MPs’ credibility on moral issues being put to the test

Mr Johnny Xerri

Jun 7th 2011, 06:42

Dear Emeritus Dr Fenech Adami,

was your conscience in hibernation when you cheated huntes into the YES vote for the EU?

This is what you promissed through official letters
http://kaccaturi.com/eddie.html


We all know that was guaranteed in those letters did not materialise and that the warnings from the NO side that in those letters (you signed) you qouted and contradicted did materialise.

So your morality was at bay when you cheated 17,000 people with false letters...and now you come on all moral as though you are God's gift to Malta

Mario Vella

Jun 6th 2011, 22:42

EFA thinks that the world had not moved on since the time of Gregory the Great when the Church predominant over the Empire! His arguements imply that the State should still play Cindirella to the Church. In the EU you wanted Malta to form part of, there is complete seperation of CHurch and STate, why should Malta be different? Temporal power of the Church in Europe has been doomed for a number of centuries now, but in Malta thanks to the infamous Concordat of 1995 which EFA himself was not only party of but actually was responsible to subject again STate to the Church, still the Church pretends to exercise such power even though it lacks the material tools to do so, ie property which it ceded to the State on condition that still would exercise influence in purely civil matters. EFA simpply bowed his head to the dictat of the CHurch. This is what is worrying EFA, that the divorce legislation would divest completely the Church of its remnants of power/influence which it still exercises on the population. This is where his conscience comes into the picture; the passage of the Divorce Bill will undo what EFA had timidly negotiated way back in 1995 with the Church! EFA knows quite well that MPS are there to legislate for all citizens irrespective of their religious beliefs and denominations and that if they were to legislate a law which runs counter to their believes all they have to do is to RESIGN as simple as that! The time of Gregory the Great is over......and so the time of Sir Michael Gonzi, the Maltese version of Gregory the Great! EFA and GonziPN must have a hidden agenda in appealing to the individual conscience of the MPs.......is it perhaps that of undoing what the people has in sovereign way decided upon on the 28/5/11? Is there anyone acting stealthly on behalf of a foreign religious organisation which has every interest in keeping the status quo in Malta so that in Malta there would be A STATE WITHIN A STATE?

Henry S. Pace

Jun 6th 2011, 17:14

Come next election and we shall not vote to any MP who vote YES for the Divorce Law. No MP was elected to vote for Divorce because none of the Parties in Parliament did say it in their respective Electoral manifestos. If anything once the Consultitive Referendum result was in favour of divorce this issue should be written down in the forthcoming Electoral manifestos. This was also stated by Evarist Bartolo some time ago.

MPs stand up to be counted.

Mr K.M Edwards

Jun 6th 2011, 16:43

EFA is dead on, and not just if you are a Christian. Consider that what he states is EXACTLY what secular humanists and Christians fought side by side for in the anti-segregation protests in the US South in the 1960s. There was a clear democratic majority in favor of segregation and keeping Blacks as second class citizens. It took "anti-democratic" but MORAL leadership from politicians, university presidents, activists to fight the "democratic" mob-rule sentiment and it was brutal.

Whatever side of the divorce debate you are on, the notion of MPs simply passing on the "majority" decision from one's electoral riding - against one's own conscience - is a harbinger for truly dangerous times to come.

You may absolutely dislike an MP like Adrian Vassallo for standing by his conscience but you have the assurance of knowing EXACTLY where he stands come the next election. Can you say the same for others who will wash their hands and "go with the flow"? Will they stand for anything of importance next time around?

That is the Euro4Million question.

Mr Peter Borg

Jun 6th 2011, 15:36

For the man who claims, not without some justification to have saved democracy in Malta to make such a statement is truly outrageous.

Is he suggesting that MP's stand up and be counted in defiance of the democratically expressed will of the people? Or does he mean perhaps that the referendum should not have been held at all and that MP's should have decided on the issue themselves in parliament? If this is indeed what he means it might be worth reminding his excellency that it was his own goverment who introduced this ( law on referenda ) and other democratic tools to ensure that the threats to democracy that we experienced and which he fought so courageously during the eighties would never be repeated; that never again would the democratically expressed will of the people be ignored and defied.

