Pullicino Orlando insists - No-fault concept has to stay in Divorce Bill
PL: Main principles of Bill will not be changed, including 'no-fault' -- Divorce Movement spent just €30,000 on its campaign --- Louis Deguara to vote 'No' - will not seek re-election
Update 2 - Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando insisted today that the no-fault concept has to be retained in the Divorce Bill.
He was speaking in Parliament as the debate on the introduction of divorce got off in earnest, a year after he surprised everyone by presenting a private member's bill on the issue - leading to the referendum in May.
Opening the debate, Dr Pullicino Orlando expressed his gratitude to the people who had voted in favour of divorce. He said such people had given those whose marriage had broken down the opportunity to remarry rather than live in cohabitation.
It would be a mistake, he said, if anyone now tried to go against the spirit of what the people had approved in the referendum, he said. This included, he said, the concept of no-fault divorce.
(There were reports this week that the PL would propose amendments to the no-fault concept. Separately, a PL spokesman in a statement said the PL would ensure that the main principles of the bill, including those relating to no-fault divorce, would remain unchanged.)
Dr Pullicino Orlando said this matter had been discussed in the referendum campaign. The No camp had campaigned against the no-fault divorce concept and the people had then voted. He felt very strongly that Malta should learn from the experience of other countries and not introduce a fault-based divorce.
There were various forms of no fault divorce, from Las Vegas style to the Irish model, which was the most conservative in the world and the one on which the Maltese Bill was based.
Having no-fault divorce meant that one did not need to reopen a blame game in court, when separation proceedings would have already have been concluded anyway. Having this blame game all over again was also harmful to children.
No fault divorce in Malta's case did not meant quick fix debate. In Malta, the no-fault divorce would be granted after four years of separation in the most responsible of manners.
Indeed, the no-fault concept already existed in separation proceedings.
Dr Pullicino Orlando said that in terms of the referendum question, it was important that the divorce law provided that divorce could only take place after four years of separation, and after arrangements for the maintenance of the children. The Bill, he said, provided a guarantee of maintenance not a guarantee of payment, since provisions on payment of maintenance already existed under the law governing separations.
Children, Dr Pullicino Orlando said, suffered whenever marriages broke down. What was important was not to make the children's situation worse. Indeed, under this law, the duty for maintenance of children would be extended until the children completed post-secondary education (23 years old) rather than 16 as at present.
The Bill, he said, also laid down that the court may, in the case of disagreement, lay down arrangements for the granting of maintenance for the children. It would take cognisance of the contributions to the family made by the two spouses.
The court would also establish arrangements, if requested, of the custody of the children and one of the spouses may be denied access if he/she was deemed unsuitable.
It was also important to ensure that the granting of divorce did not alter arrangements made in separation agreements.
Dr Pullicino Orlando said divorce could only be granted if possibilities of reconciliation were exhausted and lawyers had a duty to seek such reconciliation, when it appeared possible.
He augured, Dr Pullicino Orlando said, that the new law would best protect the interests of all those people who suffered the trauma of marriage break-down and wished to remarry.
In his address Dr Pullicino Orlando thanked Deborah Schembri, former leader of the Divorce Movement for her work, including the drafting of this Bill.
Dr Pullicino Orlando was followed by Evarist Bartolo (PL) co-sponsor of the Bill, who praised the way how people from across the political divide had worked on this issue and said that the country had a lot to gain of this model was followed on other issues.
DIVORCE MOVEMENT'S CAMPAIGN COST JUST €30,000
He said that he calculated that the Divorce Movement only cost some €30,000, but the movement was assisted by many hard-working volunteers. (The No Movement said last month it spent €236,000 on its campaign)
The people showed in the referendum that they were more advanced than the institutions which represented them, Mr Bartolo said.
Malta had had a need for the civil right of divorce because marriage break-ups were comparable with other countries. So too was the percentage of babies born out of wedlock.
The Divorce Bill was therefore in the interests of the common good.
Times columnist Ranier Fsadni had written how in 2008, there were 738 marriage break-ups, a crude divorce rate of close to 2%. The EU average was also 2%.
The referendum vote, he said, was a vote of solidarity since many people had voted for divorce not because they needed it, but to give the opportunity for those who did.
The Members of Parliament, Mr Bartolo said, were now bound by the mandate handed to them by the people and legislation should not be altered in a way which went against the word and the spirit of the referendum question and what was said by the Divorce Movement during the campaign. The main principles were the four year separation period before eligibility for divorce, the assurance that there was no possible reconciliation, guarantees of maintenance and the concept of no-fault divorce.
Dr Bartolo denied a report in another section of the press that the PL would amend the no-fault concept and said all the principles of the Bill would be preserved.
On the role of the Church during the referendum campaign, Mr Bartolo said the Church had a duty to speak up but during the campaign, it did not show the best people within it.
Divorce, he argued, was not a dogma of the Church and it would have been better if the institution had read the signs of the times.
It could have been loyal to its doctrine without going through a repetition of what happened in the 1930s and sixties, thus risking alienating people from both sides of politics.
It could have been different if certain people within the Church were allowed to speak up on the lines of a thesis which Bishop George Frendo had written or what Fr Rene Camilleri wrote in 2000 and 2010. The latter had written that voting for divorce was not about sin and conscience because the religious and civil matters were separate and the Church should not obstruct the state from taking its decisions.
LOUIS DEGUARA TO VOTE NO, WILL NOT CONTEST ELECTION
Nationalist MP and former health minister Louis Deguara in a short address said he would vote against this Bill on second reading because he wanted to be loyal to his constituents and he had always insisted that divorce did not solve the problems of those couples whose marriage was breaking down.
Dr Deguara said he was not influenced by notes he had received by those in favour or against divorce, since he would not seek re-election. And, he argued, when he was elected to the House, it was not on a promise to vote for divorce.
In what appeared to be a reference to Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, he said that no one should stand for election with a party, and then act as he wished in parliament.
