Much has been forthcoming from candidates on the thorny issue of divorce, with many pandering to the masses and stating that one should not ignore the new social realities mushrooming around us. Without specifically calling for an introduction of divorce in these islands, such statements are perceived to be in clear support of such an introduction. The same candidates then speak of family-friendly measures as if the introduction of divorce and such measures could coexist, in order to pander to both anti- and pro-divorce camps by sitting snugly on the fence.
In this sense, I fully endorse the Catholic Manifesto drawn up by local bishops, composed of eight points, which include the need to respect the family model founded on marriage, the need to respect life from conception to a natural death, the need to advance the social rights of workers, the need to introduce economic governance based on social values and the need to protect creation by fighting climate change and promoting a moderate lifestyle and the need to promote justice in relationships between European partners and peace in the world through a judicious foreign policy.
I am proud to be called a conservative or a traditionalist, even though I am still 30 years old, and to call for respect by all candidates of Christian values, such as those of marriage, which is indissoluble.
While couples currently facing difficulties should be helped in every possible way, even those who choose not to get married, the family model should remain a natural choice for young people today, since the dissolution of such a model abroad has hailed in an era of unprecedented social problems. The proposal of social values to rake in votes in simply not on - values do not change with the times.
Comments
"I said that I am against divorce and that I would grant it only on an ad hoc basis where the case warrants it, eg in instances of domestic violence, etc".
Interesting...and do you know where such a policy would lead to? Let me tell you: We'll have men beating up their wives (or wives beating up their husbands) just to get a divorce.
Welcome to politics.
So basically, you are both against divorce and not against divorce. One cannot be against something but grant it in certain circumstances. I see that philosophy and logic is not your forte.
You should also note that you are very mistaken if you think that you concur with the Bishops' Manifesto (like you say). The Bishops would not permit divorce, not even if a husband beats the wife so badly that she ends up on a life-support machine.
As for you being speechless about my claim that civil (yes, this word is important, even if you slyly ignore it) wedlock is just a contract that can be rescinded at any time, I have the evidence of the rest of the world to back up my claim. What makes me speechless is that you have not noticed this yet.
Marriage without love is just a contract. It is love that keeps people together, and not marriage. And love depends on two persons...if love is not reciprocated, the marriage is a sham. Of course, I do not expect you to understand.
And for the record, I did not speak about gay rights.
You are a traditionalist when it comes to divorce only? You elaborate and put forward a patriarchal vew of the family and now you attempt damage limitation by arguing your traditionalist attidude is limited to divorce! So you mean to say you indulge in pick and mix traditionalism?
Your views with regard gender equality will be greatly appreciated. How do values not change with time ? The belief that women were less than complete beings was firmly rooted in Aristotelean and Thomistic tradition, Science proved that female ovum was necessary for procreation and bang that view is demolished. That traditional patriarchal societies keep valuing women less than men is obvious when you look at salaries scales for the different sexes. Where do you stand on women' issues as a traditionalist please give us your view.
PS. Lip service by signing the ILGA proposal will not fool anyone,talk about someone sitting on a fence ! You won't be pushing the right buttons that's for sure.
Re the divorce issue, I made no U turns and I will reiterate my position in clarion terms.......I said that I am against divorce and that I would grant it only on an ad hoc basis where the case warrants it, eg in instances of domestic violence, etc, without opening the floodgates to whimsical cases. I dont condone granting divorce on a whim but only in genuine cases of mistreatment. Needless to say, my statements here will be instrumentalised once again.
Kenneth.....re your reducing wedlock simply to a contract which can be rescinded at any time, I am simply speechless.
I spoke out only on divorce and not on gay rights, abortion and the lot.....re gay rights, my position is that stated in the video. I am a traditionalist when it comes to divorce (only). You may choose to attach any strings you wish to my statements but these are the facts.
Fair enough, you’re incompetence as an MEP candidate is outrageous!
http://www.mep2009.eu/alan-deidun?b=16#p1068c6e4c8051cfd4e9ea8072e3189e2
So apparently, on May 15, Alan Deidun had not yet fully endorsed the Catholic Manifesto drawn up by the Bishops (which leaves no room for any divorce). Does this mean that Alan Deidun has made a U-turn on his position of May 15?
