Civil rights should not be decided by referenda - Alfred Sant
Divorce is a civil right and civil rights should not be decided by a referendum, former Labour leader Alfred Sant said this morning.
Speaking on Radju Malta's programme Ghandi x'Nghid, Dr Sant said that his government had embarked on a genuine attempt to strengthen Maltese families between 1996 and 1998.
This attempt had also included the consideration of divorce for when marriages failed. This had led to a major campaign against him "but life goes on," Dr Sant said.
He stressed that divorce was a civil right and it was a mistake that the issue had come to a referendum.
The decision, he said, should have been taken by Parliament.
"If it is a civil right what you or I think is irrelevant... Minority rights have to be respected," Dr Sant said.
He said that he had never agreed with referenda as a way of taking decisions.
It was the government which should decide on matters relating to civil rights. He said he had also not agreed when his party had promised a referendum on divorce in its 1998 electoral manifesto. However, he had accepted the majority decision within his party.
Earlier in the programme, Dr Sant also said that he did not agree with censorship in general although he did agree there should be censorship on certain issues, such as child pornography and racial discrimination.
He said he did not agree with the position taken by the University rector in the Alex Vella Gera novel issue pointing out that the university should be a haven of research and free debate.
What had happened, he said, showed that the university was still bound to old systems which were very restrictive. This should not be the case.
Dr Sant criticised the way Parliament was working since Malta became a member of the EU.
"Instead of being policy makers, we are turning into policy takers," he said saying that Maltese parlamentariants were not being proactive enough.
19 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mr carmel tonna
Apr 17th 2011, 08:32
The dark ages have returned.
But only for the gullible!!
Mr C Muscat
Apr 17th 2011, 02:06
Up to now all marriages whether christian or civil state that the civil contract between the couple is for life. So up to now whoever marry signs a contract with the other to stay married up to the death of one of the two. For me, that I live in a country where a man is to marry only one wife, this means that whatever happens (including annulments) there should be no remarrying. Divorce will only mean another blow to the agreement between the couple. If someday, divorce legislation is to be introduced, it should be for couples that agreed beforehand (on the day of marriage) to accept in the mutual agreement that the marriage is to stay until otherwise decided by any part of the contract.
Mark Saliba
Apr 17th 2011, 16:28
Let's be fair now Mr. Muscat, contracts get terminated all the time for one party failing to live up to their end of the agreement. As the typical vows go; "to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part." If one of the parties involved stops loving and cherishing the other one, then the rules of the contract have been terminated and it becomes null and void.
But honestly though, everyone... why are we really arguing about this? The world isn't dictated by the church anymore, we don't go to wars on the pope's whim or burn people at a stake because a priest told us that that person had a demon in them. There are only 2 countries in the world without divorce, it's not a badge of honour, it's a scar of shame.
If people want a divorce, they'll go abroad and have it done; if people want an abortion, they'll go abroad and have it done. The lack of laws is nothing more than a temporary hinderance for anyone with the means and enough will. I personally wish that every family got along fine and happy and there was never any problems that couldn't be solved with a little counseling and love, but that's not what the world is like... that's not what people are like. No matter which deity you pray to or which person behind a microphone you listen to, it won't change the fact that sometimes marriages just don't work out.
Mr Anton PIsani
Apr 17th 2011, 00:37
100% agree with Dr. Sant. This is an issue that should not be decided by a referendum. With regards to whether its a sin for a Cathlic to vote in favour of divorce can someone pls answer the following question: suppose there's another referendum and we're asked to vote whether it should be legal to commit adultery or if it should be legal to omit church on Sunday. Putting aside the argument that there should never be such a referendum for the same reason why there should not be a referendum on divorce, are we saying that catholics are supposed to vote NO cos its against our Commandments and possibly ask our Courts to prosecute the offenders ? Voting Yes does not mean being embracing divorce, adultery or atheism but distinguishing between one's personal moral values and Civil Law.
Mr Anthony Mizzi
Apr 16th 2011, 22:16
Fully agree!
Civil rights are fundamental and equal for all the members of a society , a benchmark for a civil society especially if Malta is accepting overseas divorce legislation !
Why is the right to obtain a divorce for a local from overseas not be available here...and with the due legislation for responsible divorce settlement?
Mr Karl Farrugia
Apr 16th 2011, 20:46
LAUGH OUT LOAD @Sinning against christ! We are not all christian in this country bear that in mind. I am maltese but not a christian.
Mr Christopher Briffa
Apr 17th 2011, 00:58
Hallina Mr Zammit, is this how you want to convince people, ghadek ma ndunajtx that the whole Borg in Nadur circus is a scam and not recognised by the church authorities.
Mr Joe Zammit
Apr 16th 2011, 20:32
BORG IN-NADUR:
(P285) Messaġġ tal-1 ta’ Settembru, 2010,
“Għeżież uliedi, u wliedi ta’ qalbi! Dan biex darb’oħra tgħadduh lin-nies ma’ Fr Hayden.
Din is-sitwazzjoni f’pajjiżkom xejn m’hi sabiħa. Fuqha kellimtkom erba’ snin ilu biex tippreparaw ruħkom għaliha. Issa ż-żmien qegħdin fih.