Although most people on his district had approved divorce, he was convinced that his core of voters were against divorce. Furthermore, he was also guided by his religious conscience.
Jose Herrera (PL) disagreed with Dr Deguara's reasoning, arguing that the basic element of democracy and also referenda was that the will of the majority prevailed. A party governed, on its own, even if it got a majority of just a few hundred, he said. The minority, however large, did not have a say in it.
Therefore it did not make sense for some to argue that they should vote No in Parliament to also represent those who had voted against.
The fact that the referendum was consultative, and hence not binding, was also irrelevant. Parliament, not the people, enacted the laws, but MPs had a duty to follow what the people delegated.
Conscience also had nothing to do with it, once the MPs had asked the people to decide.
And, Dr Herrera said, although he was a practising Catholic and respected the Church and its leaders, the State was separate from the Church and had a duty to legislate for the common good.
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...
110 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Philip Hili
Jul 7th 2011, 23:13
Jigi tajjeb il-poplu Malti jekk il-partiti politici jigu ffinanzjati mill-kaxxa ta' Malta ghax nispiccaw li filwaqt li l-partit ikun qieghed jiehu l-flus mill-istat, il-poplu Malti jispicca jiffinazjaw lil xi hadd ghal skopijiet tieghu!!!!!!!!
C Muscat
Jul 6th 2011, 17:27
Does the 30,000 Euro include the media coverage or this is not worth anything. a donation whether or free air time has to be estimated. Alfred Fenech you know who should be ashamed? Those that would leave the partner with three very young children and just after four years will send the divorce papers to add insult to injury. That is what JPO wants and insists on a no fault divorce. Who is at fault wins.
Alfred Fenech
Jul 6th 2011, 13:02
JPO stick to your guns. Its a shame that the CHURCH spent 180,000 euros aiding the NO campagne.
Then the faithfull ( FIDILI ) or BOLOH sweat to collect money again for the unfortunate. What a glorious CHURCH we have . First they rush to the faithful on their death bed to inherit buildings and money in exchange of a pultruna in heaven. Then they interdict the faithful for not obeying the CHURCH'S
directives, Then they squander money at will to aid and abet their ideas. All this supposely for a seat in heaven. I prefer to help individuals without being called a catholic thing to do. The socalled filidi in high places have still to answer for their sins. I remember vindictive transfers, house painted, ruined cariers , lives etc. etc. ZINN MAN what a life. Lets give others a fair chance, Lets gets them out of their
quandery and live again an honest life.
Mr M Borg
Jul 6th 2011, 17:09
Boloh are not the faithfull, but all the " unfaithfull " who were taken for a ride by the referendum question.
Responsible divorce my foot !!
Philip Hili
Jul 6th 2011, 09:59
"Divorce Movement spent just €30,000 on its campaign ---"
WHO FUNDED THE MOVEMENT WITH THE ABOVE SUM OF MONEY??????????????
VARIST, TELL US WHO FUNDED YOUR MOVEMENT PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DAWN IL-FLUS MA GEWX MILL-AJRU!!!!!!!!!!
TISTGHU TGHIDULNA MIN HAREG DAWN IL-FLUS??????????
MOVIMENT "IVA" IR-ROSS MINN HALQNA NIKLUH!!!!!!!!!!
SHAME ON THE TWO DISLOYAL NATIONALIST MPs
MaryJo Camenzuli
Jul 5th 2011, 18:38
How much does all the propaganda in
six out of seven Sunday papers, and
three out of four daily papers,
cost?
Of course, they didn't count that.
Mr M Borg
Jul 5th 2011, 14:00
" Divorce movement's campaign cost just €30,000 ".
Did they realy spend this much ? I thought it would be much less .
What with all the free time they were given on certain TV stations and newspapers, how did they manage to spend €30,000 ??
Zeza Borg
Jul 5th 2011, 17:23
The yes movement spent only 30k against the no movement which spent 180k donation from our poor church,this is the story of David against goliath,the yes all alone against the No with the backing of the PN and The rich church haaaahaaaaa.In the end the PN and the church are the losers,well its Gods will.
Jekk hemm infern inhalaq ghal min jinqeda b'Alla.
Ms Sabrina Borda
Jul 6th 2011, 06:11
If you put it like that, then how come the Anti divorce movement spent a 100 times more with all their free air time? Why don't you try to account for that !
Your comment is baseless.
Philip Hili
Jul 6th 2011, 10:32
@ Zeza Borg
Zez, ghadkom ma ghidtux lil poplu MIN FEJN GEW DAWK IL-FLUS!!!!!
ZeZa, dan li jrid jaf il-poplu!!!!! Ma nahsibx li harguhom, is-Sur Falzon, dr schembri jew varist!!!!
Din hi domanda semplici - MIN HAREG DAWN IL-FLUS?????????????
Il-poplu qieghed jistenna' risposta halli forsi mal-lista li semmejt int, izzid li dan "ix-xi hadd"!!!!
Come on ZEZA!!!!
Zeza Borg
Jul 5th 2011, 13:16
Malta needs true politicians like,Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and Labour MP Evarist Bartolo and not WANNE BE priests,do not think all the people are imbeciles, they have a brain to think with. Some politicians are unbelievable,if they had more say and power they will turn Malta into a Vatican state.you are there to serve the country and not the church,if you want to serve the church you should have joined a religious order.Kemm hawn QADDISIN go dan il pajjiz ,Idiotic maltese parrochialism .
Anthony Schembri adami
Jul 5th 2011, 12:52
Dr Pullicino Orlando should know that other things bedsides consulting the people make up real denocracy; other problems suchas the edxrea cost on thr excheqer sould be considered. perhaps it will be another means for making it easier for the well-to-do.
Besides Malta neads only a Parliamet oneself to itself without hindrence of party leaders or a fear of unpopularity.
John Spiteri
Jul 5th 2011, 10:49
At the end of the day I dont care what politicians think or what the general public think about divorce or what their conciences say. At the end of your life, and it is coming for everyone, you will be held accountable to Almighty God. Your opinions mean nothing to God. For God there is no divorce and thats final. So you can act and think in any way you like. Its your choice, but you will be held accountable, if what is written is true.