Which is it, Alan? A clarification is important since some people think you follow the Bishops in condemning divorce no matter what (reading this blog), while others think you are in favour of divorce legislation to cater for who deserves it (your comment of May 15).
Some words of advice: If you try to please everyone, you will end up pleasing no one. Intelligent people will see through the word-play and/or deception.
I’m a happily married person and I thank God every single day for our relationship. Why I thank God every single day? Cause for the first 20 years I lived, my parents used fight every single day and that broke my heart. I was heartbroken every single day. To all people that don’t care about the suffering of others, especially of innocent children – please stop being assholes.
Let me make my positions clear
Absolutely To Priority – We have to stop the suffering, especially for children that are in broken families. These children are absolutely innocent and should be as protected as possible. Shall the society not take care of them (which I’m afraid often it fails), then the society may have a price to pay when they grow up.
A solution I propose. Marriage – is to be taken seriously. We can’t make the marriage a bit more than an adventure. Ideally, it should be a life time commitment and if it’s that, then it’s wonderful. Any institution that weds a couple, should also take care of them. If there are issues/problems, ideally they get worked out. From time to time, we do hear of marriages that had serious problems and are eventually worked out. That’s how ideally it should be.
But we are living in a non-ideal world. If a marriage has problems (and unfortunately some DOES have problem), then the institution that wed’s the couple should step it. Professional Counseling should be offered and as much as possible the marriage should be saved. But when it is clear that the particular marriage is in a point of no return, a solution should be offered. Weather annulment or divorce, it’s useless to keep the suffering going. And such process should not involve money and also should be as speedy as possible. If this takes 15, then the institution that wed the couple had stolen 15 years from the couple and from any involved children.
Shall a person(s) be granted annulment or divorce, than such may be asked to undergo a treatment. For e.g., if a person became violent and the marriage broke down cause of the violence, then this person should be ordered to participate in a program to help her in his/her violence. It is the same concept as with drug addicts. Shall the police catch a drug abuser, then he broke the law, and is sent to prison, but is given the possibility to reform himself – and often we have successful stories. My opinion is that it should be the same with marriages. Some marriages don’t work our due to incompatibility however others don’t work out due to serious personality issues and in such cases, the person(s) with the personality issues should be given help. Personality issues could be violence (physical / verbal), money management, infidelity, lack of commitment, gambling, alcoholism etc. Such person, in my opinion, should not be given the possibility to re-marry unless he/she undergoes a program to help him/her get back to his/her feet. Shall we let a person with serious personality issues re-marry, we are going to create more sufferings.
Christian Religion – I’m Christian and I try to live by Christ only commandment – Love. It’s also true that Christ sad “li jaqad Alla m’ghandux jifirdu il-bniedem” but I absolutely fail to see “L-ghaqda ta Alla” when 2 ppl constantly hate each other and innocent children are suffering. Is this what God wants?
Some people talk about human rights but forget about human obligations. Some from the opposite camp, talk about human obligations but forget human rights. We should work for a balance. A marriage is a human right and has its human obligations but the society in general also has obligations to the marriages as well.
The most innocent in a broken family are the children. I guess everybody agreed that they should be protected, no matter what. As much as possible, in the process of protecting the children, we should also minimize the sufferings of all parties involved.
What's it to be Alan? To quote a hunting metaphor, you can't run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.
Cont...
You say that you subscribe to the Bible in its entirety and not choose excerpts from it to your liking. Even if this were true (I hope you don't believe that homosexual people should be stoned to death, for instance...or do you choose excerpts to your liking in this case), you have every right to subscribe to the Bible and follow its orders. But will you concede that others have the right to follow their own religion, or no religion at all?
As for my allegiance...it is that of the separation of church and state. Theocracy is not compatible with democracy, and my allegiance is to democracy (including minority rights).
Now how about starting to address my questions? The more you postpone, the longer the list will grow.
The references to the inquisition are not hollow. In fact they are very relevant, showing your claim that "values do not change with the times" as utterly absurd.
