Updated: Divorce Movement accused of dishonesty on recognition of foreign divorces
The movement against divorce this afternoon accused the Divorce Movement of trying to confuse the people's minds after it claimed that Malta last year recognised an average of one foreign-registered divorce per week.
The Zwieg Bla-Divorzju Movement said it was dishonest of the Divorce Movement not to have said that Malta was obliged to recognise decisions taken by foreign courts, in the same way as decisions by the Maltese courts are recognised aborad.
Furthermore, the Divorce Movement should have said how many of the foreign-recognised divorces were between foreigners who opted to move to Malta.
It said that the type of divorce which the Divorce Movement wanted to 'impose' on Maltese society would be quick no-fault divorce after only four years.
During the Divorce Movement press conference, former Nationalist Minister Michael Falzon said the authorities in Malta last year, on average, recognised one foreign-registered divorce per week.
He said that the enactment of a Divorce Law in Malta would end discrimination between those who could afford to live abroad in order to get divorced, and those who could not.
Labour MP Evarist Bartolo, speaking outside Evans Building, where civil marriages are registered, said that in the 36 years since Malta started recognising divorce granted abroad, recognition had been granted in 785 cases.
The rate was constantly increasing, he said. The spouses were either both Maltese, both foreigners, or a mix. Over the years, 422 of the divorces recognised by Malta were registered in the UK, followed by 112 from Australia, 43 from the US, 31 from Germany, 29 from Canada, and 18 from Italy.
Mr Bartolo said that even if the proposed divorce law was enacted, getting divorced in Malta would still be much harder than in those countries.
Deborah Schembri, chairman of the Divorce Movement, observed that the No camp was not opposing the recognition of overseas divorce. In the Philippines they stuck to their principles and all divorces were forbidden and not recognised.
(Figures given in parliament by Austin Gatt recently, show that 47 overseas divorces were recognised last year).
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...
'No need for early election if PM's...
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...
105 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
George Debono
May 11th 2011, 18:24
RE “……….the type of divorce which the Divorce Movement wanted to 'impose' on Maltese society would be
quick no-fault divorce after only four years…..”
Impose??
Sorry, but this is twisting words. Nobody wants to "impose" divorce on anybody. It is the anti-divorce people who want to impose the ban on divorce on others. Divorce, if introduced will be a matter of choice and not an imposition.
Mr Mike Abbot
May 12th 2011, 13:23
i find it odd that the faithful have no faith in their faith.
it's seems that having divorce as a choice would test that faith beyond breaking point.
ah, choice... terrible thing. better to blindly keep the faith intact then recognise any of benefits of that choice.
Mr Saviour falzon
May 11th 2011, 08:38
Take away our hearts of stone, and give us a heart of flesh.
A Yes Vote to implement a caring, concerned and compassionate response to marital breakdowns.
I hope that you will make every effect to give a resounding YES on the 28th of May to civil rights, compassion,generosity and courageous concern
Ms B Cassar
May 11th 2011, 07:57
U aqtawha issa, xebbajtu lil kulhadd tilghabu it-tennis. Malta spiccajt il-vera tad-dahk. Kulhadd irid juri kemm jaf, ma jafx jilhaq salibu u jaghlaq halqu. Halluhom in-nies jivvutaw li jridu issa, ilkom thambqu xhur shah issa. Mhux gimgha qabel l-elezzjoni imissha titwaqqaf il-propaganda kollha imma anke xaghar. Haduli rasi kull fejn taqleb it-TV divorzju biss.
Issa il-bierah qalu li qed jitqassmu is-santi ukoll bil-madonna tibki u x'naf jien. Il-vera ghal gol hajt min jahseb li in-nies ghadhom daqshekk boloh. Forsi hawn min jimpressjona ruhu imma hafna mill-generazzjonijiet zghar mhux se tbellawlhom ir-ross bil-labra.
Alqulu issa u hallu lil kulhadd fil-kwiet jivvota li jrid. Igri jghaddi dan ir-referendum forsi naqtawwha din ta min hu qaddis u min hu xitan. Kulhadd bir-raggiera dan l-ahhar hej! Sturdejtu lil kulhadd bil-billboards u x'naf jien. Qas issuq bil-kwiet ma tista. Mela mobile ma tistax tuza meta issuq ghax "distraction" u all jbierek dawk ir-reklami u bil-boards ma kullimkien mhux "distraction". Pajjiz tal-mickey mouse.
Mr John Cassar
May 11th 2011, 07:29
The statements made by the Hon Bartolo are factual and pretty correct. These figures give a beter insight into what is going on in Malta.
ZbD is delusional at best when it claims that the divorce movement is dishonest, due to the fact that Malta has to recognize foreign divorces. The Philippines do not recognize any foreign court divorces (for Catholics) and if ZbD was consistent they should be campaigning for the same thing.
As for dishonesty in this campaign, here are a few examples of it:
Flimkien Ghal (u uliedna Biss)
Divorzju bla raguni ( a myth)
Zwieg li jiskadi ( does it?)
I am sure we will see some more in the next two weeks.
Raymond Sacco
May 11th 2011, 00:15
prisons, hospitals................are they pleasant? would the world be a far better place without them? yes, of course! but would criminality and sickness cease if humanity close them down? the same argument applies for divorce! it's not pleasant and the world would do without it. but would marriages stop breaking up if divorce is abolished? is malta free from marriage break ups because we have no divorce? it's only common sense for those who have it!
Mr Saliba Francis
May 11th 2011, 00:02
@JosephCalleja (May 10 18.09 hrs)
I have just read you comment recommending divorce as a cure-all panacea for all sorts of ills - domestic violence, the mentally nd physically abused, cheating spouses, drunken husbands, etc
Are you sure that divorce will not also cure corns and bunions?
(Sgd) Francis Saliba M.D.
Mr Saliba Francis
May 10th 2011, 23:40
@Mr Joseph Calleja (10 May 2011 18.31 hrs)
Why go to all that trouble only to confirm that the promised “guarantees” in the proposed JPO-Bartolo proposed bills are a sham and a deception? That is what I have been saying along. The promised guarantees cannot be extracted from the divorcees themselves - they will have to be underwritten by the rest of society, i.e. you and me. The guarantees will have to come out of the pockets of the deceived and cheated taxpayers who are being led to believe that divorce is some private matter with no dire consequences to society at large!