Well, the people have now spoken . Our MP's collective consciences should be exclusively concerned with protecting our democracy and ensuring that the will of the people is respected in full.

A. Abdilla

Jun 6th 2011, 10:53

I am not going to vote to anyone who votes YES!!
I do not care about reds or blues, I vote for values, and these are in the minority lately!

Mr Victor Laiviera

Jun 6th 2011, 10:13

It is not MPs’ "credibility on moral issues" that is "being put to the test". It is their "credibility" on democratic issues.

The referendum has shown, in the clearest way possible, that the Maltese electorate is in favour of introducing divorce legislation. Therefore, any MP who truly believes in democracy has an obligation to see that such legislation passes - and not by abstaining or juggling NOs and YESs like a circus clown, but with a loud and clear vote in favour. If he or she finds this impossible to reconcile with other principles, there is always the honourable option of resigning.

Any MP who does otherwise, far from being "moral", is violatin the oath that he or she took, before God, on assuming office.

Ms Sabrina Borda

Jun 6th 2011, 02:37

People must not underestimate the fine morals of other people who voted Yes for good reason.
The Maltese Church are not the self appointed guardians of morality, divorce is perfectly acceptable in Poland where the good Pope John Paul II was born and where Pope Benedict was born in Germany.

Nobody is under any obligation to the ex president or his personal wishes. If he really has any good moral intentions he would not be campaigning stubbornly against good people who need to pursue peace and a their own life in love and happiness. Surely he would not want everyone to go through procedures of annulment as a monopoly for the select few and surely he can make the distinction between annulments or divorce. Surely he must understand that people need to make their own choices for their personal lives and therefor he cannot go around dictating the kind of orders he happens to prefer.
One does not need to be a secularist or an ultra conservative or fundamentalist Christian, most people are completely baffled by this kind of persistent, irrational, bullish, unkind behaviour. There is no moral value in this kind of drive against good people. It is time to leave them in peace.

George Cremona

Jun 6th 2011, 00:37

I fully agree with every single word in this article. This is the time for the Prime Minister to prove himself, to prove that he stands steadily and adamantly consistent with what he has been proclaiming all along from day one when JPO had thrown the divorce issue into the fray, that is he is against the introduction of divorce. If the Prime Minister is finding it difficult to lead the way and convince his Ministers and MP's to abide and be faithful to the Party's fundamental principles than the only honourable way out is not to give his subjects a free vote but to go for election and again let the people decide their future. I would prefer the party losing the election than throwing away the principles that kept the Party going stronger through out the years.

Silvio Farrugia

Jun 5th 2011, 22:17

I can not believe this is coming fron EFA.Why not then have moral police like the Talibans and other moslem dictatorial countries.Dr Fenech Adami you should not impose your morals and religon on others. My morals or thinking on the subject maybe different then yours.The people voted 'yes'and their 'demand should be met by those peolple who represent them.Or are our MPs in parliament to get special pensions,huge honoraria and etc.
Oh if our MP,s and ministers had the same qualms about their conscience in maters of corruption !

Mr John Agius

Jun 5th 2011, 21:07

The issue of “undemocratic democracy” has been burning in my mind since my teenage years. Since then I have always wondered how anyone can claim democratic freedom when ‘Imposition’ (Parliamentary, public, majority rule/vote, suppression of ideas/views and so forth) is the rule. Democracy can never be achieved through imposition. Yet, it is amazing how any one claiming to advocate democratic freedom can turn a blind eye to the root causes of democratic deficiencies.

Following the divorce referendum result, the parliamentary representative system is proving to be in conflict with the popular will as reflected in the referendum result. Such democracy deficit needs to be tackled and resolved if democracy is to thrive and the current undemocratic democracy deficit eliminated.