Zeza Borg
Jul 5th 2011, 12:09
' if what is written is true', hahahahaha that's the million dollar question...
Mr M Borg
Jul 5th 2011, 09:23
We knew that this " responsible no fault divorce " is like a Las Vegas style divorce. That is why we were so much against it.
The only thing that is different from a Las Vegas no-fault divorce is the 4 years separation before you can file for it.
This can be removed by a simple vote in parliament and we would be on way for Las Vegas divorce alla Maltese !!
This has even been admitted by JPO. yesterday, remove the 4 years and we will be as MODERN as Las Vegas !!
John Spiteri
Jul 5th 2011, 10:41
So adultery is OK then, and is no longer a fault in a Divorce
David Caruana
Jul 5th 2011, 10:45
Like Mr.Francis Saliba you miss the part that says "... to the Irish model, WHICH WAS THE MOST CONSERVATIVE IN THE WORLD AND THE ONE ON WHICH THE MALTESE BILL WAS BASED"
Enough of your deceit M Borg! Give up! The YES won and we will have exactly what we voted for - no more, no less
j brincat
Jul 5th 2011, 10:53
@J Borg
And what about the wishes of the majority. Democracy dictates that this (majority) comes first and foremost!
Good thing he (Dr Deguara) is not contesting any more. In any case he would surely have been booted out!
(jb)
Mr M Borg
Jul 5th 2011, 13:46
@ David Caruana
I did not miss out any part. It is now " based on the Irish model ". At any time this can be changed by a simple vote in parliament to a Las Vegas model .
If you think that this cannot be done, you must be living in a world of your own !!
Will you still be happy with this ??
Mr Saliba Francis
Jul 6th 2011, 03:42
@David Caruana.
I did not miss "... "... to the Irish model, WHICH WAS THE MOST CONSERVATIVE IN THE WORLD AND THE ONE ON WHICH THE MALTESE BILL WAS BASED". I read it, I understood it and it does not contradict my assertion that the JPO proposal (inspite of its alleged relationship to Ireland) is a "no fault" type of divorce similar to the notorious Las Vegas type divorce, the main difference, initially, being a longer cooling off period and this could be easily abolished if the JPO version ever becomes law local law.
The "deceit" is in your failure to grasp that simple fact.
J. Borg
Jul 5th 2011, 09:20
Prosit Dr Degaura for representing all those who voted NO.
I also fully agree with Dr Deguara that:
'In what appeared to be a reference to Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, he said that no one should stand for election with a party, and then act as he wished in parliament.'
Mr Mario P. Sciberras
Jul 5th 2011, 09:03
The MP's did not have the guts to take the decision themselves, now, I hope, they do not interfere with the choice of the people. I don't care about MP's consciences, principles etc., they are irrelevant. The people have voted. So give the people exactly what they want
j brincat
Jul 5th 2011, 08:36
Dr Deguara, as an excuse to vote No, is saying that he wants to respect his constituents.He then goes on to say that most people in his district approved divorce.
So, when voting No (thus going against the will of the majority) which part of the constituents would he be loyal to, those who voted No or those who voted Yes - who in his own words are larger than the former
What logic is this?
(jb)
M Vella***
Jul 5th 2011, 08:35
Dr Deguara ,with our newly acquired European liberal values,Malta needs free politicians and not catholic fundamentalist.We need a Liberal and truly free society.This is getting sillier by the minute.When will Cikku Poplu wake up and realise that the YES won.If parliamentarian votes no he would be defying the result of a referendum.The PN needs to remember that they are a lay party not a religious institution.
Libera Chiesa libero Stato.
John Spiteri
Jul 5th 2011, 10:44
So if your partner cheated on you or burgled you, you would be OK about it as you are a modern liberalist?
Mario Schembri Wismayer
Jul 5th 2011, 07:44
Given that Giovanna Debono's constituency voted with a very strong 'NO to Divorce', I am hoping that she too will feel morally obliged to vote 'no' in parliament...
Michael Magri
Jul 5th 2011, 07:39
Jien nghid li dan il-paroli kollu li qed jinkiteb fuq dan il-blog kontra id-divorzju huwwa kollu paroli FIL-VOJT u assolutament BLA SENS... U se nghid ghaliex..
L-ewwel nett id-decizjoni li din il-haga tmur ghand il-poplu biex jiddeciedi HU premezz ta referendum popolari, kienet decizjoni UNIKA tal-Prim Ministru u Kap tal-Partit Nazzjonalista, Dr. Lawrence Gonzoi INNIFSU..
It-tieni nett, ma din id-decizjoni kienu wrew il-qbil hafna individwi u ghaqdiet ohra nazzjonalisti, fl-imkien mal-Knisja u l-kapijiet taghha.. Acetta wkoll il-Partit Laburista. Prova ta dan hijja li kulhadd hadem bis-shieh ghal-ghanijiet tieghu..
Issa, IL-POPLU TKELLEM kief gie mitlub li jaghmel minn dawn kollha, u 53% minnhu qalu IVA ghal-Ligi tad-Divorzju f`Malta.
Konkluzjoni.. Id-Demokrazijja ta Veru titlob li `r-RIEDA tal-Poplu GHANDHA TI `RISPETTATA AKKOST TA KOLLOX, ghall inqas, mill-maggoranza tal-Parlamentari taghna. Issa jekk Dr. Gonzi qed isibha difficli biex imur kontra dak li `Ddikjara kemm il-darba HU stess li hu u l-PN huma kontra l-ligi tad-divorzju f`Malta, allura l-unika haga li baqghalu x`jghamel hijja li jsejjah elezzjoni generali..
Ms Sabrina Borda
Jul 5th 2011, 06:58
How interesting that MP Louis Deguara never came into parliament to vote for divorce. This can mean that he came to parliament with very limited agendas, perhaps a few mundane ones such as the simple task of fixing the roads in his constituency, I can only hope he was successful in implementing this. But a nation must expect much more from a minister than this, or it may show us how unprepared and very limited an MP can be to handle situations that arise even through a long debated one such as divorce.