You give the impression, perhaps unwittingly, that you even object to the four-year waiting period as being far too long and useless. Thank you, very much, sir, for confirming that, if it depended on the divorce lobby, that period would soon be whittled down so as to bring it into line with the modern Nevada type, easy and quick divorce, with no questions asked or reasons demanded. Again, thank you very much, sir, for confirming our suspicion that the proposed divorce bill is a Nevada style quickie divorce in the making with no pretence of being a more serious version.
Since you brought the matter up yourself, yes, I am a doctor sadly familiar with the difficulties faced by cancer patients and their families. Medical ethics demand that we do not stand idly by, leaving the problem and the decisions in the lap of the distressed patient and his family. Doctors are expected to do everything possible to save and prolong that imperiled life as comfortably as possible. They do not adopt, and they do not recommend any quick solution by “divorcing” the sick patient from his/her life or from children and spouse by the extreme measure of killing off the patient – not even after a waiting period of four years. Only odd-balls doctors carry out euthanasia.
Mr FRANS H SAID
May 10th 2011, 22:53
No fault - No reason - how long are the "NO" going to keep on turning in circles. They are implying that in certain instances divorce is justified.
The number of foreigners and Maltese is irrelevant. Even if only one couple was Maltese, these still have their divorce recognised by Malta.
The foreign divorces are recognised by MALTA because our government wanted to recognise them. This is double talk. The Gov and the Church can still lobby that, like the Philippins, no divorce can ever be recognised. But it is all right to be against the Maltese as long as we are seen to be puppets by the foreigners.
Mr Adrian Vella
May 11th 2011, 09:13
What difference is there between your long statement regarding divorce and separation?
Mr M Borg
May 10th 2011, 22:51
@ Kevin Cassar
" Please learn the meaning of the term " loaded " before putting it in a sentence."
It is because I know the meaning that I used it. Maybe at school you were taught that loaded means filled or weighted.,
Do you know that there is another meaning to it ?
I wrote " their referendum question is dishonest and loaded " .
It is not loaded because it is filled with something, but because it is worded in such a way as to make people believe somthing which is not there. Anyone who uses a loaded question hopes it will cause people to respond in a particular way.
That is what the pro- divorce did with their question., they are trying to fool people.
Their referendum question gives the impression that maintenance is guaranteed, when we all know that it is not so. It gives the impression that it is a " responsible divorce " when this form of responsible divorce was refused by the British Government because it would encourage divorce. We all know that the four years separation period is another joke.
If this is not a dishonest loaded question , I so not know what is.
" Their billboards do not make sense. "
Why should we vote in favour of divorce just because they put a picture of a battered woman on a billboard ?Any animal could have performed this act, her father, brother, boyfriend, or even her mother. Will divorce help her ?
Are we voting yes to grant divorce to this woman or to make divorce available to the whole nation ?
Why put a picture of a baby born out of wedlock to make us vote yes for divorce.
Will divorce stop couples from cohabiting ? No
Will divorce force all couples to remarry ? No
Will divorce bring an end to single parents ? No
The outcome will be the very opposite. The number of children born out of wedlock will increase. So why try to fool us with billboards which make no sense ?
Why try to confuse us by not saying that most of the foreign recognised divorces were between foreign nationals ?
Mr Matthew Grima
May 11th 2011, 10:03
"Their referendum question gives the impression that maintenance is guaranteed"
Maintenance will be settled at separation stage, divorce is the last step, maintenance has nothing to do with it.
"We all know that the four years separation period is another joke."
No we don't, how did you come to that conclusion? It's in the proposed bill, so why is it a joke?
"Will divorce stop couples from cohabiting ? No
Will divorce force all couples to remarry ? No
Will divorce bring an end to single parents ? No"
If one of the couple is separated but wishes the marry they currently can't. It won't stop ALL cohabiting couples, but it will give a chance to those currently cohabiting to marry.
It will not force anyone to remarry, but it will give them the opportunity.
It will not bring an end to single parents, but it will be their choice to be single parents if divorce is introduced.
"The outcome will be the very opposite. The number of children born out of wedlock will increase. So why try to fool us with billboards which make no sense ?"
Unless you have any REAL data to support your claim, this comment is useless.
Mr Kevin Cassar
May 11th 2011, 11:30
A loaded question is one that contains an assumption that makes it impossible to answer, because both answering yes and no would acknowledge that particular assumption. A very commonly used example is the question "have you stopped beating your wife?" If one answers yes, he is admitting to have at some time beat his wife, and if he answers no then it means he is still doing it.
Now tell me how the divorce question fits within the criteria of a loaded question?
By the way, you don't have to take my word for it, just look it up yourself and you will find the definition of "loaded question".
Ms Lina CARUANA
May 10th 2011, 22:21
The real truth is that divorce is never spoken of as a "good" anywhere but more as a perceived solution of a neccesary evil for some
Mr Victor Laiviera
May 10th 2011, 21:51
The people who dreamed up the deceitful and deliberately misleading phrase "Żwieġ bla Raġuni" are accusing others of dishonesty!
You cannot find a better illustration of the old Maltese proverb "Il-Qaħba milli jkollha ttik!"
Ms D Galea
May 10th 2011, 21:45
The wise old owl lived in an oak...the more he heard the less he spoke...the less he spoke the more he heard...the wise old owl was a wise old bird...
Mr Marco Cremona
May 10th 2011, 21:24
The Zwirg Bla Divorzju Movement said that "the Divorce Movement should have said how many of the foreign-recognised divorces were between foreigners who opted to move to Malta.".
Why didn't the Zwieg Bla Divorzju Movement just provide this data themselves so that we educate ourselves? or is their press comment only intended to rubbish the other side?
No better than our politicians, I'm sorry to say.
Mr Adrian Vella
May 10th 2011, 20:14
Does anyone still believe that with a no vote he / she is going to save Malta's marriages??? If yes dream on. I'd love to wash your faces maybe and just maybe you 'll wake up to reality!! I still cannot understand the logic behind the no camp's beliefs. Why do they want to control my life? Who are they to control my life???
Mr B. Fenech
May 10th 2011, 21:20
Maybe they want to the best for their lives & those of their children
Gerry Cowie
May 10th 2011, 19:43
~This just gets better and better! The pro divorce movement remains the best kept secret weapon of the anti divorce movement!
