definition of the family.
Dr Pullicino Orlando said he was against divorce in that he hoped that all marriages remained strong. He was in favour of all measures to strengthen marriages and families. Parents and children should underline the importance of strong families.
Unfortunately there were marriage breakdowns resulting in annulments and separations. Whether formal or informal, a marriage breakdown caused a psychological trauma on the spouses and the children.
Should children continue to be exposed to such circumstances which were psychologically damaging to them?
NO LAS VEGAS DIVORCE
Dr Pullicino Orlando said that all those who spoke against divorce related it to marriage breakdowns. But this was simplistic and wrong.
The Divorce Bill currently before parliament did not lead to a Las Vegas type divorce. Indeed, it was based on the most conservative divorce law, that of Ireland.
And it was not true that the divorce question was ‘sugar coated’.
Dr Pullicino Orlando said he had insisted, from day one, that if the Bill could be improved, he was open for suggestions. Nothing was written in stone and amendments could be made if the referendum was approved.
But opponents were not basing their opposition on the basis of the Bill, but their intention to impose their beliefs on others.
The Irish referendum question had been based on the Bill in that country. That bill was being practically copied in the Maltese bill, and the referendum question was also identical. So had the Irish authorities also misled the people?
Some had argued (such as the prime minister) that it would be better to debate the bill first, then go for a referendum.
Dr Pullicino Orlando said he had consulted legal experts such as Prof Ian Refalo, who suggested a way forward which would have seen a debate on the bill in parliament, with a guarantee for the holding of a referendum.
But in the executive of the Nationalist Party some wanted to use parliamentary procedure so that the referendum would never be held.
Dr Pullicino Orlando said he would admit that he was initially against the holding of a referendum because minority rights should not be subject to a referendum. But after having discussed the issue with the Prime Minister, and in view of the fact that there was no electoral mandate it was decided to go for a referendum.
He was proud to be a Nationalist MP and it was not easy for him to back a motion moved by the Opposition, Dr Pullicino Orlando said, but he was now convinced that a referendum should be held and the people should not be stopped from making their choice.
REFERENDUM QUESTION
The referendum question asked the people whether they agreed with divorce for couples who would have been separated for four years when there was no hope of reconciliation and as long as there were provisions for maintenance and care of the children was guaranteed.
This, Dr Pullicino Orlando insisted, was an exact reflection of the divorce requirements made in the Bill. There was no sugar coating.
Dr Pullicino Orlando said the four year separation period was among the longest in any country and was meant to ensure that a marriage would really have irretrievably broken down. It meant that this was not an irresponsible marriage.
NO-FAULT DIVORCE
Dr Pullicino Orlando said there were various forms of no-fault divorce, but having a four-year separation period, as was in Ireland, certainly did not make this a divorce which was worse than a Las Vegas divorce, as someone said yesterday (the prime minister). And it was worth pointing that Malta already recognised a divorce granted in Ireland, but not one granted in Las Vegas.
The form of divorce proposed in Malta would remove the psychological trauma which couples and especially children went through in court when they had to battle each other for the granting of divorce.
Absurd statements such as those which had been made only reflected imposition. Church temporal interests should not come first in this country. That was not the role of MPs.
(At this stage Dr Pullicino Orlando told Finance Minister Tonio Fenech to be well-mannered and not to interrupt).
The proposed divorce law gave grounds for no-fault divorce because it was based on a four-year period when separation would already have been made legal and, therefore, fault and its consequences would have already been established. It made no sense to have that process held all over again and divorce would only come about when there was no prospect of reconciliation.
Indeed, the concept of no-fault divorce already existed in the legal separation process. Current law already allowed a judge to grant legal separation even if the parties did not want it, when a marriage would clearly have failed completely. (clause 40)
Abroad, where there was fault-based divorce, some couples ‘created’ faults in order to get out of their marriage.
RECONCILIATION
Dr Pullicino Orlando said the divorce bill was based on the premise that a marriage could not be saved. There could not be any obstacle to those couples who sought reconciliation. The proposed divorce law encouraged couples to seek reconciliation even while divorce proceedings were underway.
The referendum question also spoke of guaranteed maintenance.
This meant, Dr Pullicino Orlando said, a guarantee of the right to maintenance, not a guarantee of payment, since that was already provided for at law.
Such a guarantee was needed once a divorce was granted. In annulment, once spouses were not considered to have been married, maintenance was not guaranteed.
The proposal divorce law even provided for more adequate maintenance than provided in current law with regard to legal separations.
Dr Pullicino Orlando said care of the children was at the heart of the proposed divorce law. There was no doubt that children suffered whenever their parents separated – in whatever manner.
Having no-fault divorce removed the need for a fresh battle between the parents undergoing divorce proceedings because children suffered more during such proceedings than after the divorce itself. In many cases, children were used as pawns in such ‘battles’. Did anyone want this?
The proposed divorce law would ensure that maintenance for children continued beyond the current level of 18 years when the children continued to study. There were also new provisions on what would happen to the children if the parent who cared for them passed away.
“The proposed question is very, very valid and puts the people in a good position to decide on whether to have divorce and what type of divorce,” Dr Pullicino Orlando said.
It also tied down MPs so as not to loosen the criteria for divorce in the future.
Dr Pullicino Orlando said the proposed legislation gave more value to the institution of marriage, since couples who had been forced to cohabit could enter a new marriage.
Responsible divorce was in favour of marriage. Why was it being opposed? Somebody (the PM) yesterday said a time would come for the introduction of divorce. Yet Discern, the Church’s research institute, had said that within a few years, 35,000 people would be out of marriage. So could any responsible MP allow such a situation without tackling it?
One could not have legislation by crisis, he stressed.
Dr Pullicino Orlando said he could not understand how anyone (including the prime minister yesterday) could say that divorce should not be introduced because of the common good. The Nazis also acted on the basis of what they called 'the common good'.
But denying thousands of individuals such a civil right would render these people as second class. The common good was not served by denying a substantial minority the civil right to remarry, and effectively sidelining them.
POLITICAL EMBARRASMENT
Dr Pullicino Orlando said today was embarrassing for him as a Nationalist MP. He could not understand how a party which accepted within its fold, candidates in favour of divorce, had taken a position against divorce.
The party spoke on Xoghol, Gustizzja u Liberta. But was freedom restricted to buying chocolate and toothpaste? Should anyone impose and limit freedom individuals sought for their own happiness?
His party believed in the concept of marriage. But the masks were coming down. For some, family only meant one based on healthy marriages and the others, who formed other loving relationships, were ignored. This was shameful. Once there was love, and even children, should such units be looked down on? Where was solidarity, which the PN also said it professed?
Surely, in this day and age, it should no longer be the case of relegio et patria, putting religion and the Church first, he said.
Dr Pullicino Orlando denied that divorce would lead to more broken marriages. Marriages were already breaking down, he said, and in Ireland, fewer breakdowns were being reported.
Furthermore, in Malta a third of babies were already born out of wedlock. How many were babies born to cohabiting couples who could not remarry and thus declared the fathers as unknown?
Dr Pullicino Orlando insisted that those who did not want divorce should not impose their will on those whose marriage had broken down and needed to start afresh.
ANTI-DIVORCE MOVEMENT
Dr Pullicino Orlando said he pitied those who ‘had been called’ to form a front to resist divorce, such as Andre Camilleri who objected to divorce even when a wife was battered by her husband.
Could Malta continue to have the legal vacuum of cohabitation? Did Dr Camilleri want women to be punching bags?
Pierre Cordina had said that if divorce was introduced, he could end up considering leaving his wife. What values were these? He knew the Cordinas and knew this was not the case but it was time for people to be careful of what they said. The priority was the people who were suffering.
Some were even raising the issue of abortion and linking it to the introduction of divorce. That was shameful as much as it was untrue, and he had worked actively against the introduction of abortion.
NO SIMPLISTIC QUESTION
Dr Pullicino Orlando reiterated that he was against a simplistic question which asked people whether or not they agreed with the introduction of divorce. Should that happen, he would actually campaign against the introduction of divorce. Having such a simplistic question would open the door to a quick-fix divorce.
It was worrying, Dr Pullicino Orlando said, that some MPs had gone so far as to say that they were prepared to ignore the outcome of the referendum since it was only consultative, and they would base themselves on their conscience.
He could never accept that a person used his faith in this way when MPs were elected by the people, not the Church.
One could remember the criticism made against Alfred Sant when he did not recognise the EU referendum. His attitude was rightly described as undemocratic. What was bad then, was bad now if the will of the people was not respected, Dr Pullicino Orlando said.
If the people voted against the introduction of responsible divorce he would abstain when divorce was debated in Parliament, Dr Pullicino Orlando said.
Concluding, Dr Pullicino Orlando said his wish was that no one would need to resort to divorce. As the motto of the Divorce Movement said, this as a case of Yes to divorce, but also Yes to marriage.
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...
110 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Lina Caruana
Mar 17th 2011, 20:16
@John Camenzuli.
M view is completely objective as I do not need divorce in any way, but can see it from the life experiences of many who suffer. I have discussed the problems of divorce with people of other cultures ,non catholic. The greatest problem of divorce are overlapping families which have changed the form of the family institution rendering it less stable than ours. Yes ,marriage is a partnership made up of two spouses who are not necessarily both in for divorce.If there is a law, divorce can be imposed on the other partner especially no fault divorce. Many women would not choose divorce because their children are rendered poorer.
Mr Saliba Francis
Jul 5th 2011, 17:59
The divorce bill as pushed by JPO is not intended solely for those who suffer from actual matrimonial difficult life experiences. These cases will be outnumbered by others where husband and/or wife are bored with their existing marriage, who desire new marriage experiences without any pretence of the existence of any serious fault on either side and heedless of the legitimate needs of their offspring and of society at large.
Dominic Chircop
Mar 16th 2011, 14:20
Congrats JPO and Jesmond. I am very happy that the PN now has liberals in its midst.
It is a pity that none of them will be contesting the next general election in my electoral district,
As things stand, I have no one to vote for, as the rest are all members of the Curia Party.
Though I very much expect that their resistance to GonziPN will mean that next time around they may not be approved as candidates.
Rest assured, the long knives will be out. Not soon though, as arithmetic dictates otherwise.
Philip Hili
Jul 5th 2011, 01:12
@ Dominic Chircop
I am NOT happy at all that the PN is going to let half a dozen of armature politicians highjacking the party and make it their's by changing the principles of the party.
If they want to have a liberal party, they should work for it and form one and NOT make use of the Nationalist Party because the Nationalist Party is an established party and have deep roots.
Although their intentions are now fulfilled, it is a GREAT JOY FOR ME AND FOR SOME OTHERS THAT THESE TWO DISLOYAL MP ARE NOT CONTESTING THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION. If they do, my duty will be that of encourage the electorate not to vote for them.
Yes, you are right, as things stand, I have no one to vote for. The executive council should make a CLEAN SWEEP and persons who have a hidden agenda like these two, should be dismissed from the party otherwise, the people is going to leave the party. It is better to lose some dozens of votes rather than to lose several hundreds of votes.
Mr R ferriggi
Jul 13th 2011, 13:14
the PN has TOTALLY lost the plot in this divorce issue.
i dare to predict that MANY long-time PN hard-core supporters which looked at the PN as their bastion for human rights have been disillusioned, and how.
after this divorce issue,,,, politics in malta will never be the same.
the cracks in the PN ( but also in the PL) are too wide to patch up now. maybe this is good for us.
m. borg (slm)
Mar 16th 2011, 14:13
JPO must know that if it depended on the PN/gonziPN homosexuality would still be a crime even in the privacy of one's home.
Torquemada would have been proud with people of the same caliber found in gonziPN.
Miriam Attard
Mar 16th 2011, 13:46
Thank you Jeff and thankuou Jes for having the courage to do this
Thanks from all of us who need divorce because of our broken marriages
Dr. John Zammit
Mar 16th 2011, 13:30
You are great Jeffrey and a hero for the persons who are suffering. It is a pity that after so long there are still persons who want to deprive Malta to legislate divorce. This when the Catholic Church Tribunal of Brooklyn USA insists that those getting annulment are not accepted before they get a divorce from the State. Also in Malta I had the experience that when I went to Ta' Kana they told me that "as in Malta we do not have divorce, get the annulment instead and one can get married again".
Philip Hili
Jul 7th 2011, 23:06
Ara tiehdux fil-partit tieghek illum qabel ghada!!!!!
Isa, u ddumx!!!!!
A. Vassallo
Mar 16th 2011, 13:19
QUESTION: WHO WILL FORK OUT THE FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE MALTESE DIVORCE BILL?
ANSWER: DEFINATLEY NOT JPO, JM AND THE OTHER PRO-DIVORCE MP's
Mark my words: The above-mentioned MP's will one day tell us that it was not their fault that divorce was introduced in Malta as IL-POPLU decided that they wanted the introduction of divorce when they voted yes to divorce in the referendum.
MBorg
Mar 16th 2011, 16:04
How very right. When the number of broken marriages in Malta will sky rocket, when then
umber of couples who choose to cohabit, even though they can remarry will be 150% higher than the munber of married couples When the number of children born out of wedlock will keep on increasing every year, I do not think that history will be kind on JPO. Time will tell.
pHILIP hILI
Mar 17th 2011, 01:55
That is the million dollar question.
I challenged many of the pro-divorce bloggers to answer this question. But none of them was able to answer!!
Teddy Cilia
Mar 16th 2011, 13:08
If according to the pro-divorce lobby, marriage is equivalent to a civil contract and according to the proposed legislation one can be granted a no-fault divorce, even against the will of one of the partners, isn't this the equivalent to a unilateral withdrawal from a civil contract? Wouldn't this be a legal precedent that gives the right to anyone to withdraw for no stated reason from any other civil contract even if one of the parties does not agree to receed from the agreement?
D bugeja
Mar 16th 2011, 13:08
For me the only issue at stake here, is a couples legal staus...Married,seperared,divorced or cohabiting..
Personally, I could'nt give a damn...!.I am seperated ,and now have a loving partner and two loving children . With or without state and church recognition , we are a stable, happy family.
My only disapoinment is with those who point fingers . A committted happy family unit should be recognised and applauded in this day and age regardless of thier maritual status...
Shame on the church and those that criticise people like us ..we are not drug pushers ,neither thieves,but simply, people trying to lead a normal life .To overcome lifes difficulties in a civilised manner is not easy but can be done , as I have proved, myself .
The critics should walk a mile in the shoes of people like myself before even contemplating opening thier mouths ...As with marrige..Divorce is a decleration of a persons status... Simply another piece of paper..!.
J mIcallef
Mar 16th 2011, 13:07
PART II
.
Now, at this point, I cannot bring myself to vote in favour of this issue. First of all, the question is so loaded - it demonstrated the deceiving nature of who wrote it. Secondly, I cannot let my vote contribute to a reward to the dirty and shameful political tactics of JPO and Joseph Muscat. I cannot stand either of them. I have not yet decided whether to abstain or vote against divorce (reluctantly), but I will definitely not vote in favour. The smiling deceiving faces of JPO and Joseph Muscat will haunt me through the rest of my life.
J mIcallef
Mar 16th 2011, 13:06
PART I
I am personally at a dilemma regarding this referendum. I am in favour of divorce and feel embarrassed that Malta is discussing this issue forty years after the rest of Europe. AT first I did not follow any discussions since this outdated issue bores me to death.
However, I could not fail to notice the dirty political ploys conducted by JPO and Joseph Muscat. The former is desperate and will clutch to any straw to save his doomed political career and cause as much trouble to the Prime Minister who did not appoint him to the Cabinet. On the other hand, Muscat is using the divorce issue as another occasion (like the Cathedral museum) to put spooks in the wheel and try to bring the government down before 2013. He does not even care what the issue at hand is, and whether divorce is introduced properly or not. He only cares about becoming prime minister in his thirties like his mentor Mintoff. Both JPO and Joseph Muscat proved themselves to be so shallow, and have diverted the attention from the real problems of divorce and the rights of the other spouse.
Darren Cassar
Mar 16th 2011, 12:40
From the PM's comments it is obvious that this country is still in the dark ages.
Please PM let the people at least vote their will now, wasn't it enough that you'r wasting our money on a referendum when this is a basic human right. This law should have been implemented even for a single Maltese person. But I must be dreaming.
This is a small rock with authorities and people still thinking that we are the center of the world and that we are the ultimate intelligent beings in this world.
The only thing keeping me and many others in this country is the warm climate and nothing else .Culturally, politically, environmentally we are a mess. The few QUALITY jobs are disappearing as well with no specialization whatsoever.
How pathetic, mediocre and out of tune can we get.
joe falzon
Mar 16th 2011, 12:32
I cannot understand how Christianity as a religion that proclaims love towards our neighbour and total respect towards the human dignity can be considered, as per your statement, as the religion that is obscuring our intelligence and holding us back as a species. In my humble opinion, your statement is not just an insult towards Christianity but also an insult to other religions that share common ground in preaching these values.
Are you expecting that on behalf of the false idea of progressiveness, people should abondon these values? Religion in this issue is taking a predominant factor because people know (at least those who really believe) that God knows better than any one of us and that his words and commandments are there to enlighten us to take the best decisions for our own sake. We become obscured in our intelligence if we think that we know MORE and BETTER than God himself.
Do you want us to base our decisions on just our immediate instincts? Sorry ... it is better to be 'plagued' with religion proclaiming love and respect than to conveniently pretend to be progressive at the detriment of society.
sscerri
Mar 16th 2011, 12:15
What JPO did not bother to mention as that which regards Irland in respect of divorce is that the state(ie the tax payer even those who don't make use of the divorce law) had to increase the social assistance to single parents 4 fold in the ten years that the divoce law came into effect. Will those who don't want divorce have to forge out money to upkeep any divorcee???? Please enlighten us JPO. I am not ready to being forced to pay for any upkeeping, I might do it but will never be made to. One reason why I am against divorce.
Monica Farrugia
Mar 16th 2011, 12:09
an excellent speech from someone who has the guts to say things as they are!
Joe Zammit
Mar 16th 2011, 12:04
The great majority of PL supporters are against divorce.
The great majority of PN supporters are against divorce.
The great majority of Maltese and Gozitans are against divorce.
All these majorities are positive people: in favour of the indissolubility of marriage.
Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed!
John Grech
Mar 17th 2011, 09:34
Joe, do we tell you people how to govern your church? NO, then stop telling us how to decide for our country.
Sincerly yours
A devout Atheist
G Farrugia
Mar 16th 2011, 12:04
Well done JPO. a role model and a truly open minded politician
A. Grech
Mar 16th 2011, 12:01
what should such families do? (and i believe this to be a mild example):
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110315/local/wife-who-filed-reports-against-husband-had-hidden-agenda-court
and more importantly, how will the children be protected in similar cases and worst scenarios?
Two questions, answers please.
A Abela
Mar 16th 2011, 12:00
The pro-divorce movement is very unfortunate to have JPO as main activist
Victor Vella
Mar 16th 2011, 11:59
JPO this is the last time that you are having it so good. Another PN miskin.
J Farrugia
Mar 16th 2011, 15:40
victor mela nsejt kemm ghajjartuh korrott lil JPO? issa tfahhruh ghax minghalikom ser iwaqqa' l-Gvern?
t. borg
Mar 16th 2011, 11:57
fil-principju jien naqbel mad-devorzju. naqbel li l-mistoqsija ghandha tkun iva jew le ghad-devorzju. biex jintlahaq konpromess iz-zewg nahat jaghmlu mistoqsija. favur id-devorzju jistu jiktbu "jekk tivvota iva ikun ifisser int kontra r-religjon u t-taghliem tal-knisja. li ma nistax nifhem kif certu deputat li ma jridx films ghal kbar fil-lukandi se jivvota favur id-dhul tad-devorzju f'malta
Claude Lacoste
Mar 16th 2011, 11:55
Bravo JPO : you are going do enter the maltese people in the 21° century !
c falzon
Mar 16th 2011, 11:40
Lil dawn kollha li qed jiktbu kontra JPO nghidilhom ma jkunux daqshekk mohhom maluq u egoisti.....mela ghax irnexxa iz zwieg taghhom ifisser li jirnexxi ta kulhadd! Billi m ghandniex divorzju f' malta, x qed jigri......kulhadd ipoggi u jiehu l flus minghand il gvern. Prosit JPO. Haga tal ghageb imma kemm hawn insara hux hawn malta......kulhadd jajjar lil iehor ax ma jaqblux fuq xi haga......ipokriti.