Yet (for cover), this minister said he uses his conscience, and wants to delight his constituents whom he alleges voted 'No', therefor here again he shows us how very limiting his capacity is if he cannot acknowledge that he is paid by the nation as a whole to do a job for the whole nation whom he totally ignores.
It starts to seem as if; not only that the truth looks more like he is incompetent but also that he just does not understand society or the democratic process simply by putting his personal agenda first. This way Louis Deguara's vote in parliament becomes a weapon. This is wrong on every level.
Because of his ego, when he 'goes down' (what he calls; not standing for the next elections), he will down' down shooting at the nation.
Carmel Xuereb
Jul 5th 2011, 06:25
Now every body is crying over a dead body. The people voted yes for divorce and it should be carried out in Parlament, we should have divorce introduced in Malta now. And this who's fault is this? It's the Prim Minister who knew that a vote in Parlament will be a NO vote but he opted for the referendum because he mistakingly thought it will be a NO vot too and that would have made it 100% that he will win the next election but things went completly wrong for him and his party is in disarray now and surely the PN will loose the next election.
Mr Saliba Francis
Jul 5th 2011, 05:16
The mask has slipped!
So the JPO-Bartolo referendum bill proposal WAS a Nevada style "no fault" easy way out solution for all undesired marriages that are no longer convenient for any reason whatsoever - and even for no adequate reason at all! The only difference is a temporary longer "cooling down" period that could be easily removed at any time later!
Conscientious legislators take note and beware! You have been warned , and by JPO himself!
David Caruana
Jul 5th 2011, 08:36
Again with your misinformation and deceit! Did you miss the part that says "... to the Irish model, WHICH WAS THE MOST CONSERVATIVE IN THE WORLD AND THE ONE ON WHICH THE MALTESE BILL WAS BASED"
Anyway Mr. Saliba, haven't you given up yet? The NO lost and we will make sure that Parliament legislates exactly what we have voted for.
Mr Saliba Francis
Jul 5th 2011, 13:27
@David Caruana.
The misinformation and the deceit are all on your part. As I insisted correctly, the initial four year cooling off period is open to reduction to near vanishing point, rendering it indistinguishable from a Las Vegas divorce, and with the greatest of ease.
Your threat to "make sure that Parliament legislates exactly what we have voted for" strongly suggests an attempt at criminal intimidation and violation of parliamentary privilege. Similar threats worked with the Malta hierarchy but I would advise you not to try it against members of parliament conducting their legitimate business.
Mrs C Zammit
Jul 5th 2011, 04:28
"Jose Herrera (PL) disagreed with Dr Deguara's reasoning, arguing that the basic element of democracy and also referenda was that the will of the majority prevailed. A party governed, on its own, even if it got a majority of just a few hundred, he said. The minority, however large, did not have a say in it."
So how did the PL vote in parliament after the EU referendum? Did HE vote in favour of the majority?
Kulhadd jitkellem kif jaqbilhu!
Well done Dr Dequara.
Mr Joe Gatt
Jul 5th 2011, 09:32
Mrs C Zammit
`Well done Dr Dequara`.
Good ridance and,
Goodbye
Mr M. Vella
Jul 5th 2011, 02:10
a fault based divorce distinguishes an unavoidable divorce from a frivolous divorce. Why should a marriage be dissolved if there is no reason to. Should any man or woman be able to give up their commitment simply because the thought of a life-long commitment didn't appeal to them any more?
Are we that spineless that our word holds no more meaning than the latest flavour of the month? I think not
Mrs Pauline Abela
Jul 5th 2011, 08:07
People change. Let's say one person develops a mental condition making them practically unbearable to live with. It's one thing to stand by them as far as taking them to medical appointments, ensuring their standard of living is reasonable and so on but quite another to be expected to be a martyr, devote your life to them and persevere in a living hell because 'society' expects that you should. You can help out - and it is the right thing to do - but you should also be able to live your own life in whatever way you feel is best for you. Who's fault is it? Is it the fault of the person who became sick or the person who is still willing to help out but also wants to optimise their own happiness? It's all a matter of perspective. Some call it spineless, some call it unnecessary martyrdom.
Paul Saliba
Jul 5th 2011, 08:34
gew min ghandna habib li nixtiequ nibnu familja gdida u nispera li hadd min tal familja tieghek ma jkollu bzonn xi darba iddur ghad divors fil futur
Philip Hili
Jul 5th 2011, 01:45
Onor. Bartolo, mhux KEMM intefqu l-poplu irid ikun jaf izda minn fejn gew dawn il-flus!!!!!
Ara, tal-Le tafu mnejn gew, issa irridu nkunu nafu ta' "IVA" mnejn gew!!!!!!
Mr Joseph Aquilina
Jul 5th 2011, 01:12
I feel that Jpo is in parliament to represent only his own interests. he is profiting from a single seat majority and in so doing creating a very ugly precedent in which an mp can do what he likes in such situations. unfortunatly, sorry to say, on this subject gonzi was not as strong as i had hoped. today its divorce, tomorrow it will be govement sponsored abortions.
Mr Anton Portelli
Jul 4th 2011, 23:00
Drs Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando , Evarist Bartolo, thank you for all your efforts, Keeep up the good work you started. A big thank you also for Dr Deborah Schembri. Keep it up you have a majority of 53% behind you. This majority would have been much greater if more people were not forced to abstain by the threats of fire and brimstone from the catholic church and by the stand taken by the PN.
Contrary to what Ms Rudy Mcbeal and Mr Joseph Huber wrote the NO Fault clause has to be retained. I does not make any sense to start arguments anew after 4 years of separation when everything would have been determined during the separation procedures.
Philip Hili
Jul 5th 2011, 12:48
Ghandha cans tilhaq "Leader"!!!!!