In a true and modern democracy it is an accepted truth that ‘majority-rule’ is not necessarily democratic. This is because in any democracy minority rights should equally be respected. However, rather than rising to the occasion and mend the faulty democratic structure, parliamentarians and interested organisations are more inclined towards obstructing the democratic process, take unfair advantage and allow democracy to fail from reflecting true democratic freedom. As a result the anomaly between the peoples representative (parliamentarians) and the public they represent remain unresolved. The public is supreme and parliament should reflect that at all times.

In the circumstances, the parliamentarians role and responsibility is not to take advantage of the defective democratic structure and disturb the democratic process at the cost of democratic freedom. With the aid of other democratic thinkers, parliamentarians should rise to the occasion, pause, think and mend the undemocratic deficit and provide an alternative that respect the will and opinion of the public they represent. For that to happen in Malta seems very unlikely. Responsible politicians should continue struggling to help achieve a higher level of political maturity for this country and beyond. They are responsible to minimise and avoid all possible eventualities for such undemocratic deficits from recurring. Only then MP’s can ‘stand-up and be counted’ and ‘Malta can claim to be truly democratic’.

James Vella Clark

Jun 5th 2011, 20:13

People in glass houses really shouldn't throw stones....

Gerry Cowie

Jun 5th 2011, 18:33

Assumptions seem to be being made below - such as that Malta is a an entirely secular society! People will be guided by their consciences and that means the majority Catholic religion will have a strong say! Malta remains proudly and staunchly majority Catholic, whether or not such legislation goes through.
Secularism however should be strongly feared and resistsed at all costs when the issues of abortion and euthenasia come up for debate as surely they will in time. Then the freedom of the individual must bow to the continuance of life itself!

Saviour Ellul

Jun 5th 2011, 18:08

I wholeheartedly agree with this article. In fact, even from a secular point of view, Divorce is wrong because it does not solve any problems, but rather it creates more.

The introduction of divorce will not only threaten the foundation of marriage itself, but it will open the doorway wide open for other controversial issues.

For instance, there will be some who will promote the introduction of Abortion for females who have been raped. This is not only morally wrong but also intrinsically wrong – it is nothing but legalized murder. If the female does not want the child, rather than killing it, she can offer it for adoption.

As regards the Members of Parliament, is it gentlemanly to pronounce oneself against the introduction of divorce before the ‘consultative’ referendum and then to do a U Turn and vote Yes in Parliament? Are they allowing themselves to be manipulated or are they after votes in the next General Election? I for one will not vote for such fickle or opportunistic people! And I hope that all those who voted against Divorce in the referendum will follow my lead.

Even if they abstain; they will be showing lack of courage, opportunism, misguided reasoning or asserting that they are easily manipulated.

Where was the Leader of the Opposition when the majority of the Maltese voted in favour of entry into the European Union? Did he encourage Labour Party Members of Parliament to vote YES to Abstain? In my opinion the Labour Party did not lose the following General Election because they were against the EU, or because they voted in Parliament against the majority of those in favour, but because their then Leader stated that they had won because those that did not vote in the referendum where against EU Entry. It is shocking statements like these that discourages or make people abhorrent to a political party.

Of the 3 current PL Members of Parliament who were against divorce, only the truly Honourable Dr Edwin Vassallo showed that he is a true Gentleman and that he has got what it takes. He stated that he would stick to his guns even if he is discharged from the Party. The Honourable Ms Marie Louise Coleiro said that she and her family were threatened and so she will abstain and not present herself for re-election. I say to her, the foundation of marriage is being threatened. Be courageous and follow Honourable Dr Edwin Vassallo’s stand and vote AGAINST the bill. I assure you that if both the Honourable Dr Edwin Vassallo and your Honourable self present yourselves as Independent Candidates, you will be re-elected to Parliament. WE NEED PEOPLE LIKE YOU TO REPRESENT US.

