Being liberal: then and now
In the aftermath of the divorce referendum, the word ‘liberal’ has acquired considerable currency, especially within the Nationalist Party, vaguely implying that a person in favour of the introduction of divorce would be ‘liberal’ while one who is against divorce is ‘conservative’.
Having voted No in the referendum, I felt the need to carry out a reality check to see if indeed I am no longer liberal as I had considered myself to be before the vote.
To my mind, I was liberal when, in the 1970s and in the 1980s, I campaigned hard with so many others for the socialist government to stop infringing fundamental rights such as the right of association following such condemnable incidents of violence as at Tal-Barrani or the freedom of expression when, in effect, the state took control of the entire means of public broadcasting forcing the PN to transmit its views from Sicily.
Then, to be liberal was to stop the state from controlling every single aspect of our lives even of threatening the closure of Church schools in Malta.
I felt liberal enough to campaign in the streets against the state taking control of every tap of economic wealth forcing us to mercifully plead any kind soul travelling to London or Palermo to buy us toothpaste or chocolate to avoid using those produced locally by monopolistic entities.
We were liberal by wanting to roll back the frontiers of the state to allow for private enterprise, which would compete in a liberalised economy putting theinterests of the consumer first and foremost instead those of the central government.
We were liberal by wanting a judicial system freed from the continuous government interference, where courts were closed for months simply because a judge had the effrontery of deciding a case against the socialist government of the day.
To be liberal meant wanting each and every Maltese citizen to have the right of appearing before the European Court of Human Rights against their own government for a breach of the European Convention of Human Rights.
We also wanted the same convention to become part and parcel of our law as it did when we had our ‘regime-change’. This measure has already allowed new rights, such as the eliminationof any discrimination againstillegitimate children.
To be liberal meant that democracy would be strictly according to majority rule as expressed at elections free from violence and intimidation. We liberals refused to recognise a government elected by a minority of the voters denying for five whole years the right of the absolute majority of voters to have the government they freely elected
Above all, we wanted Malta to extend its horizon beyond its insular shores and join the community of free democracies and economies that united the free Europe through the EU, creating the single market and the euro. The liberal in me told me this was the correct road.
Some intellectuals credited the introduction of divorce to Malta’s entry into the EU. What has Malta’s entry into the EU got to do with the divorce issue?
I proudly represented Malta on the EU’s agency on human rights and am committed towards a Europe that does away with homophobia, discrimination in all its forms, especially of minorities such as the Roma, and for a proper treatment of the migration issue.
However, do we become conservative the moment we question the wisdom of divorce as an end to itself or that divorce be not inevitable unless socially proven otherwise?
The EU charter of human rights puts the family, not divorce, at the very centre of its human rights policies and leaves each member state a margin of appreciation on such issues as divorce, abortion and the family.
If we are truly liberal, we must accept that MPs have every right to vote freely and conscientiously on divorce, taking into consideration all national, politicaland social aspects, not least the referendum result.
The vote last week showed a pro-divorce majority in Parliament, yet the liberal in me means I will not take out the exorcist’s cross!
It only makes me sad that the family in Malta has suffered another blow and, arguably, unnecessarily so.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
25 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Ken Cowan
Jul 19th 2011, 21:54
Let's simplify the debate by using a dictionary!
"favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs".
By this definition, being pro gay-marriage and pro-divorce would be "progress or reform" and therefore "liberal"; being against them would be Conservative. Keeping the power of the Church in government and in the schools would have to be considered Conservative.
True, in the last few years "liberalism" has also come to mean NO CONTROLS, especially on any kind of economic issue.
But that seems to me to be a bastardization of the term.
When you take a look politically as to who supports what, it is almost always the Conservatives (e.g. American Republicans, who for years pretended that Global warming doesn't even exist) who want NO CONTROLS on business, even if it means the total destruction of our planet ecologically, and Liberals (e.g. Greens) who support controls on business for exactly ecological reasons.. This is why I hate the new meaning of "liberalism" to mean "no controls on business"; it is muddying the waters and allowing true Conservatives to pretend to be Liberals.
alfred agius
Jul 19th 2011, 00:02
Liberal?!
How can one with the motto `RELIGIO et Patria` can convince us that he is truly a liberal...
Christian Ellul
Jul 18th 2011, 22:50
PN was always liberal on economic policies and conservative on values. I find it that its a common mix of liberal and conservative in many countries! It's as simple as that and its useless twisting this liberal, not- liberal saga!