Mr Joseph Calleja
May 10th 2011, 20:30
Mr Cowie, again with the reverse psychology? How gullible do you think the Maltese people are? I would say it is the other way around. Stop playing games. The anti divorce movement is pulling the last straw and you know it. As a matter of fact they are using the old scare and damnation tactic. They are even using children as a weapon against divorce but never yet have they mentioned anything negative about annulments. I wonder why? And yes with comments like yours, it does get better for the Pro Divorce Movement. If the divorce initiative does not go through this time, it will surely go through next time because the young children of today will be eligible to vote and they won't be so easy to coerce. Ignorance is bliss and the anti divorce movement is making full use of that.
Mark Jones
May 10th 2011, 20:33
Totally agree. Every time Deborah Schembri opens her mouth, in goes her foot.
What might - nay, should - have been a serious debate has just descended into low farce.
Mr John Cassar
May 11th 2011, 07:30
Frankly I was thinking the exact reverse of my friend Austin Bencini!!
Mr Matthew Grima
May 10th 2011, 19:23
People who keep quoting the Bible should know better, you need to follow every single rule on not select ones, stop judging others (up until now, I've not seen a proper reply when someone quotes this rule to the holier than thou brigade). The bible is to be read by people who want to read it, it should be followed by those who want to follow it.
Not everyone in Malta is a practicing catholic, so let everyone live their own lives and stop bothering them with your believes, if one cares about your believes, they're already practicing them, and if they're not, they're going against your club's believes and not Malta's as a country..
Mr Saliba Francis
May 11th 2011, 07:16
@Matthew Grima
You should not be confused or led astray by the profuse accusations of "judging" bandied about with careless abandon! That is a "coloured term" levelled selectively and always in one direction viz. only against those who disagree with the proposed divorce bill and who defend the official teaching of the church about what is right and what is wrong - they are the "baddies"!
When disagreement is expressed by those in favour of divorce - the "goodies" according to you - they are not judging at all, perish the thought, they are only modestly exercising their right to freedom of expression.
Simple! Ain't it! All you have to remember is to choose the spectacles with the correct tint at the right time.
Mr Matthew Grima
May 11th 2011, 09:54
I'm sorry Francis, maybe you have not judged others, I don't know.
But I've seen countless comments sending others to damnation, labeling people "perverted" because their marriage failed.
Ms Maria Vassallo
May 10th 2011, 18:59
Give LOVE a second chance:
why not a third chance,
why not a fourth chance,
why not a fifth chance,
why not a sixth chance,
why not a seventh chance,
why not an eight chance.
signed:
Elizabeth Taylor
Zsa Zsa Gabor
Susan Hayward
Brigitte Bardot
et alia.
Mr Adrian Vella
May 10th 2011, 20:17
Ever heard of a song by Bon Jovi "its my life"...... if not its high time you do :D
Mr Denis Pace
May 10th 2011, 20:40
Adrian
It's your life...
If a marriage is messed up...don't mess up a second..
Stay single
Mr Matthew Grima
May 10th 2011, 20:53
Well done Denis Pace, the most deliberate way of telling people what to do with their own lives.
Mr Marco Cremona
May 10th 2011, 21:21
@ Denis Pace.
Clearly you follow Christian philosophy
"Do onto others as you wish done onto yourself"?.
I, on the other hand, do not wish your marriage to fail.
Mr Marco Cremona
May 10th 2011, 21:30
@ Ms. Maria Vassallo
Do not ridicule the argument. Are the glamorous people you mention typical of the general (Maltese) public?
Mr Victor Laiviera
May 10th 2011, 21:47
Ms Maria Vassallo, if introducing divorce will make all Maltese women like like Elizabeth Taylor, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Susan Hayward, Brigitte Bardot et al, we should have done it ages ago! ;)
Lets be serious please - this is a serious subject and it' not nice of you to make fun of the people suffering in a failed marriage.
Mr Wally Vella-Zarb
May 11th 2011, 00:09
And your point is?
Ms Rudi Mcbeal
May 11th 2011, 00:25
@ Denis Pace
Very well said.
Mr Alistaire Gill
May 10th 2011, 18:59
@ Joweph M Camilleri
Jiddispjacini habib, imma l-verita' toffendi. Billi ndahhlu rasna fir-ramel ma nkunu qed nidhqu b'hadd hlief bina nfusna
Joseph M Camilleri
May 10th 2011, 18:37
Divorzju dritt uman imma jien offiz bil billboards ta JPO
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=divorce+malta&aq=f
Mr Edmund Azzopardi
May 10th 2011, 18:36
A big farce. Why can't we act like normal people do in other countries when they have a referendum?
Come to think of it, from what I am experiencing, may I ask why do we Maltese have only ONE saint? Very strange indeed.
Anthony Cassar
May 11th 2011, 09:06
Given the significant number of babies in Malta being born outside marriage........are you sure there is any logic in saying that 'divorce' is the factor which will cause interbreeding in Malta? Sir, I hope that you do not take up a carrer in designing scientific research.....
Mr Joseph Cauchi Senior
May 10th 2011, 18:36
With reference to Mr. K.M. Edwards of Canada when he said “Has any one considered that if divorce were permissive enough in Malta, that on such a small island with such a small population what the effect of half-siblings eventually falling in love and wanting to get married would do to the island’s genetic pool?”
Just this thought alone, that this is tantamount to incest, sends shivers down our spine!
Everyone knows what happens when cross-breeding takes place; and now we want to take the risk of this ever happening to our tiny island nation?
God Forbid!
JC.
Mr Joseph Cauchi Senior
May 10th 2011, 18:34
With reference to Mr. K.M. Edwards of Canada when he said “Has any one considered that if divorce were permissive enough in Malta, that on such a small island with such a small population what the effect of half-siblings eventually falling in love and wanting to get married would do to the island’s genetic pool?”
Just this thought alone, that this is tantamount in incest, sends shivers down our spine!
Everyone knows what happens when cross-breeding takes place; and now we want to take the risk of this ever happening to our tiny island nation?
God Forbid!
JC.
Mario Grima
May 10th 2011, 19:22
Well, this is only your own personal opinion and perhaps you did not understand the referendum question. I can assure you that a lot of people do not share your opinion.