I also encourage the Honourable Carmelo Abela to be courageous and vote AGAINST the bill. Let no actual, public, private or perceivable threats frighten him or make him fickle and thus appear not trustworthy.

All the above applies to ALL Nationalist Members of Parliament who have stated or are considering abstaining or voting Yes.

Finally, if you are truly practicing Catholics, do not sell your soul for votes.

Mr Mario Farrugia

Jun 5th 2011, 17:31

He is bieng unfair as always .... there were four referemdumes. Why is he not mentioning the first one? The referendume for INTERGRATION?

Frank Portelli 2BFRANK

Jun 5th 2011, 16:20

The implication is that the Maltese People are incapable of deciding between right and wrong.

Joseph Agius

Jun 5th 2011, 15:08

Dear Dr. Fenech Adami,
You should have said that: "MPs’ credibility on democracy being put to the test" Coming from someone like you who reinstated democracy in this country, your stand - especially in the light of well publicised personal facts - are difficult to take and only foster a hypocritical attitude. Your misguided Religio patria coram (Religion before country) attitude would have been understandable from the likes of Edwin Vassallo but not from Malta's greatest ever politician. My opinion of you as a statesman has taken a major battering.

Democracy is THE paramount objective and for you to even hint that an MP should force his religion (because this is about religion not morals) down the throat of a nation that has made and clear and unequivocal decision is simply shocking. This is not Iran - Dr. Fenech Adami; we are Catholics but we are tolerant of others. Above all we do not try to force our beliefs on others. It seems that the champion of Maltese democracy needs a remedial class in the subject...

Mr J. Bonnici

Jun 5th 2011, 14:29

What is morally wrong to Dr Fenech Adami is not necessarily wrong for everyone. He has no right to impose his outdated, bigoted Catholic views on the rest of us or to put pressure on MPs who believe otherwise.

Wake up Ed, it's another new spring.

Ms D Galea

Jun 5th 2011, 13:50

-All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression-

Thomas Jefferson

Mr Joseph Calleja

Jun 5th 2011, 13:26

Dr Fenech Adami every time you bring up divorce you seem to omit annulment. Annulment dissolves a marriage just like a divorce does. I am sure you are very familiar with the term annulment. The one where the church erases any sign that a marriage ever existed? Need I remind you? Maybe Dr Schembri can explain it better than I can. It is now up to the members of Parliament including your son to honour the will of the Maltese Voter. How can someone spend 4 million euros to look for an answer and then because you don't like the answer you disregard the whole 4 million euro preposition. If the government had a conscience to start with, they would have voted on the initiative themselves and not dump it on the people so they can make that decision for them. GonziPN gambled and lost. It is not rocket science to figure that one out. Enjoy your retirement and the free tickets on Air Malta, you and I had our chance at the voting poll. I am sure that if the vote was No then you would have expected the politicians including your son to honour that no vote result. In case you are not aware, the Yes vote won.

Ramon Casha

Jun 5th 2011, 13:13

"I have always maintained that moral issues should not be decided on the principle of democratic majorities but, rather, on the principle of what is morally right."

This referendum was one based on social and political (not partisan) issues, not on morality. Morality might come in when deciding on whether to get divorced, not on whether to make it available for others to make that moral choice.