J Brincat
Mar 16th 2011, 11:40
@P Attard
Was it as emotional as Dr Gonzi's, yesterday?
R Debono
Mar 16th 2011, 11:38
JPO is the biggest hurdle for the pro-divorce movement...
A. Zahra
Mar 16th 2011, 11:35
JPO will get his referendum question, but he is sure to lose his seat. The same goes for Mugliet. Pity they both could have made good politicians. Instead they chose to go the way of Josie Muscat and Mario Felice.
Emma Scicluna
Mar 16th 2011, 11:35
''Furthermore, in Malta a third of babies were already born out of wedlock. How many were babies born to cohabiting couples who could not remarry and thus declared the fathers as unknown?'' - Just a small comment about that , our daughter is born out of wedlock, because we can not remarry... but her father has recognized her at the public registry, so her father is known ! So it is the choice of the father to recognized a child out of wedlock or not !!!
F Farrugia
Mar 16th 2011, 11:31
JPO's speech lacked substance and his only intention is to challenge his Party
Joe Borg
Mar 16th 2011, 12:01
No, JPO hasa not lost his mind. I am happy that there are still people in the PN that look forwards and truly embrace modern European values.
In any case, is it wrong to challenge the Party.... or are we living in Libya or the USSR?
C. Dimech
Mar 16th 2011, 12:01
if that is what you think then you don't even know how to read.
I think JPO has been very clear and consistent, not to mention logical in all his arguments. I think the fact that JPO can voice his opinion which is contrary to that of his party is a true sign of democracy and freedom of speech without the fear of reprisal.
The fact that the Government also known as the Nationalist Party have taken a stand against divorce runs contrary to their spiel in favour of a referendum that allows people to make a choice as they are fully aware that Maltese people still suffer from the 'herd mentality' considering everything that their party says as sacrosanct!! The party is now no longer representing a good part of its electorate when issuing such statements.
M. Jones
Mar 16th 2011, 12:12
And this is what you managed to glean out of the speech: his intention to challenge the party? Can't you see beyond party politics and at least ponder upon the reasoning, the law, the rights and liberties?
No. Its only about PN. Its about the "attacks" on PN. Its about the attacks on the Church, on the great jewel that is the Maltese family. Fullstop.
Talk about right-wing tunnel vision.
Lina Caruana
Mar 16th 2011, 11:30
It is amply clear that the" wide " view of the family that Dr. Pullicino holds is one with overlapping families which is not the generally accepted form in Malta. The question is do we want to impose on spouses a further division if one wants to divorce and the other not? That is certainly crucial in the stability of families because the issues of a marriage cannot die if it existed. Obtaining release from family responsibilities without obligations is certainly an enormous change.There is an unclear situation in which the bill is presented. It is more like a blindfolded belief that divorce will purge all sufferings from a purely intimate and personal failure. Being sad about the sufferings of others will not help by imposing divorce. It will mess things further for other families. The heart of the Maltese family must be kept alive even if some are sadly irrevocably "dead"
Joseph Camenzuli
Mar 16th 2011, 12:02
Lina Caruana can you please indicate where divorce is being imposed upon anyone? Is ayoen imposing it upon you?
A Tabone
Mar 16th 2011, 11:28
JPO has lost the plot completely
M.Camilleri
Mar 16th 2011, 12:02
I think that the PN has lost the plot and I am sure many ex-PN voters think the same - the next election will tell !
K Camilleri
Mar 16th 2011, 11:28
In this country we have a plague. A good part of this country thinks using religion before reason. It is the cause which obscures our intelligence and which is holding us back as a species.
K.Anastasi
Mar 16th 2011, 11:43
Very well said, we are blinded by religion.
Im not saying we should not have it but only as a moral guide.
P Attard
Mar 16th 2011, 11:27
JPO's speech was too emotional and his only intention was to attack his Prime Minister and his colleagues ghax he can't accept the fact that there are people with a different opinion from his!
David Caruana
Mar 16th 2011, 11:26
Justice and REASON will prevail, if not in 2011, it will in the future and divorce will be introduced even in Malta Cattolicissima
Intelligent people can never even imagine of imposing their beliefs onto others.
D. A . Agius
Mar 16th 2011, 12:05
The only problem is that unless this society breaks free from the mouldiness of its past and starts to work based on logical principles, we will only be hampering our future development.
We should strive to break free from others imposing ideas on us but rather one should be able to analyse data, research, propose ideas, criticise them and then think on his solutions, not on what certain elements in society impose on him and expect him to gulp without even asking a question.
Dogmas are simply something from the dark ages.
J Farrugia
Mar 16th 2011, 11:25
JPO has truly lost his mind. His personal life comes before the national interest. This speech is such a baseless one, comparing the PM with the Nazis that he should immediately resign from the House to salvage what little honour he has left. And he had the guts to correct Tonio Fenech and telling him to act decently. Did JPO act decently when he attacked private people who follow God's commandments and not JPO's self interests and who are not in Parliemant to defend themselves? Resign and hide your person in shame.
J Brincat
Mar 16th 2011, 11:24
@R Borg (THREE)
Not obvious, this will be financed by a further rise in the utility bills, as the government has been doing in the last years to make good for the structural deficit and the inefficiencies at Enemalta! The fact that many households cannot afford to pay these bills does not bother Dr Gonzi. He plays at Nero and looks the other way playing the harp while 'Malta' is burning!
Mark Cassar
Mar 16th 2011, 11:19
Let's hope that this move by JPO will be the last nail in his coffin, or at least the beginning of his political demise!
P. Vincenti
Mar 16th 2011, 11:19
I know that the PL has at least three decent MPs who stand up for their beliefs,
Adrian Vassallo
Marie-Louise Coleiro
Carmelo Abela
I hope that they can resist the pressure and be faithful to their beliefs in today’s vote
wally vella-zarb
Mar 16th 2011, 12:27
The other thirty-something members on the PL side are also "stand(ing) up for their beliefs". Are you implying that they are any less "decent" because their beliefs are different? What is your definition of 'decent'? Must one agree with your opinions to qualify as 'decent'? How very arrogant!
M. Tabone
Mar 16th 2011, 13:12
Il-mod li jivvutaw dawn it-tliet membri parlamentari tal-PL se juruna kemm tabilhaqq Joseph Muscat halla l-kull membru parlamentari jivvota skont il-kuxjenza! U dawn se juruna minn liema stoffa huma maghmulin! Nispera li juru li huma nies ta' principju u mhux pupazzi f'idejn min jghajjat hafna u jghajjar lil haddiehor arroganti u jistqarr li hu mhux!!! Kull min ma jaqbilx mad-divorzju skont huma hu insensittiv u arroganti. F'dan id-diskors kollu l-anqas li jissemmew huma t-tfal li jridu jghixu ma' wlied li gejjin mit-tieni zwieg jew it-tielet ecc li huma huthom u fl-istess hin mhumiex! Aqtax kemm ikunu sereni dawn il-povri tfal! Il-manteniment finanzjarju hu importanti imma l-fatt li ma jarawx lil xi hadd mill-genituri ma' partner li mhux missierhom jew ommhom hu aktar essenzjali!
Andrew Vella
Mar 16th 2011, 13:47
Pressure nahseb iktar tinsab fuq in-naha l-ohra tal-kamra sur Vincenti. Ricentiment rajna dan. Meta fuq in-naha tal-PL kien hemm xi hadd li ma qabilx, ma iddejjaqx jivvota kontra u ma gralu xejn. Minn naha l-ohra, in-naha taghkom hemm erba stejjer mhux hazin marbuta meta xi hadd jiddeciedi li jkun se jiehu vot kontra. Anzi ma qabisx l-ispeaker u iddecieda li ma jittiehedx vot!
ASpiteri
Mar 16th 2011, 11:17
i'm no fan of JPO, but u have to admit, his, was a great speech!
Valerie Bugeja
Mar 16th 2011, 11:16
This financial business is nonsense. Today we are still forking out payments towards every child that is born. Parents who are separated still have financil lcommitments towards their children as, for that matter, have those who are married. If a couple is co-habitatating today and they have a child is not this child still receiving all the social allowances that the state deems fit? so how is divorce going to be more expensive to the tax payer? Those who are against anything in this country always bring about the financial issue as to scare people of something that is needed. On the issue of the million dollar question I think that t stright Yes or No leaves more unanswered questions then a more detailed question. It at least places some parametres in such a delicate matter. I agree with the longer question. Some questions cannot be answered with a simple yes or no that is normally done in court to trick witnesses into answering the way the lawyers want. Hre nobody is on trial.
Henry Fenech Azzopardi
Mar 16th 2011, 11:14
I do not want to enter into the merits of infavour or against divorce. This is due for a referendum and at the end of the day a decision is endorsed by the electorate.
My concern is the way that Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando went about this matter claiming that he has a right to deliver. I have no doubt that he has a right, but did he have a mandate from his consistuents?
Both parties made an emphasy that they did not have a mandate, however it puzzeles me how JPO carried forward an issue he well knew that his party was not in favour of endorsing.
The sequence of events are now public, but the consistuents of certain candidates from both parties should weigh up the consequences involved and when makeing their preferences while voting should consider these values.
In Malta we do have the previlidge of candidate preferences without hindering the particular political party of your choice. In this connection, everyone should think and decide the loyalty to the party by their respective candidates.
I do not have to mention names the electorate know quite well who stirred a storm and who collaborated or against.
Joe Gauci
Mar 16th 2011, 12:00
Henry Fenech Azzopardi did the government have a mandate to do everything that it has done up to now? I am sure that it didn't but yet Gonzi did not shirk away from doing them notwithstanding the he had no mandate. What about the mandate to reduce income tax etc etc and still not implemented? Did he have a mandate to change the law so that BWSC could win the tender to burden us with the most polluting power station that uses heavy fuel oil?
D. A . Agius
Mar 16th 2011, 12:00
Does our finance minister have a mandate to increase taxes? Did they have a mandate to get a pay rise?
Election is based not on promises (mandates) but on capability of a person to represent his peers. If you elect according to promises, it is nothing less than a shopping list rather than an election.
And to be true, what is the % of promises done but not effected? If PN had a cohabition law on its list of promises in 1997, why was it not implemented?
E Formosa
Mar 16th 2011, 11:13
Diskors qawwi, koerenti u b'kapacita kbira JPO wera dizonesta politika enormi u l-mibgheda personali li ghandu lejn il-prim ministru ghax ma ghamlux ministru. Fakkarni fid-dibattitu li kellu ma Sant dwar il-kaz tal-Mistra u issa nistqarr li niddubita min kellu ragun. Xi hadd bhalek jibrilla biex jikkritika u jmaqdar lil Dr Gonzi. Imma fejn tidhol integrita, onesta, irgulija u lealta lejn il-familja u l-valuri tal-Maltin m'intix dehen li thares biss lejn Dr Gonzi.
Manuel Micallef
Mar 16th 2011, 11:12
I 100% agree with JPO's speah - which is logical unlike Gonzi's speech yesterday which is full of emotions but not facts.
silvio farrugia
Mar 16th 2011, 11:12
@Pawlu Grech
Quote: 'DR JEFFREY PULLICINO ORLANDO FOR PN LEADER. KING.'
and Pawlu Grech for an operator at his new disco.
patrick zammit
Mar 16th 2011, 11:10
At last, someone is talking with some sense and logic. Well done, Jeffrey.
Alexander Valenzia
Mar 16th 2011, 11:09
Will the divorce bill ensure equal rights to the parents and guarantee that the children are not manipulated by the parents, especially the mother. No I do not think so.
How is it possible for a father to maintain a relationship with his children when his visiting rights are limited to not more than 11 hours a week. This is the maximum amount the courts will give the father. Shame on our judges who refuse to recognise equal rights to the parents. Everyone states that the mother is favoured in the courts and this is a known fact which none of our MPs' want to recognise. This is what we should be debating. Equal rights to parents!!!!!!!!!.
Why does the bill introduce an adjustment to the maintenance law but nothing is mentioned on the visiting rights of the father. Do not the children have the right to spend equal time with both parents? In this way one ensures that the children are not manipulated or influenced by either party and their stability is guaranteed. Children need both parents and not just the mother.
I for one will not vote in favour of the divorce bill.
R.Borg (THREE)
Mar 16th 2011, 10:58
“Reasserting marriage may be contentious” he said. “But it is vital. Making relationship education available is far less contentious, but needs to build on existing programmes that have demonstrated success.”
“In 1980 there were 1 million single parents but this has now doubled. Something has gone badly wrong and no government has gotten to grips with the problem,” he said.
The report estimated that family breakdowns cost as much as £ 24 billion per year in tax credits, housing and other benefit payments.
QUESTION: WHO WILL FORK OUT THE FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE MALTESE DIVORCE BILL?
ANSWER: JPO, JM AND THE OTHER PRO-DIVORCE MP's
David Caruana
Mar 16th 2011, 11:14
QUESTION: WHO WILL FORK OUT THE FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES (healthcare) OF ALL THOSE WHO EAT JUNK FOOD AND DO NOT EXERCISE REGULARLY?
Another question to highlight how absurd your question is. What you are suggesting is the complete dissolution of a society - why should I pay for someone else's unluck?
D. A . Agius
Mar 16th 2011, 11:22
We can do some savings like remove religious festas, stop religion classes in school, stop funding church schools, make all outside events done by the Church pay for use of traffic arrangements, wardens, etc.
Of course, I am not serious. And from your ideas, I think you were either joking or you're simply not in one of your best thinking days!
Paul Barrett
Mar 16th 2011, 11:41
The "bill" you are talking about will be exactly the same as they are now and not increased by the proposed divorce legislation.
If anything, divorce legislation could ease some of the costs by virtue of those currently claiming actually getting re-married.
A. Vassallo
Mar 16th 2011, 10:56
@ P. Vincenti
Your wise appeal must also go to Carmelo Abela MP PL
P. Vincenti
Mar 16th 2011, 11:14
Indeed, Carmel also is a good man of integrity. I have hope in people like these.
I trust they will stand up when this country needs them so badly.
Alexander Valenzia
Mar 16th 2011, 10:56
Two issues come to mind. Maintenance and father's rights as far as children are concerned. What has been introduced in the divorce bill to ensure that the father has the same rights as the mother as far as children are concerned. Why is it that the courts only allow limited visiting times to the fathers which do not exceed more than 11 hours a week. Can a father continue a relationship with his children with these hours? The children have the same right to spend equal time with both parents to ensure their stability, but this does not happen in the courts. Why is it that now we want to introduce adjustments to the maintenance law and increase this from 18 to 23 if the children continue studying after the age of eighteen. Will the divorce law guarantee equal rights to the father as the mother has as far as the courts are concerned. I do not think so and this why i will vote against the divorce bill. I have been through a seperation in court and it is a shame how fathers' are treated by the courts.
axuereb
Mar 16th 2011, 11:15
Why is it that the courts only allow limited visiting times to the fathers which do not exceed more than 11 hours a week?...This is not always the case Mr Valenzia.
D. A . Agius
Mar 16th 2011, 11:19
Again, proof that you either don't know how to read or else you are a fanatic.
Abortion and Divorce... all tricks to be used to alienate people. Sounds like the new Inquisition is getting fired up.
Year 2000. The Millenium of fanatics.
K Farrugia
Mar 16th 2011, 11:21
Why should children of divorced parents be pressured more onto leaving the education system at 18 years of age if they have the capabilities to do so? Maintenance should not be solely viewed as a father's obligation towards the mother; working mothers have the same rights and obligations as fathers do.
d.attard
Mar 16th 2011, 10:55
I consider the prime minister's speach as being most disloyal to the issue at hand. He included all the hostile rhetoric one can think of. Drawing parallels with the eu referendum, the prime minister is now applying principles that are diametrically opposed to the principles applied during the eu debate...example remember the 'all want to join, should be we the ones to stay out? argument...
It is now obvious that the PM will do anything to deprive malta of a divorce legislation that would be one of the most conservative known. If this is the case than the only way forward is for him to resign should the yes vote win...a pity because it would greatly improve the chances of the NP staying in power when malta desperately needs a change of guard, but given the issue at hand this would be his honorable way out...on the other hand, should he stay to block the will of the poeple than he may be seen for what such an act implies...
R.Borg (TWO)
Mar 16th 2011, 10:54
THE GENERATION OF BROKEN HOMES
By Tim Ross, Social Affairs Editor, The Daily Telegraph, 12/2010(CONTINUED)
It warns that the number of children who will see their parents separate by the time they are 16 has risen from 40 percent in the mid-1980’s to 48 percent today.
While married couples account for more than half of all births, divorces represent just a fifth of all breakdowns in parental relationships. The remaining 80 percent of separations come from unmarried families.
Divorcing parents account for 14 per cent of the total bill for state benefits incurred by broken families, the report says. This compared with 25 per cent for cohabitating parents who separate.
The majority for the state benefits bill for relationship breakdown-62 percent- was attributed to single mothers. The study drew on figures from the Office for National Statistics and the Millennium Cohort study. It was written by Harry Benson, the founder of the Bristol Community Family Trust.
Mr. Benson said ministers should try to improve the stability of unmarried couples through education and policies that promoted marriage. He said reasserting the importance of marriage and providing top quality relationship education programmes would help unmarried couples stay together.
MEDITATE GENTE MALTESE MEDITATE
GigaVella
Mar 16th 2011, 11:04
When people divorce, it’s always such a tragedy. At the same time, if people stay together it can be even worse, so divorce soon please.
Ronald Cassar
Mar 16th 2011, 11:22
So RBorg (two), what exactly is your point? Are you against divorce because you believe in the unity of the family no matter what, or you are against divorce because you believe that single mothers will be a strain on the country’s finances? Or you believe that all children from broken marriages grow up to be serial killers, rapists, thieves etc?
wayne criggs
Mar 16th 2011, 10:53
Finally some talking which makes sense. On the other hand it is amazing/embarrassing how some MPs - whose duty is to plan a better future for the country and its people - are still stuck in the past.
Well done Jeffrey.
G Borg
Mar 16th 2011, 10:52
'The family was at the heart of society...' '...in favour of all measures to strenghten marriages and families.' '...should underline the importance of strong families...' Very nice words about the family, JPO! You believe so much in these truths, that you started a crusade AGAINST it! Hawwadni ha nifhmek! I believe you need a rest!
'Should children continue to be exposed to such circumstances?' Do you REALLY, REALLY believe, deep inside, that with divorce, their trauma will go? Does seeing another 'father' and another 'mother' help to cure their emotions? And when they are 'used' to barter a better economic deal, or even as a weapon to hurt the other side.........THIS is the MOST beneficial to the children! Dream on, JPO!
Pawlu Grech
Mar 16th 2011, 10:52
DR JEFFREY PULLICINO ORLANDO FOR PN LEADER. KING.
Joe Micallef
Mar 16th 2011, 10:51
Independently of one's views on divorce, the immorality of parliamentary proponents of this bill is shinning.
1. Whichever way you turn this, this is a no-fault divorce. It is particularly entertaining if it wasn't so immoral when individuals like JPO (Abela Baldacchino on the print version) argue that currently divorce in Malta is for the rich. With this bill nothing will change - the best deal will be obtained by who is better equipped financially and knowledge wise to hire best (most expensive lawyers). I tend to think the weaker part will be even worse-off
2. The Guarantee of maintenance implied is non-existent!
3. To top it all proponents claim "love for the family". A better family is generally the product of an indissoluble commitment. What we are more likely to get is families based on individual whims.
4. The economy applied to reading of statistics and findings from elsewhere is simply incredible. As they say "Figures lie when liars figure". And speaking of economy has anyone looked into how much the new society will cost the Maltese tax payer!
5. To top it all I sense cowardice in this insistance for the "comic and irresponsible" qualifications to question.
Immoral!
D. A . Agius
Mar 16th 2011, 11:34
"Independently of one's views on divorce, the immorality of parliamentary proponents of this bill is shinning. "
Morality is not the law. I find it immoral that businessmen evade tax and then are giving a silly punishment. My morality says take all they have as punishment.