Mr Patrick Vella
Jul 4th 2011, 22:52
It would be interesting to see how many people who voted yes are aware that, if they go through a divorce, they still cannot walk up the aisle with their 2nd beloved ! Only an annulment will let you go up the aile again....so why divorce in the first place !!!!!!!!!
Ms Rita Smith
Jul 5th 2011, 08:46
No they are not aware and if they divorce and marry again they will be in adultery situation which is very grave being Catholics. They are not seeing beyond!!
Rita Smith
anton cassar
Jul 5th 2011, 09:29
Who told you that if you want to get married you have to go up the aile ?????....Neither for the 1st nor for the 2nd !!!
J. Schembri
Jul 4th 2011, 22:38
JPO is just an MP out of 65. If he insists on something he should ask for a vote to be taken , if it can be done , which I seriously doubt.
Mr Tony Camilleri
Jul 4th 2011, 22:36
The people have spoken.
They want divorce and the MPs are bound to obey as they are the peoples servants.
MaryJo Camenzuli
Jul 5th 2011, 19:38
The 'people' are not one.
122,000 people have spoken and said Yes.
They are a majority.
They should be represented in Parliament as such.
108,000 people have spoken and said No.
They are a minority.
They should be represented in Parliament as such.
Nothing more.
Nothing less.
Repectively.
.
D Sammut
Jul 4th 2011, 22:34
I don't think that the referendum was done for nothing! The Prime Minister Wanted to know what the people think about Divorce and the majority of the people voted yes! What is there to see!? If we really live in a democratic Country they have to apply the Law and forget all about it! and whoever needs it can make use of it! Who is religious or doesn't need it they don't use it end of story! We live in the 21st Century not in the 16th Century! We have to get civilized and every person needs to have the right to do what they need! If MP's don't want to vote in favor of divorce because of their conscious they should consider resigning because they should do what the people want!
Mr Charles.C. Brown
Jul 4th 2011, 22:32
This guy seems to be obsessed with divorce he must certainly have peronal reasons, im sure people are fed up with him preaching divorce every time he shows up. Can the PM have a quiet word with him and tell him to change the subject or would he just sit down and keep the bench warm without saying nothing unless hes got some other agenda to talk about.
Ms maria aquilina
Jul 4th 2011, 22:27
I voted no to divorce for the simple reason that it was going to be a no fault divorce.It is nor fair for any for the couple to file for divorce for no reason.On the other hand no one in his right senses is going to file for divorce for no reason. So our representatives in parliament must be very careful when enacting this law. They have to keep in mind the consequences that the whole family will pass through especially women and children after divorce.
George Lewis
Jul 4th 2011, 22:10
Why does JPO have to put his foot in his mouth every time?Why does he not resign and while doing his every day job as a dentist ask his clients to open their mouth while he keeps his mouth shut.He would be doing a much better service if he does .I am sure he is is still after his being in the limelight.I hope Dr Gonzi will not have to bend over again because he keeps stumping his feet
Mr Stephen Borg
Jul 4th 2011, 22:35
He might not always be right but he surely has the right to speak up as we all have the right to speak up in a democracy called Malta. I am still amazed that in 2012 there are still people which want to silence others with conflicting views.
Mr Anton Portelli
Jul 4th 2011, 22:42
Mr George Lewis it will be better if YOU kept your mouth shut. Drs Jeffrey and Evarist proposed a divorce law which the prime minister chose to put up for a referendum and the people have voted with a resounding majority that no political party obtained in the past. These two gentlemen are speaking in the name of the majority - and a BIG majority.
What do you want Mr Lewis that we remain status quo i.e. those who can pay will get divorces abroad which will then be recognised by the state here, and others for some reason or other getting annulments "a la carte"?
Mr Anton Portelli
Jul 4th 2011, 22:49
Mr Lewis it is not Dr Jeffrey pullicino orland that will make Dr Gonzi bend over again, it is the majority that has voted and Dr Gonzi has promised that the will of this majority will be respected. Let us hope that Dr Gonzi keeps his word and passes this law SOON with the main aspects that were voted for especially the no fault clause.
The no fault clause is important in order to preserve the harmony that might have developed during the years after separation. Why do many holier than thou want to rekindle anger and hatred between couples after this has settled. Besides the principle of no fault exists now in separation procedures!
Ramon Casha
Jul 5th 2011, 04:55
Resign? If every MP who is in favour of democratic principles resigns, I'm sure you'll be very happy.
Forget it.
Ms Rita Smith
Jul 5th 2011, 08:43
Mr Anton Portelli what majority? with those 92,000 people who did not vote? I would say if 91 percent voted and Pro Divorce won I would bow my head.
Rita Smith
Ms Rita Smith
Jul 5th 2011, 08:48
Somebody here earnestly needs a divorce!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ritya Smith
Mr twanny borg
Jul 4th 2011, 21:44
naqbel ma' dr. deguara. id-divorzju ma kienx fil-programm elettorali b'hekk huwa mhux marbut li bilfors irid jivvota iva. l-ewwel ALLA u wara x-xitan. erbgha snin mazra li ma thallix rikonciljazzjoni ghax min se jmur lura fiz-zwieg meta jkun diga' ghaddha certu zmienbiex jilhaq l-4 snin? aktar separazzjonijiet, zwiegijiet godda u aktar tfal jintlaqtu hazin. il-mantenimenti se jonqsu ghax min jiflah ihallas ghal aktar minn familja wahda? hallina dr. herrera xbajtu qabel ir-referendu tattakkaw il-knisja? ara issa waqghajtu fis-skiet. jew ma' Alla jew max-xitan. prosit dr. deguara.
George Lewis
Jul 4th 2011, 23:44
Does not Dr.Deguara have a right to vote according to what he believes?Is he going against his principles bu voting no to something which was not on the electoral manifesto?Does he have to agree with those of the yes movement not to be criticized for his present beliefs?So now he is being imposed upon and regarded as not being democratic!Some are making a hero of JPO for acting Pandora and demonising others for standing by their beliefs!Quo vadis Malta?