Kulħadd fuq fommu d-divorzju. Id-divorzju tiela’ u d-divorzju nieżel. Jiktbu wkoll kontra l-Knisja u kontra l-qassisin. Imma ftakru, uliedi, li ż-żwieġ ma jistax jinħall. Mhux il-Knisja għamlet hekk, imma Ibni Ġesù.
Int, mara li taħdem, li toħroġ kmieni għax-xogħol, qed tagħti kas lill-familja u lil żewġek? Int raġel li tmur għax-xogħol ukoll, qed tagħti kas ta’ martek? Jew hemm xi ħaddieħor fuq ix-xogħol aħjar minnha - mingħalik? Jew int il-boss u ġġiegħel lil dawk ta’ taħtek jagħmlu dak li trid int?
Uliedi, sar kollox xejn mhu xejn. Sar kollox jgħaddi: ‘X’jimpurtani!’ tgħidu. Qed tagħtu kas x’jgħid Ibni Ġesù? Jekk tagħtu kas, ma tiżbaljaw qatt.
Grazzi wliedi, talli smajtu s-sejħa tiegħi.
Mr John Azzopoardi
Apr 16th 2011, 18:31
The choice for divorce is a civil right. The same way we should be granted the right to vote. The time has come in Malta to legalize divorce. If this is not done during the referendum or by our elected officials, it will be only a matter of time before divorce is instituted in Malta. I cannot believe why irrevocable broken marraiges cannot be dissolved. And I don't mean by an annulment. I mean, legally by law. We cannot keep lliving in the middle ages on this issue and it's the state responsibility to separate this issue from being a church issue. The church is right in sticking to it's position and preach for strong marriages. It is with a strong marriage (whether via a catholic ceremony or civil ceremony) is a strong society built upon. There are many marriages that are much stronger the second time around. I see a lot of young people getting married, but they don't even know the meaning of what marriage is all about.
Mr mario gellel
Apr 16th 2011, 17:56
@Mr Joe Zammit
Then for you only the Church is higher than God. They Annull marriages, don't they ?????
IPOKRESIJA GRASSA
Mr Julian Carabott
Apr 16th 2011, 17:07
The sweet arrogance of a liberal who thinks he is above democracy.
Divorce is a trade-off between individual rigths and the wider benefit of society.
Decisions surrounding such trade-offs need a general consensus.
A referendum on this issue is the fairest decision possible.
Mr Edward Camilleri
Apr 16th 2011, 16:37
True divorce is a civil right and parliament should have introduced without a referendum.
Instead of having a healthy debat on how best to introduce divorce, this subject was reduced to a fight if divorce should be introduced or not.
Mr Joseph Calleja
Apr 17th 2011, 14:49
Divorce is:
A solution for all those who fall under domestic violence.
A solution for those who are mentally and physically abused.
A solution for those spouses who are cheated on day after day.(Adultery)
A solution for those who cannot bare to see their children physically and mentally abused by the other spouse
A solution for those who see their spouse come home drunk and reek the smell of another woman/man.
A solution for those whose marriage has already failed.
ANNULMENT=DIVORCE. One and the same
Divorce is not a disease like you would like everybody to think it is, but a cure for a failed. marriage which has no other recourse. Divorce is only there for those who need it. Divorce is a human right which should be afforded to all.
Mr Joe Zammit
Apr 16th 2011, 16:34
Rights are positive. Divorce is negative, so it is no right. Rights entail duties. Divorce entails no duty (not even to remarry), so it is no right.
The European Convention on Human Rights is reticent on divorce, so divorce is no right.
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is mum on divorce, so divorce is no right.
Therefore, any argument depicting divorce as a right in view of introducing it in our legislation is flawed right at the start.
No MP, no person can vote in favour of divorce without sinning seriously against God. Christ tells all our MPs, all voters that what God has joined together let no MP, no voter put asunder. Any MP, any voter who votes for divorce is betraying Christ.
Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed!
Victor Pulis
Apr 16th 2011, 18:03
any voter who votes for divorce is betraying Christ. Joe Zammit
And any institution which separates (Puts asunder) validly married couples is also betraying Christ.
Mr Daniel Schembri
Apr 16th 2011, 19:18
Your logic is more primitive than presocractic thinkers.
''Rights are positive. Divorce is negative, so it is no right. Rights entail duties. Divorce entails no duty (not even to remarry), so it is no right.''
Life is not that simple Joe.
And by the way...God and the devil is a dualism in people's head. So please, live in 2011 and not in 1102 BC.
Mr Chris Mifsud
Apr 16th 2011, 19:43
Oh shut up! Your comments are not funny anymore.
Mr David Buttigieg
Apr 16th 2011, 11:49
"He stressed that divorce was a civil right and it was a mistake that the issue had come to a referendum.
The decision, he said, should have been taken by Parliament.
"If it is a civil right what you or I think is irrelevant... Minority rights have to be respected," Dr Sant said."
I disagree with you on so many things Dr Sant, but on this you are the only one in parliament to be spot on!
This referendum is a farce!
Andrew Borg-Cardona
Apr 16th 2011, 11:24
So why did he keep quiet when his Leader was pulling his u-turn on the idea? Joseph Muscat was first against a referendum and then came out in favour - even messing up 2800 voters in the process!