Austin Bencini
Debate becomes ‘Nazi’
Once more it has to be reported that the divorce debate is focusing more on polemic than the real issue the electorate is called to vote on in the May 28 referendum. Two incidents in particular stand out among many.
One of the more condemnable incidents occurred when during a public debate last week, the pro-divorce movement referred to a document stating, we were told, that the common good is to prevail over the individual, only to reveal that the statement had been lifted from a Nazi Party document.
The aim was to associate the anti-divorce arguments based on the common good with the ideology of the Nazis. Apart from the slanderous nature of the equation, what hurt most was the intelligence of all those present at the debate.
It was left to the Marriage Without Divorce movement to protest at such a preposterous statement, pointing out that it was precisely for that reason that the international movement of fundamental human rights gained currency after World War II, so that no political majority could crush the fundamental rights of the individual and of the family.
The break-up of a marriage through divorce is neither a fundamental right nor part of the common good.
The second equally disheartening incident was to see Roamer’s column (April 10) and Martin Scicluna, both normally purporting to represent the rational approach to issues, falling prey to petty squabbling of a personal nature, with the unacceptable use of three former Presidents as their cannon fodder.
This is totally unacceptable. Roamer even went so far as to belittle the achievements of the late Guido de Marco as foreign minister simply because the staunch pro-divorce Scicluna belittled Eddie Fenech Adami and had referred favourably to de Marco’s comment to that “we must do something about this problem. We cannot go on as we are.”
I was privileged to have discussed many times the issue of the family and its multi-faceted problems with the late de Marco, and to reduce his razor-sharp intellect to a mere sentence would indeed be reductive to the extreme. Equally, to belittle the contribution he made to peace and stability, particularly in the Mediterranean, would be plainly wrong, not to say sad.
This is not only my assessment but that of countless contributions of heads of state, leading diplomats and authorities the world over which had poured in their scores as soon as de Marco’s untimely death was announced. They all gave evidence of his foresight and above all his unflinching dedication to make of Malta an EU member without for one moment losing sight of Malta’s mission within the Mediterranean.
Such unreserved praise and recognition must never be seen as belittling the fundamental contribution which presidents Fenech Adami, Ċensu Tabone and Ugo Mifsud Bonnici each offered over decades of intense collaboration with de Marco. Together they made of Malta the respected international player it is today.
De Marco put as his first and foremost priority the family values which distinguish the Maltese family from that of other country.
His acute intelligence, however, did not allow him to be used by anyone or anything, and much less would he have allowed Roamer or Scicluna to do so. He would have analysed the current divorce debate through his widely recognised analytical prowess in an objective way.
Once, in a meeting on the family, the issue of divorce came up when he was Minister of Justice in the first post-1987 Nationalist legislature. I remember distinctly his thought.
He clearly portrayed divorce was not something that in itself Malta needed; however, he did say that unless the issues of the family are dealt with, the pressure to introduce divorce would increase. He even referred to the analogy of a pressure cooker, which if not properly handled might explode.
How can one therefore corrupt the thinking of such a conscientious intellect into a ping-pong match at the service of such a superficial and partisan polemic.
Make no mistake about the fact that de Marco was a true and profound Christian. If proof were ever needed of this then no better one exists than the masterful, heartfelt appreciation written by Fenech Adami when he summed up to perfection his long-time friend, colleague and co-campaigner as having been a true Christian.
Famously, he described their relationship as that of a “parilja”, where sometimes it was one and sometimes the other who helped both to remain on the middle path.
Let no man put asunder the mutual gentlemanly respect that existed between Fenech Adami and de Marco.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
15 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mr Andrew Mumford
Apr 21st 2011, 11:29
Lets not get hung up on the injudicious use of the term 'Nazi'. Nor is it particularly helpful to throw around terms like 'despicable'. This is an important debate, and should be approached as such, in an adult manner.
The stance of the anti-divorce movement is obviously proscriptive - i.e. they believe that divorce should be denied to their fellow citizens - the question is, can that prohibition still be regarded as valid in today's society solely on the basis of religious belief?
Ms Sabrina Borda
Apr 18th 2011, 17:07
Using a metaphor or an analogy like 'Nazi' to challenge or explain subversive insurrections is not a criminal act or even in the least bit offensive especially when it is used to demonstrate a valid point or a simple example.
The 'Le' movement's insurrection against divorce has been designed specifically to fight some peoples right to freedom.
The common good is fair only when society exists for the need of each individual.
The common good is clearly not in the 'LE' movement's best interest as they aim to meddle in private affairs they leave many out in the freezing cold.
I find the subversive actions against divorce very intrusive, offensive and forged especially to constrict ones personal freedom and movements leading away from the right private path an individual ought to choose.
The 'Le' movement are forcing many to live their lives the way only they deem fit others to live it, assuming they are so pure to set their trend.
What are they trying to create a society that is Pure as the one Adolf Hitler wanted for his kind of common good? Isn't it enough we are also being sent to Hell by the Maltese Christians, see these blogs ?
Mr Andy Farrugia
Apr 18th 2011, 18:49
You are indeed a despicable person to use such language in relation to those who may not agree with your views. Only desperate people will stoop to such base levels. Shame.