1. What's the difference with annulments or separations????
2. It is a criminal act not to provide maintenance. Can't get a better guarantee with a Government and courts that are ineffective to say the least
3. "A better family is generally the product of an indissoluble commitment." - Yes, go tell it to a few families who have seen spouses killing each other, or children killing parents because they could not take any more abuse. That's in MALTA, a CHRISTIAN STATE???????!!!!!.
4. How much current separations and single cost? DO you have the statistic? This Government never even commissioned a simple drive to reduce the unknown father syndrome, let alone gathering this statistic!
5. You mean?
"Immoral!" - Yes, misinforming and misrepresenting. Above all, it is immoral speaking something and doing another, like some on the Gov. Benches have been doing.
Joe Micallef
Mar 16th 2011, 15:13
I find it immoral to put a (qualified) question which gives a guaranteed that does not exist in practice. The best that they could have said is that the law would give you the right to the defend maintenance, not that it guaranteed.
1.????
2. It is a criminal offence so what! What do the children get a court ruling and a father or mother in prison?
3. Very melodramatic! How does Christianity fit into your effort to argue. Can’t you leave religion outside for a moment.
4. Did I in any way contest that separations and whatever else cost money! I am only saying that, for example, the British have found that divorce is costing quite a lot. So probably if we a have a problem we will compound it
5. A qualified question is when you put a question and qualify it (for example - Are you thirsty because we have orange juice?) In statistics it is close to a loaded question, which is anathema
P. Vincenti
Mar 16th 2011, 10:48
The arguments being used to justify divorce are IDENTICAL to those being used to justify abortion elsewhere. People are completely unaware of this.
What is certain is that the very way the question had been designed and how it is being presented mirrors the same misleading tactics used by politicians in other countries such as Portugal and Ireland, when they tried to dupe people into believing that voting for abortion was acceptable in some cases with certain guarantees. Portugal succeeded.
The developments in parliament are very worrying.
GOL will wait to see the outcome of the vote today and decide how to accordingly.
axuereb
Mar 16th 2011, 11:20
GOL will wait to see the outcome of the vote today and decide how to accordingly...Your scare tactics will not work Mr Vincenti! People are not stupid, how can you equate divorce to abortion?
Timmy Farrugia
Mar 16th 2011, 11:50
i am in favour of the introduction of divorce but against introduction of abortion!!
Adrian Borg Cardona
Mar 16th 2011, 13:02
I find Mr. Vincenti's comment underhand and disgusting.
Gerry Cowie
Mar 16th 2011, 19:47
Those who have actually taken the trouble to read Mr Vincenti's comments will notice that he does not equate divorce with abortion. He describes the arguments being used in the wording of the divorce question are the same as those used in the past regarding abortion. How his comments can be seen as "underhand and disgusting" are without foundation. As for the suggestion that he is using "scare tactics" this is again without foundation. Those who have made such unsupported remarks should explain them.
R.Borg (ONE)
Mar 16th 2011, 10:47
THE GENERATION OF BROKEN HOMES
By Tim Ross, Social Affairs Editor, The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday , December, 7, 2010.
Nearly half of the children born today will be living in broken homes by the age of 16, official figures disclose. The sharp increase in unmarried couples having children is to blame for the rise in parental separation rates, claims a study from the Centre for Social Justice.
The report calls for a major shift in policy to reassert the importance of marriage as a more stable form of commitment than cohabitation. The research suggests that the taxpayer spends billions of pounds on benefits for single parents as a result of the “utterly avoidable” breakdown in families every year.
It follows concerns from Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, that society pays a “heavy price” for separation, in terms of crimes committed by children from broken homes, lost taxes and rising benefit bills.
Growing numbers of couples are starting a family without getting married. The study refers to figures showing that unmarried couples are more likely separate than married parents.
TO BE CONTINUED:
IGRI JIGU L-ELEZZJONIJIET TA' SENTEJN OHRA BIEX INNEHHUK MILL-PARLAMENT .
Ramon Casha
Mar 16th 2011, 11:05
Annulment = broken home
Separation = broken home
Divorce = broken home
c falzon
Mar 16th 2011, 10:42
thanks jeffery. keep up your good work u thalli lil hadd jamillek sarima ma halqek.
P. Vincenti
Mar 16th 2011, 10:41
Dr Adrian Vassalo and Marie-Louise Coleiro have said they are against divorce, I pray they remain faithful to their beliefs and reject this question. We need a question that is truthful and not misleading,
A question that does not make it appear that divorce is harmless and that it offers certain guarantees when it does not.
P. Vincenti
Mar 16th 2011, 10:39
The question that is being debated is a loaded pro-divorce question. It is very disturbing how MPs from the PL side, who claim to be against divorce, are in favor of this question.
It is being proposed as Dr Muscat is pro-Divorce and has now invested much capital in this venture. He cannot afford it to fail. What a shame that we have come to this.
I appeal to Dr Adrian Vassalo and Marie-Louise Coleiro, the good people that they are, please remain true to your beliefs and reject this pro-divorce question.
joe falzon
Mar 16th 2011, 10:38
Huwa fatt li legislazzjoni favur id-divorzju hija legislazzjoni kontra t-taghlim tal-Imghallem taghna Gesu' Kristu u kontra l-istess taghlim tal-Magisteru tal-Knisja li Gesu' fada biex twassal u tinterpreta t-taghlim tieghu. Bhalma mplika indirettament Dr. Pullicino Orlando, vot favur id-divorzju huwa vot inkompatibbli ma' dak li tghallem ir-religjon u l-Knisja. Ghaldaqstant dan huwa ta' messagg importanti ghall-insara kollha cioe' li r-rieda t'Alla u t-taghlim ta' Gesu' ghandhom jiehdu precedenza fuq kwalunkwe' fattur iehor.
'Mhux kull min jghidli Mulej Mulej jidhol fis-Saltna tas-Smewwiet imma min jaghmel ir-rieda ta' Missieri' jghid Gesu'. Alla ma jimponi xejn fuq hadd izda jiftah ghajnejn kulhadd. Il-kmandamenti t'Alla huma dawl li jaghtu direzzjoni cara u tajba biex il-bniedem jghix hajja li tixraq lid-dinjita' tieghu.
Dan Ir-referendum huwa opportunita' biex in-nisrani jikkonferma bil-fatti l-fidi nisranija tieghu li jistqarr fil-Kredu. Huwa opportunita' biex nistqarru u nuru lid-dinja kollha li l-kliem ta' Gesu huwa rilevanti ghal kull zmien. Niftakru f'dak li qalilna l-Papa li ahna ghandna nkunu ezempju ghall-Ewropa u ghad-dinja tal-fidi hajja taghna f'Gesu' Kristu l-Iben t'Alla l-haj.
Ramon Casha
Mar 16th 2011, 11:03
"Huwa fatt li legislazzjoni favur id-divorzju hija legislazzjoni kontra t-taghlim tal-Imghallem taghna Gesu' Kristu..."
Le, dan mhux fatt iżda opinjoni. Biżżejjed tħares lejn id-diversi Knejjes Insara li jaċċettaw id-divorzju biex tkun taf.
D. A . Agius
Mar 16th 2011, 11:10
"Alla ma jimponi xejn fuq hadd"
Mela int tippretendi li tkun iktar b'sahhtek minn Alla u timpon lil haddiehor kif jghix.
Min irid jimxi fuq li tghid il-Knisja ghandu ghazla facli, tiddivorzjax.
Imma apparti li tghix fi hdan Knisja int tghix f'socjeta' fejn hemm min ghandu bzonn u jixtieq ifittex il-ghazla tad-Divorzju.
Jekk trid infakkrek fi frazi partikulari li hija attribwita li Gesu': "Aghtu lil Alla dak li hu t'Alla u lil Cesri dak li huwa ta' Cesri".
Jekk Gesu' stess induna li m'ghandux jindahal fl-affarijiet tal-istat, kif xi membri ta' din il-Knisja jridu jindahlu? Safejn naf jien ma jghidlekx biex taghmel cert li haddiehor ma jaghmilx dnub, imma biex tahdem sabiex dak li jaghmlu ikun jaf x'ghamel u kif darb'ohra ma jaghmlux.
Bil-kampanja li ghaddejjin bhalissa u iktar u iktar b'xi karattru tipo Joe Zammit iktar qishom il-Kristjani ghandhom xi Krucjata ohra. Ma ndunawx li dawn spiccaw eluf ta' snin ilu!
Forsi ghandna bzonn infakkruhom ukoll li l-Krucjati ma nbdewx minhabba ragunijiet religjuzi imma minhabba r-reghba u l-hazen ta' Imperaturi u Kleru li kellhom aspirazzjonijiet fuq din l--art, mhux l-ohra! Tghid elf sena ohra hekk ser jghidu fuqkom?
K Camilleri
Mar 16th 2011, 11:16
Fil Bibja hemm ukoll li alla ihallik fil liberta kolla. Mela please halli lili fil liberta li naghzel il hajja li nixtieq u jekk inti nisrani u ma tridx id divorzju sempliciment tihdux. Pero halli lil dawk li mghandhomx twemmin bhal tieghek biex jiddeciedu huma xiridu jaghmlu bhajjithom. Din hi arroganza totali min naha ta min jemmen li jahseb li kulhad jemmen bir religjon tieghu. Vot favur id divorzju huwa vot favur id dritt li bniedem jghix hajtu kif jixtieq u ma jibqax ibati zball li jkun ghamel ta 25 sena.
s schembri
Mar 16th 2011, 11:34
D.A Agius
Bir rispett kollu imma qeghed tghid il-hmerijiet. Meta Gesu qal, "Aghtu lil Alla dak li hu t'Alla u lil Cesri dak li huwa ta' Cesri", Hu kien qed jirreferi ghat taxxi.
Lil Gesu staqsewh specifikament rigward id-divorzju u Hu qalilhom iswed fuq l-abjad li id-divorzju imur kontra il-pjan ta Alla. Inheggek li tmur fittex u aqra il bibbja sew.
Ganni Ellul
Mar 16th 2011, 10:34
JPO if you needed a divorce you should have tried for annulment. Is this tailor made for yourself? The no fault system will bring more trouble to the effected couples.Just you wait and see.
Ramon Casha
Mar 16th 2011, 11:01
We don't have to wait and see. Wherever it's been introduced, no-fault divorce has been shown to be the best of all possible options.
D. A . Agius
Mar 16th 2011, 11:03
Perfect example of what people think about annulment. Divorce in a different suit, with a fault attached. In fact, a fault based divorce would be the current annulment situation.
The no fault divorce means that yes, there was once a marriage, in all the good wishes of its members but at a point, and after four years of consideration, they decide to part.
What's wrong with that? If you're idealistic and believe that a marriage is still for ever, ask yourself, what does that mean? A marriage without a marriage? A marriage for the family relatives or the neighbourS? A marriage that does not exist but in name (or as is now, as previous history of a de facto or legal separation) is simply a dead body rotting within our society.
C. Briffa
Mar 16th 2011, 10:29
JPO mishekk tirezenja jekk vera ghandek pricipji sodda. Izda naf li ma ghandekx
Ramon Casha
Mar 16th 2011, 10:59
A brilliant speech. I'm not sure whether it will be enough to undo the damage being done by the PM and others on his side of the room though.
Ramon Casha
Mar 16th 2011, 11:00
Aħjar jirreżenjaw Gonzi, Gatt, Borg u oħrajn li kull meta jiftħu ħalqhom qed jagħmlu ħsara lill-PN.
C. Briffa
Mar 16th 2011, 11:13
@ Ramon Casha
Sa fejn naf jien JPO tkellem sabiex jaghmel hsara mhux lil PN izda lil Malta, issa ftit iehor jghidilna li jkun ta' Gid li nibdnu fil Mistra u nghidulu grazzi
D. A . Agius
Mar 16th 2011, 11:36
Principju sod ta Demokrazija huwa li jsir referendum imma tghid minn qabel li mhux ser tirrispettah?
M'ahniex nghidu li tinterpretah differenti minn haddiehor, kif kien il-kaz ta' Dr. Sant. Qed nghidu li ma jirrispettahx. Jarmih. JInjorah.
D. A . Agius
Mar 16th 2011, 11:51
Prosit C. Briffa.
Ghax ghall-binja fil-MIstra jew il- Prostituzzjoni tal- Pajjiz Malti mill-kuntratturi u mill- Ispekulazzjoni rajna Armata Organizzzata fi Krucjata sabiex dak li tghidulu il-holqien t'AllA ma jigix imkasbar.
Ghax hargu l-Isqfijiet bid-dnub il-mejjet fuq min jevadi t-taxxa jew ihammeg l-ambjent. Jew fuq min jabbuza minn niesu u bis - sahha tal- intelligenza moghtija lilu jaghzel li bhala Professur biex jinvistak ghal 5 minuti jehodlok Paga ta' gimgha!
Kulhadd ihabbat fuq sidru jghid htija tieghi imma kif johriog mill-Knisja tarah izekzek fuq dik u l-ohra.
Ma niftakrux meta l-iskejjel tal-Knisja ma ridux li jigu miftuhin ghal kulhadd?
Dik il-konvinzjoni Kristjana. I'm allright, **** you jack!
Joseph Cauchi
Mar 16th 2011, 10:27
During this debate JPO is continuously saying “meta il-Bambin jirid, id-divorzju jidhol”!
Is it possible that “Il-Bambin” i.e. Our Lord Jesus Christ, is in favour of divorce?
JC.
Karl Consiglio
Mar 16th 2011, 10:26
I agree with JPO on everything he has been saying and doing, I back him fully, only thing that saddens me is why he might be doing it.