Mr Paul Barrett
May 10th 2011, 19:47
@ Mr Joseph Cauchi Senior
This is such an unbelievable accusation of potential disaster that "rolling on the floor with laughter" does not even come close to such a statement.
Divorce does not make the slightest difference to the potential disaster of incest - what a really mad association.
Mr Matthew Grima
May 10th 2011, 20:58
What if the parents are separated and have kids out of wedlock? Isn't that the same risk? Your argument is flawed from top to bottom.
Simon Scerri
May 11th 2011, 02:34
If you were Cauchi Junior I'd have gone as far as calling you naive. But as you're a senior I will just say you're probably out of touch with reality!
As if people need to marry (or remarry) for these things to happen. As if divorce will make any difference! Clearly, you have a 'no sex before/without marriage' mentality. Or no kids before/without marriage. Do you realise how many single parents are around you, and that your doomsday scenario might be occuring with or without divorce, or even marriage?
I frankly don't care about what the Yes or the No camps have to say. I find both of their billboards repulsive. Divorce should have been introduced without any referendum. Theocracy? No. Secular country. Give caesar what belongs to caesar. Period. I don't live in Malta at the moment but I'm making sure that, once again (first time was in 2008), I will contribute to the country's progress.
Ms M Cumbo
May 11th 2011, 04:57
What the...x'ghandu x'jaqsam?? You are just assuming that we will be marrying Maltese then!!
Ramon Casha
May 11th 2011, 05:53
So now you're saying that divorce will lead not only to abortion and euthanasia, but incest too?
What about volcanoes and hurricanes?
Mr M Borg
May 10th 2011, 17:47
One has to go through all the statements issued by the pro-divorce with a fine tooth comb.
Their referendum question is dishonest and loaded , their billboards do not make much sense, and most of the time what they say confuses people.
Mr Kevin Cassar
May 10th 2011, 18:41
"One has to go through all the statements issued by the pro-divorce with a fine tooth comb."
It would be a recommendable practice to always go through statements with a fine tooth comb, no matter the source. Unfortunately some people (like you) opt to scrutinize things which do not feel comfortable and yet allow all sorts of unbelievable stuff when it makes them feel fuzzy.
"Their referendum question is dishonest and loaded"
Please learn the meaning of the term "loaded" before putting it in a sentence.
"their billboards do not make much sense, and most of the time what they say confuses people."
They do not make sense to those who oppose them, just as the anti divorce ones. If the billboards confuse you, I think you left school too early or did not make the most of your time there.
Mr rene borg
May 10th 2011, 17:32
I think that if divorce is turned down in the referendum, Malta should follow the phillipines and do not recognise divorce issued by other courts. And the already recognised divorces should be revoked.
Principles are principles!
Mr K.M Edwards
May 10th 2011, 18:27
Hear! Hear! Agreed.
Mr Carmel Debono
May 10th 2011, 18:40
wishfull thinking!!
Mr Matthew Grima
May 10th 2011, 19:24
I am in favor of divorce, but I agree, as currently it is discriminatory.
It also shows that the government's so called moral and principles have some kind of loophole.
Ms M Cumbo
May 11th 2011, 04:58
Yes so just because the Phillipines do not care about Human Rights we should just follow suit should'nt we??
Mr M Borg
May 10th 2011, 17:17
Maybe all this campaigning in favour of divorce is tiring out Michael Falzon.
How else could anyone explain the mistake he made in the number of foreign registered divorces last year?
In parliament Austin Gatt recently said that 47 overseas divorces were recognised last year, that does not work out to I per week.
Mr Guido Farrugia
May 10th 2011, 17:45
Maybe you don't understand the definition of average. I believe anti-divorce is getting tired, yourself included. Anything goes with you people, children, santi, bibja, dnubiet. U halluna nipprovaw navanzaw pass.
Mr M Borg
May 10th 2011, 18:10
@ Guido Farrugia
Why did he not say that most of these divorces were of foreign nationals ?
If you like working so much with averages why not use the figure quoted by Evarist Bartolo ?
He said that in 36 years Malta recognised 785 foriegn divorces. That works out to 21.05 divorces per year.
Very different from I per week.
Believe me I was not tired but happy to oblige you with a correct average.
We all have different tastes
You think that divorce is a step forward, I think it is a step backwards.
Mr Matthew Grima
May 10th 2011, 19:26
It's neither a step forward, nor a step backward. The point Mr Farrugia was making was not the fact that divorce itself is a step forward but the separation between state and religion.
Mr K.M Edwards
May 10th 2011, 16:48
Divorce is not a "right", civil or otherwise. It appears that the only standard used to make a statement that “divorce is a right” is the fact that other countries permit it. But other countries permit numerous things that may or may not constitute “rights” per se. And often times, “privileges” are confused with “rights”, and these privileges often go with responsibilities that are often neglected in the demand for these privileges.
But what is it that defines a right? Certainly, we can agree that the most fundamental right is the right to life. Other rights and privileges like the right to own private property and the right to freedom of movement and speech all come with bounds and limits. Here in Canada in the late 1960s it was determined that “the state should not interfere in the bedroom” because what individuals do in their own bedrooms constituted part of their own “right to freedom”. Sexual permissiveness took off at that point and with it, child sexual abuse, incest, sodomy, with all its incumbent health risks, and child and human sex trade as well, from the ex-Soviet Union and the Far East who find fairly easy access in Canada.
Divorce has a scientifically documented negative impact on children, the elderly and the social fabric of society. Just google search for *objective* scientific data on the matter. The largest demographic beneath the poverty line in Canada are children from divorced relationships, and single mothers abandoned from those relationships. Say whatever you want, but these are facts, accrued from decades of poverty research. As the number of elderly dependents continues to increase with a reduction in population levels in the West, a larger number of elderly dependents are falling below the poverty line and divorce aggravates this as well. The impact – a greater incentive and desire to “euthanize” the elderly infirm.
Has any one considered that if divorce were permissive enough in Malta, that on such a small island with such a small population what the effect of half-siblings eventually falling in love and wanting to get married would do to the island’s genetic pool?
Or the emotional stability of spouses to whom getting married becomes "until no fault divorce do you part"?