Mr charles caruana
Apr 18th 2011, 21:24
Your concept of analogy rivals that of St .Thomas Aquinas and your understanding of metaphor puts to shame Paul Ricoeur. But it is your application of the word Nazi to the ‘subversive insurrection’ of the ‘Le movement’ that reaches dizzying heights of intellectual acumen which quite overshadow the brilliant use of the term by Ms Mizzi.
From your generous labelling of the anti-divorce movement a s subversives against freedom you would think of them as Iraqi suicide bombers blowing themselves up along with liberal freedom fighters like your good self to smithereens. Is this another touch of hysteria?
‘The common good is fair only when society exists for the need of each individual.’ So according to your impeccable logic, society is there to cater for every need of each individual, even if these needs may include bigamy or polygamy or why not incest. Otherwise the common good is not fair, isn’t it?
So the people in the anti-divorce movement are trying to create the PURE society like Adolf Hitler are they? Inanity has never found such sublime expression.
Mr Robert Gatt
Apr 19th 2011, 09:30
Ms Borda, one should indeed have a cheek to expect that in marriage, spouses should have "personal freedom and movements" and to state that "the 'Le' movement are 'forcing' (sic) many to live their lives the way they only deem fit", more so to equate the anti-divorce lobby's views with those of Adolf Hitler's. Shame. Somebody in another blog said that "time is on our (pro-divorce lobby's) side." I rather say the exact opposite, with comments such as yours, indicative on the shallow arguments which pro-divorce proponents resort to in presenting their senseless arguments.
The fact is that while one is free to enter or not enter into the marriage bond, he or she is no longer free to do anything he/she likes if choosing to enter into marriage. Pro-divorce lobbyists like yourself want to put forward the argument that, in the name of the common good, it is perfectly desirable to have a society composed of people whose choose freely and who are never bound by the consequences of their choices. This, pro-divorce lobbyists like yourself are saying, is the common good. I'd rather say that this is tantamount to a supermarket of self-implicated "rights"!
Mr John Cassar
Apr 19th 2011, 20:25
Ms Borda, I support your rationale 100%. You are not despicable but realistic and analytical.
Common good has been used as a reason to justify actions by a plethora of people varying from popes to tyrants.
The no camp may howl and cry foul all they like. The truth is that anyone lobbying to prevent the right to divorce is lobbying to prevent people suffering from a broken marriage (who were lucky enough to find someone else I hasten to add) from a second chance at happiness.
They prefer to keep the notion that people who separate must either co-habit or bear it and grin.
A vote in favour of divorce is a vote of solidarity.
A vote against divorce is just an expression of selfishness based on a particular dogma.
Keep it up - common sense in relation to real common good will prevail.
Mr d. attard
Apr 17th 2011, 12:26
I agree with zammit's call. The Catholic Church's status is allowed by our constitution on the understanding that Malta is a Catholic Country.
The Catholic Church decided to adopted a militant stance against divorce.
Therefore, should the yes to divorce vote exceed say the 20 to 25% mark despite the clear stance taken by the church, the church's priviledges as allowed by the constitution. must be revised. Its privilged position at the core of our education system should also be similarly revised.
The influence of a non-democratic institution on a free state are not tenable in said circumstances.
Mr John Cassar
Apr 19th 2011, 20:32
I wonder what you will say if the divorce vote exceeds the 50% mark or more??
Personally I find no reason to change things in relation to the church, whatever the result.
However divorce is a civil matter - period.
Mr Andy Farrugia
Apr 17th 2011, 12:15
I am afraid Dr Bencini got it terribly wrong in conflating what Roamer and Scicluna wrote about. Whereas he is correct about Scicluna's offensive drivel and petulant waffle, Dr Bencini most probably misread and misunderstood Roamer's contribution.
Mr M Borg
Apr 17th 2011, 21:29
I agree with you. I saw no wrong in what Roamer wrote.
Ms Lina CARUANA
Apr 17th 2011, 11:47
Ms Vella should know that unmarried people including nuns and priests are like the man at the foot of the cross carried by Christ the Redeemer.They have weight in the burden of broken families. By what authority would she exclude sectors of society from voicing their opinion ? So much for social inclusion and nazi talk.
Mr Joe Zammit
Apr 17th 2011, 10:08
A simple argument:
The Constitution is above all national laws.
The Constitution states that the authorities of the Catholic Church have the right and duty to teach what principles are good and what principles are bad.
Therefore, the right and duty of the authorities of the Catholic Church to teach what principles are good and what principles are bad are above ALL national laws, including the Electoral (Polling) Ordinance, such that the Church can continue to teach also in a referendum, general elections and during a vote in Parliament.
N.B. Article 2(2) of the Constitution is entrenched.
Either Marriage or divorce!!
Mr M Vella***
Apr 17th 2011, 11:00
If priests and nuns, who are celibate and are involved in issues that do not concern them or their belief/fantasy in any way, can vote and tip the scales, then why can`t laymen/women cast their votes in the election of new popes in the Vatican, or who gets promoted to bishop or mother superior?
A message to the anti divorce people - If you are happy in your relationship, don't interfere in others, remember it might happen to you!!
.Don't cohabit but marry so vote YES FOR DIVORCE.
Ray Briffa
Apr 17th 2011, 11:14
So according to Mr Zammit, the Catholic Church is the eternal Government of Malta. We might as well do away with General Elections then!
Mr David Farrugia
Apr 17th 2011, 12:53
Let's start with the right and duty to teach about child abuse and the role of the clergy, Joe!