M Sciberras

Jun 5th 2011, 13:07

This divorce debate has certainly been an eye-opener for me and alot of people. How wrong we were to assume that even the leaders we admired shared our assumption that we lived in a secular society and that state and church were seperate in this country. EFA refuses to even acknowledge these concepts in his mind. And this is what is so dangerous. The Church is a force for good in this country (as Godfrey Grima so excellently points out in another article and as also pointed out by Joseph Muscat) Do not EFA and others realise the immense damage to Malta's civil society if the Church is sidelined in people's minds? That their attempts to impose their views on the people by directly encouraging Parliament to ignore the referendum result on the horrifying basis that Parliament apparently can ignore democracy on 'moral' matters will hasten this? It took less than a generation for the Catholic Church, after two millenia, to become almost irrelevant in Spain, Ireland and elsewhere. In Malta, contrary to EFA's apparent feelings about this, the damage done to the Church not only by the divorce issue but also by other issues is already seemingly permanent. Peadophile scandals (after ten years the case against the priests accused of peadophile abuse remains open, and it will be the civil courts who are likely to deliver the first verdicts), the sheer general ignorance of many older priests, the horrors many especially women, have had to endure in front of Eclessiastical Tribunals in annulment proceedings....the list goes on and on Why for example are priests and other religous still accompanying the laughing stock that is the notorious Angelik in Gozo, who the Church itself has established used cooking oil in his so called miracles? EFA is not aware of it, but those in daily contact with the younger generation know well that a 'godless' culture is already predominant - maybe this would not be a bad thing if Christian concepts of right and wrong are replaced by civil concepts of right and wrong, as is the case in Scandinavian countries with their enviable educational infrastructures......but in Malta these things have always been left to the Church. To have faith that government will fill the void, if the Church disappears from the scene, is very very optimistic - our own PM would think of his own Catholic Action and Dutrina days, and assume that nothing else needs to be done, we are Maltese, we are special.....I doubt if his defeat in the divorce referndum has really shaken his perceptions of his own country's social realities.

Mr John Cassar

Jun 5th 2011, 10:54

Moral issues are subjective views that change from time to time and place. Until 300 years ago it was morally acceptable for the church inquisition to torture and kill people who were infidels or not true Christians.

Therefore whilst I repect President Fenech Adami's personal views on moral issues, he should keep them to himself (as every MP should) and not impose them on others especially when they do not represent the views of 53% of those who voted in favour of divorce...... Or considering that the church made it an obligation to go and vote and vote yes, one could argue that 80% of voters rejected this moral imposition.

Dear MP's represent the will of the people and let's get on with it.

Mr Victor Laiviera

Jun 5th 2011, 10:50

So now we know - Dr Fenech Adami rates democratic values as inferior to what he calls moral values. By which he means, of course, religious values and dogma which are nor necessarily moral.

Those who said that this question had less to do with divorce and a lot about whether Malta will move on and become a modern, liberal state or slide back into the middle ages have been proved abundantly right.

All the "Briganti" and "Wolves in sheep's clothing" who want to make their own decisions and not let Big Daddy tell them what to do should stand up to be counted.

Victor Rodenas

Jun 5th 2011, 10:38

Divorce was already in Malta,if you could afford it ,get it from abroad and it would be accepted in christian Malta,if you are poor ,`oqghod ikkrepa`.Well we have annunulments...but that is difficult to get......

Mr J Xerri

Jun 5th 2011, 10:32

There is a way out for those who maintain that moral issues should not be decided on the principle of democratic majorities - just RESIGN. After all even the ex-Prime Minister here is now telling us that he dissolved Parliament and called fresh elections when faced with the refusal of the those who voted 'No' in the EU Referendum.. even if those objecting to our entry in the EU were in a minority.

Mr brian taylor

Jun 5th 2011, 10:15

Dr Adami is wrong on many levels. Divorce is not a moral issue, for many, its a social issue to be decided on a personal basis without recourse to an ancient book for guidance. To do so is to avoid making an adult decision, a cop out in other words. This book is of no importance or relevance to many people and certainly should not be resorted to to make decision making easier. Politicians are paid to think,not to blindly follow instructions from largely irrelevant scriptures.

Mr Tommy Vella

Jun 5th 2011, 09:50

Spot on.

What is wrong will still be wrong whatever size of majority of the elextorate endorses it.

Mr Joseph Galea

Jun 5th 2011, 09:50

I fully agree and I think this is the only article with sense that I have read this week. Not even the archbishop of malta had the courage to speak so! Really Malta is at present in a very sorry state.

Mr M Vella***

Jun 5th 2011, 08:55

If everyone in the world has divorce , shouldn’t that be telling you something?