IN actual fact, the state has only ONE vested interest in recognizing marriage at all and that is to ensure the stable and healthy creation and upbringing of new generations of citizens. Only indissoluble marriage will promote that for the state, and as such the state ought only to recognize indissoluble marriage.
The argument that marriages break down whether divorce is legal or not may be true. A society that promotes the rehabilitation of damaged marriages will see much greater benefit than the social morass that divorce would result in. Legal separation can help deal with domestic abuse situations. Legal or civil annulment can address situations of dishonesty and hidden abuses or forceable confinement that existed at the time that the nuptial contract was originally drawn up.
Legalizing divorce only grants a separated couple the illusion of "state affirmation" of their decision to cohabitate with someone other than their spouse. But even now no one will deny that people who wish to cohabitate with someone other than their spouse (known as adultery) have the civil freedom to do so, although one can reasonably question whether such a freedom should be permitted so gratuitously if at all.
Which means that having the state recognize this privilege to cohabitate with a new person is specious at best and affords no tangible benefit either to those who go that route, or to their dependents.
Malta therefore should continue to disallow divorce, but should reverse its 30 year old decision to recognize foreign divorces as well since the same principle of social benefits apply in both cases.
Sincerely, KM Edwards, Canada
Mr A Mangion
May 10th 2011, 17:43
Mr.Edwards - you state your case with such apparent knowledge and sure facts that I was enthralled - but you are completely wrong and I do not understand or can agree with a single point you make. You make your point with such "quaker values" that I can imagine you burning the heathen at the stake. How can you make such unfounded affirmations? How can you be so racist and so narrow minded when it comes to sexual abuses? How can you formulate a "scientific doomsday" for this island with no proof whatsoever? Who are you to profess such total garbage with such a "holier than though" attitude while you enjoy social liberties in your own country??
Divorce is a right as is my right to happiness to a new married life should I chose to have one.
Mr K.M Edwards
May 10th 2011, 18:26
Okay Mr. Mangion:
1. So in your view Divorce is a right because you want one. Is that your definition of a right? I suggest you take some civics courses to understand the definition of a right. By your definition, every child should have the right to candy because they want it.
2. I challenge you to highlight what I stated above that is "racist"? Do you even know what that word means?
It sounds more like you would relish burning me at the stake. As for burning heathens at the stake, I was a heathen once myself and converted as an adult to Catholicism.
At the end of the day, decades of experience in Canada show that the biggest losers in a scheme of legalized divorce are women and children. If you don't like those facts, you have the option of burning Statistics Canada documentation.
Sincerely, KM Edwards, Canada
Mr Carmel Debono
May 10th 2011, 18:47
Ok Mr Edwards, let figure out that your arguments are correct and Malta should not introduce divorce, is it all possible that the whole world took the wrong decisions, while Malta and the Philippines are the only intellectuals on earth?
Mr K.M Edwards
May 10th 2011, 19:16
Mr Carmel Debono
Remember that most Western nations made decisions to legalize divorce only in the last hundred years. In the cases of post-Catholic nations like Italy, Portugal, Ireland, Spain, this decision was much more recent. Even the UK forbade for example its Royals from marrying divorcees until Prince Charles took Camilla after Lady Di's demise.
One of the key points I attempted to make in my original post was for Malta to take an honest and objective look at foreign statistics to determine the long term effects of legalized divorce.
Canada, Australia, the US and Great Britain have all learned for example that greater restrictions on divorce are needed to curb child poverty. That harsher penalties on "dead beat" dads need to take place. Alimony civil proceedings are a nightmare where couples who divorce choose to cohabitate rather than "re-marry" just so they can continue to extract alimony payments from the previous "breadwinner". In the US, they are even legislating marriage courses and marriage counselling as pre-requisities to marriage and divorce at the civil level. All of these "actions of greater restriction" are the result of the ubiquitous rise in societal problems associated with divorce. In summary, the experiences of these multitudes of nations has certainly not favored "freer" divorce.
So just because all but 2 nations have the gone the popular route of social experimentation does not necessarily been there is greater wisdom in following the crowd.
But whatever one's position on the matter, taking an objective and honest look at the prolonged and long term effects in societies that have had for decades what Malta proposes for itself would be wise in formulating a final decision for Malta.
Mr Joe Borg
May 10th 2011, 22:51
Mr Edwards, thank you for your post. Indeed divorce may seem to be a fair deal at first sight, it needs a closer look to see the true colors.
The Yes Movement are using the slogan "Yes for divorce, Yes for Marriage"! They are trying to promote the illusion that cohabiting couples would queue to re-marry!
I wonder how many separated men would REALLY opt to remarry given the possibility. The ones I know all reply with a categorical NO.
Ramon Casha
May 11th 2011, 05:49
"Divorce has a scientifically documented negative impact on children, the elderly and the social fabric of society."
No, it does not, and I have repeatedly challenged the anti-divorce movement, as I now challenge you, to provide an objective study that shows that divorce has these effects WHILE ANNULMENT AND SEPARATION DO NOT.
"Has any one considered that if divorce were permissive enough in Malta..."
Which is why the proposed legislation requires a minimum of four years separation before divorce can be granted, as well as providing for maintenance and/or care of any minor children.
"Only indissoluble marriage will promote that for the state, and as such the state ought only to recognize indissoluble marriage."
However, indissoluble marriages do not exist, have never existed and will never exist anywhere in the world. When a couple separate permanently, that marriage is over - "dissolved" - whether the law recognises it or not. A specific marriage between a specific couple can last for their lives, but marriage as an institution is a different matter.
"Legalizing divorce only grants a separated couple the illusion of "state affirmation" of their decision to cohabitate with someone other than their spouse."
Wrong. Divorce allows the state's records to reflect reality - that a couple that used to be married are not any more. There are people whose marriage failed more than 40 years ago, who have been living with their current partner for almost as long, and yet the state still thinks that they are married to their original partner, whereas their real relationship, and the family that they raised together, does not even exist in the eyes of the law.
Elaine Compagno
May 11th 2011, 07:07
So please explain how a divorce is worse that perpetual separation, annulment or abandonment.
Because we already have all those.
Thanks.
Mr K.M Edwards
May 11th 2011, 17:00
@ Ramon Casha and others:
I am not making the statement that divorce is better than separation or annulment. Or that the effects of divorce on children (which by the way are incontrovertable since they are facts regardless of what you prefer to believe) are any better or worse than the effects of separation or annulment.