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Jul 18th 2011, 06:57
With all due respect you sound like a PN supporter - not a liberal, however one defines that term.
Wilfred Camilleri
Jul 17th 2011, 20:30
I think that Austin Bencini is confusing democracy with liberalism!
- Campaigning against the infringement of fundamental rights such as the right of association is campaigning for democracy!
- Stopping the state from controlling every single aspect of our lives doe snot mean one is a liberal. In fact, more often than not, it's conservative governments that are in favour of "small" government and not Liberal governments.
- Wanting each and every Maltese citizen to have the right of appearing before the European Court of Human Rights against their own government is a democratic right not a liberal right.
- Accepting that MPs have every right to vote freely and conscientiously on divorce or other issues which impinge on an MP's religious or moral beliefs is not a liberal or conservative issue. It's a democratic issue.
These rights are endorsed by both liberals and conservatives. It's in the implementation of such rights where liberals and conservatives differ.
Mr Angus Black
Jul 17th 2011, 23:56
'Liberal' and Conservative' are just labels to be used or misused as the circumstance dictates.
Being a 'liberal' does not necessarily translate into acting liberal and the same with being labeled 'conservative'.
However fighting for democracy almost by necessity can be regarded as being liberal (open) minded as opposed to ultra conservative (close minded) such as the Socialist regimes of the 70s and 80s were when they suppressed all form of liberalism to a point of denying freedom of assembly, freedom of speech and freedom to create competitive elements within the economy resulting in complete stagnation and the expansion of the underground economy during which mass unemployment reigned supreme.
So, indeed Austin Bencini is right to credit the return of democracy, open trade and basic human right in 1997 to the liberal-minded element within the Nationalist Party which realized that what went awry with the Socialist regime was the refusal to give the proper tools for expanding the economy and have a happier working force.
Wilfred Camilleri
Jul 19th 2011, 19:33
@Mr Angus Black - Socialist states that suppressed human rights and liberty were not conservative states, they were totalitarian regimes! You made reference to ultra conservatives (close minded) but you didn't mention ultra liberals (left leaning liberals). There are extremes on both sides of the equation so if you're going to make reference to one extreme you also have to mention the other extreme. Many conservatives are open minded and many liberals are close minded. One cannot make broad statements about one or the other because there are degrees of conservatism and liberalism. Personally I see the Nationalist Party as a melding of liberals and conservatives as opposed to the PL which is predominantly a socialist movement.
Mario Grima
Jul 17th 2011, 18:49
It is time Dr. Bencini to stop living in the past and to take a good look around what is happening today and what might happen tomorrow. Surely, you can tell us something about the wide cracks in the PN, the arrogance of this governement, the sloppy bus service, the criticism levelled against the PN by their own hardliners, the way your Prime Minister voted against the will of the majority, the way your PM shed his responsibilites upon the electorate by calling a referendum etc....
How can you think you are a liberal when with your own actions you tried to enforce the will of the majority upon the minority. No wonder your writings never make sense!!!
Mr carmel tonna
Jul 17th 2011, 16:12
There are two areas when one can be so called liberal or conservative:
You can be liberal in the management of the economy and conservative on social issues;
You can be liberal on social issues but conservative on economic issues;
You can be liberal in the management of the economy as well as on social issues;
You can be conservatie on the management of the economy as well asd conservative on social issues;
This may help the author determine his position.
Mr Victor Laiviera
Jul 17th 2011, 15:33
Dr Bencini seems to have his own, very peculiar, definition of what it means to be a liberal.
Mr Aaron Vella
Jul 17th 2011, 15:11
"It only makes me sad that the family in Malta has suffered another blow and, arguably, unnecessarily so."
To think that divorce will make the Maltese family suffer another blow, doesn't make you a liberal or a conservative for that matter. I agree that the word liberal has been over used in the divorce campaign, but like you Mr Bencini, the majority of the people using the word, do not even know what it means! (Mr. Anthony Buttigieg below me is another fine example). To live in a country that a minority's civil right has to be decided by a referendum...
Anthony Buttigieg
Jul 17th 2011, 13:57
I am not much of a scholar but to me liberal is i do not have to wait years for an operation, that i can get my medicine not they tell me is of out of stock, the businies people pay their taxes like me all those mliioins they owe to the tax deprtment and how abuot all the other millioins at the vat department .Oh and the electricity bills a while back we lost our kuxjenza socjali leave me alone i can hardly make ends meet because i do not make the money guys like you make
Joseph Agius
Jul 17th 2011, 16:44
"I am not much of a scholar" really? who would have thought with that contribution?