Dr Deguara stick to your guns and keep being the gentleman you always have been.
Mrs Pauline Abela
Jul 5th 2011, 08:34
Jien, li ma nistax nifhem hi d-differenza bejn annullament u dizorzju. Wiehed taghtiulek il-knisja u l-iehor jaghtiulek l-istat. Allura x'differenza taghmel specjalment fuq it-tfal? Ir-rizultat mhux ezatt l-istess? It-tfal x'differenza se jaraw? Fil-fatt, min kif nifhem jien, l-annulament ifisser illi z-zwieg QATT ma kien jigifieri t-tfal huma prodott ta' zball kbir li qatt ma kellu jigi rikonoxxut. Filwaqt id-divorzju jirikonoxxi li xi darba kien hemm zwieg (u wiehed jifhem xi livell ta' mhabba). Allura, f'ghajnejn it-tfal mhux ahjar li jhossuhom li huma prodott ta mhabba li XI DARBA kienet tezisti milli ta sempliciment ta' relazjoni li QATT ma ezistiet? Id-divorzju mhux qiesek sejjer tixtri nofs tuzzana pastizzi. Il-maggoranza tan-nies jahsbu sew qabel ma jaghmlu pass li jbiddel ir-relazjonijiet tal-familja kollha (inkluzi, nanniet, kugini u zijiet) u jbiddel ukoll is-sitwazzjonni finanzjarja ta' min jghaddi minnha.
Ms Rita Smith
Jul 5th 2011, 08:52
Dr Herrera says he is a practicing Catholic. U hallina tridx. If you find it difficult to abide by Jesus's laws how can you be a practicing Catholic. The Lord hates divorce and by his own words Dr. Herrera is renouncing Jesus's teaching. So much to being a practicing Catholic.
Rita Smith
Ms Rita Smith
Jul 5th 2011, 08:58
I hope other Nationalist MP's follow suit because this Divorce thing was not in the electoral programme. Yes maybe Dr. Gonzi made a mistake calling for a referendum but who does not make mistakes? At the moment I am not seeing my Party, the Nationalist Party in good light for when I voted for them there was nothing mentioned in their electoral programme and they always insisted that they are against divorce so I don't know how I will vote coming next election. I don't want wmpty words from nobody because if the Nationalists are in government it is because I was one of those thousands who voted for them.
Rita Smith
Charles Micallef
Jul 4th 2011, 21:43
Dr Deguara said he was not influenced by notes he had received by those in favour or against divorce, since he would not seek re-election. And, he argued, when he was elected to the House, it was not on a promise to vote for divorce.................
.............................he is yet another elected MP who could not care less and ignore what the voters want!!
Maria Vassallo
Jul 4th 2011, 21:34
Well done, Dr. Deguara!
Kompli sammar l-imsiefer fit-tebut politiku tieghek, JPO!
Mr FRANS H SAID
Jul 4th 2011, 21:31
"he said that no one should stand for election with a party, and then act as he wished in parliament."
Does it mean that the party is autocratic? This is not a dictatorial regime. This is not extreme comunism or fascism. Each deputy has a mind and must think and act accordingly. Dr Deguara probably did not study and evaukate his words. It would be a very dark day when a part is controlled by one or just a few. That would not a democratic party. Though I might not agree compelety with JPO, I definitly do not agree with Dr Deguara. That would be the worse type of dictatorship. The age of the Holy Devine Inquisition is well past over. The Inquisition was a terrorist organisation by dending BRUNO to burn at the stake, by censoring Galileo, by rediculing Darwin, and now we know that the Church, has through the ages, accepted the theories of these great people.
Thus Dr Deguara and your followers. think before you speak.
Emmanuel Buttigieg
Jul 5th 2011, 00:42
I agree with Dr Deguara. We elect MPs depending on their agenda and what they think they are capable of voting on. None of these MPs were elected with a decision on divorce in mind, and definitely not on any matter that comes up ( as you said, "Each deputy has a mind and must think accordingly"). Same goes for Mr Pullicino Orlando, who could have waited for the next election. Was the need for divorce so urgent?
Also, your first two sentences are rather contradictory, are they not?
Ms Rita Smith
Jul 5th 2011, 09:01
Dr Deguara is right. It was not in the elecorate programme such a hot issue. I voted Nationalists and I can tell you they would be deceiving me if they voted divorce in. I did not give them the mandate and so many other thousands.
Rita Smith
DR EMMANUEL BEZZINA,MA,MAG.JUR.[EU Law],LL.D.,
Jul 4th 2011, 21:24
Those MPs who vote against the Divorce Bill which shamedly was downgraded to an amendment to our Civil Code [ off with the Heads of these idiotic Legislators - sic ! ] must resign fortwith from Parliament,renounce to their perks and priviliges,and immediately stop being paid from the public coffers: this applies to ALL MPs,with all due respect,friends or acquaintances.
This is the moment when the people`s voice,determination and will must be adhered to at all costs.During my 30-year campaign for the introduction of Divorce which cost me illegally and abusively my right as a qualified lawyer to represent my clients wherever my clients want me in our land because the Kurja Kattolika Maltija under a dictatorial regime so unconstitutionally decreed that I represent not my esteemed clients before the Ecclessiastical Tribunals,these current day cowards always argued that the will of the majority should reign and be enforced supreme.
Now THAT MAJORITY finally came for the DIVORCE LAW to be introduced in Malta,30 years late,BUT these cowards are now arguing that the rights of the Minority have equally to be respected.Those who do not want to divorce are and have never been obliged so to do,but those who wish to apply for divorce must be free and have a legal remedy to do so.In the published amendment to the Civil Code,there are a number of matters that have nothing to do with divorce or the QUESTION the electorate voted for,such as the increase from 18 to 23 years to make good for the child`s education at a higher level or the word ``children`` was substituted by ``dependents of the family`` when nowhere do we have a definition of the word FAMILY.
Parliament must not only vote in accordance with the wishes of the people [ BY 15000 votes if you please ] BUT EQUALLY be strictly loyal to the QUESTION as put to the people. Some of the crude amendments outrightly violate THE QUESTION and should thus be deleted.
MPs VOTE FOR DIVORCE or QUIT PARLIAMENT NOW as you will no longer deserve to be the representatives of our people. Quod erat Demonstrandum!! AMEN.
Ms Rita Smith
Jul 5th 2011, 09:04
If a judge rules against you do you quit? I wonder!
Rita Smith
Wilfred Camilleri
Jul 4th 2011, 21:18
Who cares what Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando insists on! Parliament is there to discuss the details of any proposed laws before they are voted on. Parliamentary democracy allows MPS to proposed amendments to laws during the discussion stage. If JPO wants to live in a dictatorship, he can move to ZImbabwe!
Mr FRANS H SAID
Jul 4th 2011, 21:53
True democracy, Swiss type, follows referenda. The people are more powerfull than the few who most tow the part line. Who ever gave you the impression that centrally controlled political parties are democratic? They are as autocratic as Stalin, Hitler and Gaddafi
R Mercieca
Jul 4th 2011, 22:44
I fully agree with you (W. Camilleri), we live in a country with a non-binding vote, MPs have the right to voice their own opinions and vote according to what they think is in the best interest of their country. JPO should know this better than anyone else as he makes part of the MPs. Imposing them to vote in favour is ridiculous and leaves utterly no sense in putting the bill to a vote, in the first place.
Mr Saliba Francis
Jul 5th 2011, 05:18
The mask has slipped!
So the JPO-Bartolo referendum bill proposal WAS a Nevada style "no fault" easy way out solution for all undesired marriages that are no longer convenient for any reason whatsoever - and even for no adequate reason at all! The only difference is a temporary longer "cooling down" period that could be easily removed at any time later!
Conscientious legislators take note and beware! You have been warned , and by JPO himself!
Mr Saliba Francis
Jul 5th 2011, 05:25
@Frans H Said.
Swiss referenda are NOT consultative referenda. They are not held deceitfully disguised as only non-binding, consultative referenda and then transmogrified into binding obligatory referenda by lobbies whose aspirations are favoured by a mere third of the population!
Henry S. Pace
Jul 4th 2011, 20:59
JPO :
He said that he calculated that the Divorce Movement only cost some €30,000 on its campaign, including the availability of facilities, but the movement was assisted by many hard-working volunteers
From where did the €30,000 came from? Surprisingly the biggest contributor to the YES Campaign was the MEDIA.
Children, Dr Pullicino Orlando said, suffered whenever marriages broke down. What was important was not to make the children's situation worse.
Quite natural the way forward would be establishment of NEW Orphanages.
On the role of the Church during the referendum campaign, Mr Bartolo said the Church had a duty to speak up but during the campaign, it did not show the best people within it.
The Church in Malta campaigned in favour of Divorce through the 'WIS' Theologians
Divorce, he argued, was not a dogma of the Church and it would have been better if the institution had read the signs of the times.
It is very much regretted that Varist spoke oout oc context because No Pope, Cardinals, Bishops , clergy or any other person who belongs to the Catholic Church can change neither the Ten comandments or the Holy Scripture.
The Church accepts every person who does not live a life of contradiction.
Hallina Varist.
Mr John Cassar
Jul 4th 2011, 21:57
Henry S.Pace
"From where did the €30,000 came from? Surprisingly the biggest contributor to the YES Campaign was the MEDIA"
Hahahaha. By the media do you mean Radio 101, NET TV, RTK, Radju Maria, In-Nazzjon, Il-Mument and PBS to mention a few?
Hallina Henry!!
J. Schembri
Jul 4th 2011, 20:50
Weren’t we told that it was NOT a no fault divorce by the Yes to responsible divorce movement?
In other words , many people were hoodwinked into voting yes.
Dr Deguara can vote yes , and can rest assured that he will be re-elected.
The referendum was a consultative referendum and is very open to interpretation.If it was not consultative JPO/Evarist’s bill would have become law automatically . There is a constitution which has to be observed.
Parliament has the last say, and all MP’s have the free vote from their parties.
People have the right to have their wishes reflected by their MP’s in parliament.
Ramon Casha
Jul 5th 2011, 04:53
No, you weren't. We were told the truth - that a no fault divorce is the best kind of divorce. The alternative is bitter court struggles that harm everyone involved.
You're right in the last sentence though. People have the right to have their wishes reflected by their MP’s in parliament. That means passing a law as outlined in the referendum question.
Mr Paul Barrett
Jul 4th 2011, 20:37
The "no fault" concept is basically just an agreement between the couple that are applying for the divorce that they have agreed that the marriage is over, dead, finished. Why on earth, four years after it has totally finished do we need to apportion blame or wash dirty laundry in public.
Apart from that, the referendum (for which we paid in the region of four million euro) gave each member of Parliament a mandate on how the people from the area that they represent wish to be represented in the matter of divorce. There is now no further need for any MP to speak for or against the matter of divorce and they should now just get on and vote for the passing or denial of the legislation in accordance with the results of the people they represent.
Mr Joseph Huber
Jul 4th 2011, 20:31
If there is anything sinister about the bill it is the 'no fault' clause. Once divorce is being forced down our throats, this is the clause that MUST be removed.
Mr FRANS H SAID
Jul 4th 2011, 21:35
No one will force you. If you do not agree or it goes against your religion, stay celibate. After all many girls were FORCED to become nuns by not obeying their fathers into marriage against their will. And funilly enough, during the mariage ceremony the celebrant has the nerve to ask, "did you come here on your own free will?
Wake up man and study in detail before you rush with unsustainable ideas.
Ray Gatt
Jul 5th 2011, 09:21
Don't get divorced Mr. Huber so it won't be forced down your throat.
Mr Joe Gatt
Jul 5th 2011, 09:49
Mr Joseph Huber
Once divorce is being forced down our throats, this is the clause that MUST be removed.