The issue is that legalizing divorce is proven to increase the numbers of divorces both in the short term and in the longer term which means that legalizing divorce is directly synonymous with a greater breakdown of marriage, and thereby a greater demise of children. And in fact, this has been the findings at least in Canada (Google Search Mr. Paul Szabo, Liberal MP - Government of Canada - book "The Child Poverty Problem" and "Divorce: The Bold Facts") as just some examples.
Given that objective fact: That the legalization of divorce has the "vortex effect" of causing greater incidence of divorce immediately and steadily over time, it is a truism that legalizing divorce has a negative impact on children (as well as society in general). You can't argue against a fact.
Finally, what good to the state is there for the state "to recognize reality" in someone's domestic situation?
If the state recognizes marriage to begin with only for the vested interest of securing stable and healthy future generations, and legalizing divorce, QED above, has a negative impact on the general condition of families and children, then the state has only a vested interest in recognizing life-long marriages. Clearly the state is not telling anyone to not find some other partner or paramour if they so wish but there is no vested interest in the state "recognizing" that new domestic situation at all.
This is the crux of the matter. The pro-divorce movement claims that divorce already exists, but somehow also want to convince the rest of us that divorce needs to be legalized. If it already exists, there is no benefit to anyone to legalize it. You have undermined your own cause d'etre.
There is much more benefit for the state to put greater obstacles to divorces, separations and annulment and to promote life-long commitments/marriages and as such the ONLY conscienable option is to vote NO to legalizing divorce.
Mr Carmel (Nenu) Aquilina
May 10th 2011, 16:35
@Sinjuri Maltin u Għawdxin;
@Sur Karl Gambin;
Id-Divorzju, l-abort, u l-ewtanasja l-ebda waħda ma kienu fil-pjan ta’ Alla l-imbierek, u l-ebda waħda minnhom ma hija dritt ċivili!
Jien bħala Malti Kattoliku għandu kull dritt nesprimi ruħi u niddefendi it-twemmin tiegħi!
U għalhek nistaqsi, hawn xi kopja mara u raġel rasa fuq għonqa li mhux dejjem tagħmel dak li hu tajjeb, u bil-ħsieb dejjem f’moħħa li qed tagħmlu tajjeb u mill-aħjar għax għall-ULIEDA?
Alla fil-pjan tiegħu għamel żwieġ ba divirzju mhux għax ma kienx kapaċi, imma għax mhux tajjeb għalina, ULIEDU, ULIED ALLA!
Hawn xi ħadd ma jemminx li kieku d-divorzju kien tajjeb, Alla ma kienx ikun kapaċi jagħmel pjan biz-żwieġ bid-divorzju għall-ULIEDU, ULIED ALLA?
Imma ma għamlux, għax kien jaf li mhux tajjeb għall-uliedu!
Mela allura din il-moda tad-divorju hi ħażina GĦALINA u għall-ULIEDNA!
U għallura jien nemmen li b’sens ta’ dover u responsabilita tagħna l-ġenituri, nanniet, zijiet u qraba għandna ninpenjaw ruħna biex flimkien warajna nħallu lill uliedna Malta u Għawdex mingħajr il-moda tad-DIVORZJU skond il-pjan ta’ Alla l-Imbierek!
Għax uliedna jiġu l-ewwel u qabel kollox!
Mr Saliba Francis
May 10th 2011, 17:48
@Mr M Vella (three star)
It is NOT TRUE that divorce is legal all over the world. It became a civil right in countries that passed the necessary enabling laws - Malta is not one of them.
Recognising a divorce that was obtained abroad does not mean that the right to be granted divorce exists locally on our statute books. As a matter of fact you cannot apply for, or be granted divorce locally, in Malta under our laws. That is what the coming referendum is all about and that is why you would be able to vote "YES" and others will be able to vote "NO" disregarding your recomendation to vote "yes".
Charles J. Buttigieg
May 11th 2011, 07:33
@ Francis Saliba. You are correct in as much as a Civil Right only becomes one when passed and approved through parliament. I hasten to add that anything which is not illegal may be termed as a Civil Right. Cohabitation,Adultery and having children out of wedlock are civil rights,however divorce in Malta is not a civil right yet. Or maybe it is,but only for those who obtain it abroad.
Karl Gambin
Sep 8th 2011, 04:24
Sinjur Nenu, I'm not going to waste my time with you. I'm simply going to tell you that religion and state are not and should not be the same thing. Unless you understand that, it is pointless to debate. Since when the bible has become more important than the constitution?
Mr M Vella***
May 10th 2011, 16:32
divorce is legal all over the world and divorce obtained abroad is recognized in Malta.why two weights and two measures,it's either all or none.Divorce has been recognised in Malta for many years ,that is why all Maltese must vote YES in the referendum.
Mr Kurt Waschnig
May 10th 2011, 16:04
The enactment of a Divorce Law in Malta will be a progressive legal step in the right direction to end discrimination between those who could afford to live abroad in order to get divorced, and those who could not.
36 years ago Malta started recognising divorce granted abroad in 785 cases recognition has been granted.
This situation is unbearable for many Maltese. Many go through hell within their marriage and often there is no other way as to get divorced.
Family life can become unbearable within families caused by lots of problems (like alcohol, unemployment, lack of financial resources, mental and physical torture and much more).
Living and staying in such an environment causes depressions, children are neglected, family members stop talking with one another.
It should be go without saying to give Maltese the legal right to decide to get divorced or not.
Malta is a stable democracy with strong institutions, an excellent judiciary and a free and democratic media.
Maltese enjoy liberal rights and Malta belongs to the European Union.
Within the European Union people decide whether to continue with their marriage or to get divorced.
Up to now Malta has not granted its citizens this very important legal right. In this case Malta should join the European Union.
Often divorce gives human beings the chance to start a new life, to fall in love with someone, to get self-esteem back.
Soon there will be a referendum on divorce in Malta and hopefully there will be a majority of Maltese who vote with "YES" that divorce becomes legally granted in Malta.
Best regards
Kurt Waschnig Oldenburg Germany
Mr Joe Zammit
May 10th 2011, 16:02
Strictly speaking, divorce does not exist in Malta. What our law says is that our courts can, not always (!) recognize, not divorce (!) but judgments given by foreign courts. So what our law says refers more to judgments of foreign courts regarding the legal status of a person rather than recognizing divorce.