Ms Sabrina Borda
Jul 17th 2011, 13:39
Facing the divorce law is simply facing another fact of life. Conscience does not live in the past, it is ever present and teaches you too what life needs, or life itself will show you.
Mr Karl Consiglio
Jul 17th 2011, 13:35
Would the legalization of wine in Afghanistan make Afghanistan liberal? No, of course not. By that same logic the author of this letter is not in the least bit liberal, and never was.
Mr Chris Gatt
Jul 17th 2011, 12:02
Dr Bencini, - "If we are truly liberal, we must accept that MPs have every right to vote freely and conscientiously on divorce" . That statment is only true if the MPs had not gone to the hustings and asked the people's opinion.
MaryJo Camenzuli
Jul 17th 2011, 12:52
The new 'liberals' want to dictate to all of us how we should think, express ourselves and vote.
According to the new 'liberals', the Prime Minister has to lie and vote against his own opinion.
This is not 'liberalism', but Politburo style communism where everyone had to agree.
.
Mr Victor Laiviera
Jul 17th 2011, 19:10
@ MaryJo Camenzuli.
In "Politburo style communism", the ruling elite do what they think and what they please - without taking any notice of what the people want - just a Lawrence Gonzi did when he voted "NO".
Andy Farrugia
Jul 17th 2011, 19:57
@ MaryJo Camenzuli
"This is not 'liberalism', but Politburo style communism where everyone had to agree."
Nowadays, it goes by the name of atheism, nihilism and humanism - the post-modern system of thought control. Anything outside its confines is vilified, derided and condemned as ruthlessly as it was in the ex-Soviet Union.
.
Mr Chris Gatt
Jul 17th 2011, 20:20
@ MAry Jo Camenzuli. What utter nonsense. No one is forcing the PM to 'lie'. Nor are the 'liberals' dictating to him how he thinks.. It was his decision to go to the hustings.
Let me put it in a way that perhaps you will understand: Imagine Malta s a company and the voters are the shareholders, and the PM is the CEO of that company.
He has problem. Rather than take a decision himself, he decides to refer this problem to theshareholders. He also tells the shareholders his opinion about the issue. The shareholders beg to differ . He then has to decide: he either follows the wishes of the shareholders or he resigns.
It would be unacceptable for him to find other peoplel in the company to do the job he does not want to do and at the same time goes complaining to the press. As CEO his job is to lead from the front , not give orders from the back.
This is not about a poliburo style of thinking, this is his job and role as PM.
Mr ALBERT LEONE GANADO
Jul 17th 2011, 11:56
Oh come on , we are now led to believe that .Austin is a liberal . Go and tell it to the chaplain of the marines. Just be proud to be an ultaconservative Catholic and a committed charismatic and we will respect you. But please do not try to fit into clothes which do not fit you for you will look as silly as some Maltese ladies in hotpants.
Wenzu Vella
Jul 17th 2011, 09:54
Mr Bencini every country and culture on this planet puts the family at its very centre of its human rights policy. Divorce only comes after that very family you have talked about has broke down beyond repair. Can you people understand that those marriages that are sound DO NOT NEED DIVORCE.
Every other Catholic country with the exception of the Philippines, of-course, the Vatican is not included because marriage of Catholic clergy is not allowed. Why not is beyond me because they could experience the joy and tribulation of what married life brings, also would have first hand experience to council the unfortunate one’s who’s marriage get into difficulty.
Mario Pace
Jul 17th 2011, 09:34
We stop being liberal when we try to impose our personal religious convictions upon others.
We stop being liberal when we accept that the State is subordinate to the Ecclesiastical Tribunal in matters of marriage in its civil aspect.
We stop being liberal when we permit a two tier system of recognizing divorces granted by a foreign country but offer no options locally for couples to divorce
We stop being liberal when we wash our hands and ask the people to express themselves in a democratic referendum and then we obstinately refuse to bow our heads and accept that decision.
I can go on but I think , Dr.Bencini, that you got the gist of my message.
MaryJo Camenzuli
Jul 17th 2011, 12:54
And we certainly stop being liberal
when we force others to vote as WE wish,
not as they feel.
Welcome to the new 'liberalism'
where you have to agree with divorce willy-nilly
and must only and always vote Yes to divorce.
.
Mario Brincat
Jul 17th 2011, 13:25
prosit Mr Pace, spot on!
If Mr Bencini is indeed a liberal, I wonder what should I be called!!
Please choose the reason of your report below: