It’s time for a reality check

I’ll start this week by remedying, perhaps a bit late, a lapse. We went to Opposite Sex at St James the week before last and I omitted, inexcusably, to doff the proverbial in the direction of the players and others involved. Of course, it was moderately surprising, given the days of intolerance and fundamentalism in which we are living, that there weren’t a couple of MPs from both sides of the House trying to stop us from damning our immortal souls by glimpsing the idea that sex exists outside the marital bed but, snide remarks from me aside, it was a thoroughly enjoyable evening.

While on the subject of leisure pursuits, on the Friday before the country voted for the damnation of its immortal soul (I know I’m being repetitive but in this I am merely emulating the No campaign, now happily consigned to the bin of history apart from the spirited rearguard action being fought) we had a fine meal at Tal-Petut in Vittoriosa, an establishment factored around a love of all things Maltese and of food fashioned from the best local produce. You don’t just stroll up and peruse the menu, the experience is more immersive than that but do make the effort to have a meal there, it’s rewarding.

On Monday next, if you like rock music at all, you should find your way to the Greek Theatre at the Buskett Roadhouse from about half-nine in the evening, when Xirka Rock III – Rock In The Forest will be going down. By all accounts, XR I and II were “a good time was had by all” events and, working on the Led Zeppelin principle, the first four in a series (Houses Of The Holy notwithstanding) are usually good, so be there.

And so to serious business: There we have it, the nation has damned its immortal soul by voting against the imposition of religious values on secular affairs, imposing instead an obligation on the House to enact a law allowing divorce to be resorted to by anyone whose conscience allows it.

After cravenly abdicating their responsibility to legislate on the matter by putting the question to us, the Great Unwashed, the honourable members have now found themselves neatly impaled on the horns of a dilemma. It occurs to me, can you be impaled on horns, since being impaled evokes a more singular, and highly uncomfortable, process?

Be that as it may be, the honourable members of the House now find themselves very neatly hoist by their own petard. Whether it was because they genuinely believed that the electorate should have its say or because they were unsure which way the political moggy would jump (and, therefore, were scared to take a potentially vote-losing position) they decided to ask us what we thought and, lo and behold (and I suspect rather surprisingly), we told them.

Now they have to take heed and comply, as I believe I made amply clear in my blog.

If it weren’t for the fact that our honourable representatives had failed to do their job, I would have said that I didn’t really give much of a monkey’s whether they voted in favour, against or took the day off when the Bill is being discussed, so long as the law passes, but, in the circumstances, a “nay” (or should that be “neigh...” or “bray...” even?) is unacceptable.

And let’s be quite clear: Anyone who is not going to vote on the Bill has no real locus standi to get to his/her hind legs and perorate about it. Somewhat perversely, an opponent (rather than an abstainer) can and should point at whatever deficiencies in the law offend his/her sensibilities (if these deficiencies are the reason for objecting) but someone who won’t be voting should just try to be as conspicuous by his/her absence as possible. Equally, a “nay-sayer” needn’t bother telling us that the objection is on moral grounds; the time for that is gone.

The aftermath of the referendum was, and remains, amusing.

A cursory glance at the numbers gives the impression that the Nationalist Party got moderately walloped and, truth be told, this was probably the case, really.

On the other hand, a less shallow analysis shows that in traditionally Labour districts, the deep fealty usually shown by the voters towards “The Leader” was more than slightly diluted. Whether this was because of the sway the Church still holds over certain mentalities or because “The Leader” is failing to inspire the faithful as much as heretofore is a debate that can be had within Labour’s ranks, just as the Nationalists, if they really want to put up a fight in a couple of years, will have to take stock of their own situation.

To the latter, a humble word of advice: We, the people, voted for liberal, western-style governance in 1981 (but we were ignored by Dom Mintoff’s Labour) 1987, 1992, 1998, 2002 and 2007. We also voted for it, resoundingly, last Saturday, to say nothing of having done so, and been ignored by Labour’s then leader, in the EU referendum.

Do you see a trend there? Do I really, really have to spell it out?

Or do you want the bitter and triumphalist trends of thought being seen on Facebook and Twitter in the wake of the referendum result, where certain people, revelling in victory, are using it as a club to continue beating the PN and the PM about the head vigorously?

Does the phrase “take a reality check” mean anything to you guys?

imbocca@gmail.com

www.timesofmalta.com/blogs