Our law does not recognize all foreign courts, but some of them. That is the role of the Minister of Justice which courts are recognized. Besides, to get a divorce abroad one must be either a resident or domicile. Both residence and domicile are not things that one can get overnight!
Finally I say that two wrongs do not make a right. If divorce is to the detriment of all people, it will remain so both abroad and in our Catholic islands.
Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed!
Mr Saliba Francis
May 10th 2011, 16:48
@ Mr Frans Said.
Speaking for myself, and myself alone, I find ALL divorce objectionable, just as taught by Christ. The fact that the proposed bill is actually an easy divorce on demand, that may be desired by one party only, with no questions asked, after a four-year waiting period, only strengthens that resolve. My resolve is not shaken by any false promise of "guarantees" that can be assured only if the bill is passed on to all the taxpayers.
Mr W Cassar
May 10th 2011, 17:23
Still with blinkers Joe?
Mr Joseph Calleja
May 10th 2011, 18:09
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 Joseph Calleja
May 10th 2011, 18:31
@ Mr Francis Saliba
There is no such thing as guarantee, either with marriages , annulments or divorce. The things are not some appliance you buy at the store. The only guarantee in life is taxes and death, and in that order. Why the four year wait? When a marriage has failed completely there is very little or no chance of it coming back. When the love and respect is gone out of a marriage, that becomes a failed amrriage unless that love can be re-ignited and the chances of that are slim. Mr Saliba you are a very educated person and you know that when the doctor tells you, you have terminal cancer the chances are that you do and there is very little we can do about that. As a matter of fact some doctors even give you a time limit on your life. The chances of recovery are slim to none. A doctor let the patient make some important final decisions, it is not up to the doctor anymore, but it is up to the patient. Which means live and let live. What is good for one might not be good for the other. That is what I think.
Ms S Micallef
May 10th 2011, 15:29
People like Michael Buhagiar & Joe Zammit should start taking responsibility for their comments, unless you have solutions and are able to take responsibility to provide a way out or a solution to people whose marriage has broken down, i suggest you do not order people around to vote this way or that way.
Mghandkom l-ebda dritt.
You are probably just armchair critics who think they will score points with God just by sitting back and pointing their fingers at others. There are other ways to live the Catholic faith.
Mr FRANS H SAID
May 10th 2011, 15:14
Certain lobbyists are objecting to what they call a “no fault” divorce. Does it mean that they would therefore be in favour of a “fault” divorce? The problem would then be what constitutes a “fault”?
This strange impasse has been the result of the people’s representatives, who, like Pontius Pilate, washed their hands of a tricky situation. Parliament should have had the fortitude to draft, discuss and approve a genuine, modern and just divorce law. It would have been the most logical approach that a national referendum would eventually be held afterwards.
Our parliamentarians give one the impression of being like spoilt brats who shun their true responsibilities and throw a tantrum if they don’t get what they pretend is theirs by right. Was there a hidden political agenda in the way things were done?
Ms Rudi Mcbeal
May 10th 2011, 18:35
@Mr Gambin
With the same reasoning, who are YOU and who exactly gives you the right to expect those who believe that the introduction of divorce will continue to destroy the society they live in, to vote YES?
Karl Gambin
May 10th 2011, 14:51
Divorce .. Abortion .. Euthanasia ... these are all civil rights which should be legislated without any further crap. Legislating them and agreeing with them are two seperate things. Why is this so hard to understand guys? Who are YOU and exactly who gives you the right to say NO to whoever wants to avail themselves of any of the above? Isn't that up the individual? Live and let live, I say.
Ms S Micallef
May 10th 2011, 15:08
People who point their fingers at others and call them sinners are mistakenly thinking that doing so will earn them more points with God!
Karl Gambin
May 10th 2011, 15:35
this is not about God. This is a state issue. Don't you get that?
Mr Aristide Galea
May 10th 2011, 15:54
Sorry Karl,On the issue of Devorce I agree 100% with you, because it is a civil right,but on Abortion and Euthanasia you are wrong. Since when murder is considered as a civil right? Even when one attempt to commit suicide is against the law,and against morality,let alone murder.
Mr Joe Borg
May 10th 2011, 16:06
Jien Personalment ma naqbiliex, la mad-divorzju, la ma l-abbort u lanqas ma l-ewtanasja,. Pero b'diferrenza mil-abbort u l-ewtanasja, id-divorzju jaffetwa lis-struttura tas-socjeta li qedin nghixu fiha ahna ilkol. Ghalekk kul persuna ghanda dritt tghid le ghad-divorzju jhekk tahseb li ha jkun ta' deni ghas-socjeta.
L-etwtanasja u l-abbort huma azzjonijiet li jeffetwa lil persuna personalment biss, U ma ghandhom l-ebda impat fuq is-socjeta ingenerali bhad-divorzju.
Grazzi
Mr Joseph Aquilina
May 10th 2011, 16:37
"Divorce ... Abortion ... "
One could somehow understand seeing divorce as a civil right, but there is no way how anyone could or should see abortion - where a human life that CANNOT IN ANYWAY DEFEND ITSELF is KILLED - as a civil right. It is one of the most barbaric actions that human person can do. And do not bring out the usual "rape" scenario since this has been addressed more then once.
One thing however is true; all these are tools that provide a "SIMPLE ESCAPE" form responsibility for people who want to play adults but cannot take the burden of really being an adult.
Mr Saliba Francis
May 10th 2011, 17:29
"L-ewtanasja u l-abbort huma azzjonijiet li jeffetwa lil persuna personalment biss, U ma ghandhom l-ebda impat fuq is-socjeta ingenerali bhad-divorzju." (Mr Joe Borg)
Min fejn gibtha l-ideja li l-abort u l-ewtanasija ma ghandhomx impatt fuq is-socjeta' in generali? L-ewtanasija hija l-filisofija qarrieqa li ppermettiet il-Holocaust ta' miljuni ta' morda nkapacitati, gipsies u miljuni ta Lhud, Insara, omosesswali etc li f'ghajnejn Hitler kienu "inferjuri".
Mr Saviour falzon
May 10th 2011, 14:46
Take away our hearts of stone, and give us a heart of flesh.