You are anti divorce, and I cannot see a picture whereby one day you go home, to tell your wife that you are seeking divorce as `This Gorgeous and Sexy young woman in the street was totally overwhelmed when you passed by, she now wants you at all cost`
It does not happen that way buddy, you have a cooling off period of 4 long Years, and she`d be gone by then.
Not unless you meet discreetly in the night, and that is called adultery, is`nt it?
Love is all we need??
Enough crap please.
Ms Rudi Mcbeal
Jul 4th 2011, 20:08
I hope that at least the no-fault concept WILL NOT be retained.
Mr Wally Vella-Zarb
Jul 4th 2011, 20:31
It is said that hope is the last thing to die but, I fear, you are stretching it a bit!
Mr M Farrugia
Jul 4th 2011, 20:57
Ms Graham. it wa a consultative referendum and nothing else. It was a guideline and not something passed through parliament. The way you speak shows how undemocratic you are. If the way the law law passes through the Maltese parliament does not suite you you can go somewhee else and get a divorce most especially if you do not have a Maltese citizenship
Ray Gatt
Jul 5th 2011, 09:19
@ Mr. Farrugia - Consultative or not, the people have spoken loud and clear and the message to the politicians is there to abide by. Now St. Louis Deguara knows that by voting No in parliament, he'll be going against his loyal constituents wishes and that would make it almost impossible for him to be elected again. So he would rather not seek re election than be humiliated. As for his religious beliefs, who cares about them. After all this was a state referendum and not a church one. By the way, please do not do a U turn and decide to run come election time. Your constituents, the ones you are about to betray would very much appreciate it since you have no respect for their intelligence and choices.
Ms P.M Graham
Jul 4th 2011, 20:01
I have said this before and I will say it again. MP's voted on the day of the referendum. No one else gets a second vote.
The vote was taken to introduce Divorce in Malta. End of discussion. The majority spoke.
Mr Joe B Edwards
Jul 4th 2011, 21:05
This!
Mr Joseph Calleja
Jul 4th 2011, 20:00
"Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando insisted today that the no-fault concept has to be retained in the Divorce Bill" Yes Dr Pollicino don't give in on the No Fault.
Mr Denis Pace
Jul 4th 2011, 22:39
Yes...dont give in...
If I want to leave wife & kids, why should there be a reason?
Maybe, I can remarry somebody younger.
This is Liberlism
This is Malta today
Ray Gatt
Jul 5th 2011, 09:06
So be it Mr. Pace.
Mr William Pierce
Jul 4th 2011, 19:46
There must be no amendments, The People have spoken, LOUDLY. Now do the job the people have told you to do or get out!
Joseph Stephen Galea
Jul 4th 2011, 19:53
When is less than 40% "loudly"?
Ms Rudi Mcbeal
Jul 4th 2011, 20:06
Loudly? Not by any stretch of the imagination.
Mr John Cassar
Jul 4th 2011, 20:08
Joseph Stephen - by silly bent reasoning 40% is much larger than 26%. See my post further down for more inspiration.
Mr Victor Laiviera
Jul 4th 2011, 20:18
As loudly as 53%. In any democracy, that is considered almost deafeningly loud.
Mr Joseph Calleja
Jul 4th 2011, 20:22
Joseph Stephen Galea I thought the final vote was 53 to 47 in favour of the Yes vote. Get over it, the majority won, that means the Yes vote won. Amen.Let it go and don't be such a sore loser.
Mr M Farrugia
Jul 4th 2011, 20:59
jekk hawn xi hadd li ma jista jitkellem dwar il-figuri huwa inti ghax taf kif ilo-partit tieghek hasiba meta tilef firpreferendum tal-ewropa. Nie bhalek idahquni ghax nippretendi xi haga ahjar
Edward Gatt
Jul 4th 2011, 21:16
@ Mr Victor Laiviera
Am glad that Mr Laiviera at last is speaking this way! However I doubt if his reasoning was the same after the EU referendum result!
And what does he think about that referendum now?
Mr Peter Korsten
Jul 4th 2011, 21:52
"When is less than 40% "loudly"?"
With such an acute grasp of numbers, there's a golden future for you as an accountant. In Greece.
Joseph Stephen Galea
Jul 4th 2011, 19:29
Malta needs a NEW political party that will promise to REMOVE this divorce law if elected.
Mr Andrew Cauchi
Jul 4th 2011, 19:45
Good luck with that
Marianne Tabone
Jul 4th 2011, 20:02
Babel beda diehel!!
Mr Christopher Briffa
Jul 4th 2011, 20:05
Dream on, what we need in this country is for certain people, especially politicians to stop their patronising attitude.
Joselle Camilleri
Jul 4th 2011, 20:19
Surely your comment is exactly that of a despot. If you don't have it your way then off you go hollering like a little kiddie without his sweets. Open your mind and kindly close your mouth.
Mr M Borg
Jul 4th 2011, 20:41
@ Joselle Camilleri
Now who is behaving like a " little kiddie without his sweets " ??
Are you the only one allowed to have your say ??
Agree with me or " Open your mind and kindly close your mouth "
" Surely your comment is exactly that of a despot . "
Mr Peter Korsten
Jul 4th 2011, 21:51
"Malta needs a NEW political party that will promise to REMOVE this divorce law if elected."
They could also promise the second coming of Christ, if elected. You haven't quite figured out this whole referendum thing, have you?
Ramon Casha
Jul 5th 2011, 04:50
Given that people have already voted in favour of introducing divorce, what do you estimate are the chances of any party being elected on that platform?
Joselle Camilleri
Jul 5th 2011, 21:06
@ Mr M Borg
My comment was not meant to be taken in a despotic way. On the contrary, it was simply an ironic comment to point out the naivety that Mr Galea used in his hysterical outbreak (for that is what it seems to be.)
If, at this day and age, one thinks a NEW political party will emerge to REMOVE what the majority of voters want (even if that majority is a relative one), then one must be really dreaming, and quite too much. We need to live our reality, whatever that may be. That was the whole point of my argument.