A Yes Vote to implement a caring, concerned and compassionate response to marital breakdowns.
I hope that you will make every effect to give a resounding YES on the 28th of May to civil rights, compassion,generosity and courageous concern
Mr Joseph Galea
May 10th 2011, 14:42
This divorce referendum is just a waste of time and resources. Divorce is a CIVIL issue and a human right and it should have just been implemented in a serious and thoughtful way avoiding any loopholes and safeguarding all parties especially children. It doesn't mean that if there is divorce one has to use it. Divorce is there for the broken marriages and no for the good happy ones.
Gordon Farrugia
May 10th 2011, 16:07
wholeheartedly agree - I say stop this hypocrisy! It is just stupid that the nationalists have made it a politics agenda trying to side with its old traditional ally - the church which has always opposed anything that would result in it losing its power grip!! Even if a 'no' vote ensues this should be challenged in front of the EU court of Justice on basis of 'breach of basic rights' and 'discrimination'.
Mr Karl Cassar
May 10th 2011, 14:28
We cannot expect did kind of divorce on this type for question
Mr l Azzopardi
May 10th 2011, 14:26
Inkonsistenza straordinarja li tagħti lok għal diskriminazzjoni kontra dawk li għandhom dħul iktar limitat.
Dan mingħajr ma nidħlu fl-argument ta' kif tista' twaqqaf bniedem mill-jieħu d-divorzju jekk ir-reliġjon tiegħu ma twaqqfux milli jagħmel dan. Kif se tiġġustifika l-LE kontra d-divorzju meta r-reliġjon li jħaddan ma tqisux bħala dnub. Għaliex id-dritt għar-reliġjon mogħti lilu mid-Drittijiet fundamentali tal-bniedem....u ħadd mhu se jkun arroganti biżżejjed li jgħid li reliġjon hija aħjar minn oħra.
Allura l-istat kif jiġġustifika din l-impożizzjoni Kattolika fuq il-liġijiet tar-repubblika li qed ixekkel l-individwi mhux kattoliċi fis-soċjeta Maltija li ta min ifakkar huma ċittadini ta' dan il-pajjiż, iħallsu t-taxxa bħal-ħaddieħor u għandhom l-istess drittijiet bħal kulħadd.
Inkonsistenza legali li għandha tiġi indirizzata u għalhekk u hu hawnhekk fejn il-parlament Malti naqas meta abdika r-responsabilitajiet ċivili tiegħu li jissalvagwardja d-drittijiet ċivili tal-pajjiż.
Mark Brincat
May 10th 2011, 14:19
Divorzju ghas-sinjuri biss? LE GRAZZI
Tony Fava
May 10th 2011, 14:16
I just cannot understand why Gonzipn, the Church and the Le movement are doing this hullabaloo for. I can understand Gonzipn in that he is trying to recover lost ground by using this issue politically. Even though there are lots of his supporters who support the IVA. But for the Church and the Negatives, when one considers the amount of foreign divorces officially recognised in Malta, it is completely nonsense. Moreover that both the Church and the Negatives have not opposed these overseas divorces.
Mr Randolph De Battista
May 10th 2011, 14:54
Mr Buhagiar,
Please note that not all foreign-registered divorces are of foreigners!! That's actually the point why this divorce law should be introduced! To remove all discrimination between Maltese living in Malta, and others living abroad!! It's not about foreigners! It's about fellow Maltese citizens!!
Mr Michael Buhagiar
May 10th 2011, 14:14
who cares what this ex politician has to say. We dont care what foreigners do but we CARE what the Maltese people do. Either destroy our society or beef up our society. No to divorce. Divorce is a scourge on our people. Divorce destroys the moral fibre of the people. and Labour hates our families as it did when it was in Government. It always tried to destroy our honest families with hardships, disasters and almost civil war.
Demis Paul Scerri
May 10th 2011, 14:29
I have alwys voted for the PN and I am absolutely in favour of divorce. And another thing, pls get a life!! I can't understand why you are saying ...... "Labour hates our families"
Ms S Micallef
May 10th 2011, 14:42
Since you are not the Queen you should be using "I" not "We". I suggest you stop speaking in the name of others and if you must voice your opinion then please voice it in your own name and not on behalf of others.
Mr Joseph Brincat
May 10th 2011, 15:02
Mr Michael Buhagiar
I CANNOT UNDERSTAND YOUR COMMENT FOR YES OR NO DIVORCE IS HERE
DIVORCE IT HAD BEN HEAR FOR A LONG TIME
Ms S Micallef
May 10th 2011, 15:06
Well said David Farrugia! I can't imagine how anyone who speaks in a filthy nasty manner can call himself a devout Roman Catholic. How unfortunate for the Church.
Raymond Sacco
May 10th 2011, 15:27
mr. buhagiar, before typing a comment, please read and try to understand what the article is about!
labour hates families!?!?! a tramp siding with his own enemy!?!?! civil war!?!?! the issue here is divorce mr.buhagiar, just so may you understand what it's all about:
1. foreign-registered divorce does not mean a divorce between a foreign couple!
2. divorce has nothing to do with politics!
and if you don't care about foreigners and about what other human beings have to say, did it ever cross your mind that others may have your same opinion about your opinion?
Mr Michael Debono
May 10th 2011, 15:52
MICHAEL Debono
Michael Buhagiar you have no idea of the consequences of your tirade. It is absolutely political and you say that those who are Labour sympathisers hate the family. Can anyone stoop so low to proof that he is antilabour. Poor fellow.Poor P.N. if they are all made of such stuff.
Deo Catania
May 10th 2011, 16:26
Same old nonsense. Did it ever occur to you that thousands of couples are separated? and that divorce comes after separation? I take it you consider yourself a practicising Christian Catholic that's why your hatred agaist LP, very nice of you. So now when a couple breaks up we blame LP. Some people should not have the right to vote because their intelligence is simply below zero.
Mr Anton Portelli
May 10th 2011, 16:40
I am Maltese like you Mr Michael Buhagiar but unlike other fellow Maltese could not afford to live for a number of years abroad.
How is it that your catholic principles have been aroused now that divorce was mentioned by Dr. Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and not when the recognition of divorce started 36 years ago.
Where were your values when the cohabitation law was proposed and someone from the PN assured that it will be introduced by the end of last year if I am not mistaken.