Also, it is not you or me who must decide whether Catholic values and the European reality are fully compatible. It is all the citizens who compose this European reality. The simple fact that there IS a controversy shows that Catholic values are not fully compatible with the holistic European reality.
As for criticism of the Pope, the Pope has freely chosen to be a public figure (and he is a fallible human), and this makes him not above or beyond criticism. We have thankfully gone beyond the times when criticism of rulers, kings and popes was punishable by death (again...values change with the times).
So no, no two weitghts and two measures. This would only be the case if anyone argued that secular leaders are beyond or above criticism - nobody is saying that.
As for wedding vows being eternal, if you think hard enough you will recognize that civil weddings are just contracts. Contracts may be cancelled if both parties agree.
Cont...
How come all European countries have divorce? Then only in Malta they are not compatible? Yousay wedding vows are eternal - how can they be eternal when a marriage fails? Your 30 years says it all. You cannot realise what hardship, sadness and heartache a failed marriage brings. Only those who go through such an experience can tell.
re "I call upon all responsible MEP candidates to pronounce themselves as I did and not conduct the age-old politics of sitting on the fence and taking positions according to public perception. We need politicians with some backbone!"
Why do you arrogantly assume that all MEP candidates should declare their Catholicity ? It is an incredible assumption for a secular politician to make. Do you mean to say that you are staunchly in favour of theocracy? How exactly do you reconcile that statement with a secular and democratic European parliament? Please explain the semantics behind your use of the word 'traditionalist'. Will this mean that you will shoot down any motion that calls for gender equality, that you would rather see women as care givers only? That you will do your utmost to hamper married women's return onto the Labour market? That you uphold a patriarchal model of the family? That other family models are deviant?That you firmly believe that women /men and their children who are abused physically, psychologically in a marriage from hell should not have the right to a dignified life? Some backbone eh ?
I am no saint but strongly believe that the commitment one takes when taking wedding vows are eternal. I subscribe to the Bible in its entirety and not choose excerpts from it to my liking. I reiterate, we need MEP candidate who profess themsleves on such sensitive issues. Biding for time is opportunistic to say the least. I know where I stand and make no secret of it.. The first step in a healthy debate is for everyone to declare their allegiances.
In Malta, when a marriage breaks down, a couple can take ALL the steps away from each other and into another (hopefully sucessful) relationship EXCEPT re-marry.
Your views allow me to live with my partner, father children with her (and in your views this unit does not constitute a family!) and go through the rest of my life... AS LONG AS I do not re-marry.
Pray, where is the logic in that? How is that state of affairs strenghtening my previous family or any other family around me?
Of course you should stand by your principles. I respect you for that. I do the same here and now. I believe that every man and woman has the right to live his or her life according to their conscience.
I also believe in the family. That is why I yearn for the chance to be able to form another one in all legal aspects should I choose to.
Maybe I believe in the family more than you do then.
Ridiculous.
Shame on you !!!
Trid tilghaba tal-Qaddis?????????????
You still failed to respond to my previous remarks despite playing the part of Joan of Arc when faced with the criticism received today. How far do you stretch your conservative and traditionalist beliefs? What is your opinion on the possibility that your lovely Catholic and conservative Malta might be overtaken by Africans and Muslim with their own religions and traditions? What about gays? Are you in favour of gay marriages? Where do you draw the line vis-à-vis the stand that you are ready to take in the European Parliament?
I’m very sorry but being a true conservative and traditionalist, someone like you who is deep down a ‘green’ candidate will fail to convince me that he is an ideal flag bearer for the conservative agenda!
DIVORCE IS A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT ... it is that simple !!!!!!
I didnt say that you said that environmentalism is a left-wing issue. What I said is that you seemed to imply that environmentalism is a left-wing issue - I deduced this since you deemed it worthy of mention that Mr Deidun is both an Environmentalist and a Conservative (making him "balanced"), when being balanced would only apply if Environmentalism were an issue attributable to one side and non-attributable to the other.
To give an analogy, a balanced view on the illegal immigration question would be one that cares for the genuine cases while demanding re-patriation of the non-genuine, when the opposite extremes would either send back every illegal immigrant or take them all in. It would be worthy of mention if a far-right candidate openly expressed concern for genuine cases, but not otherwise.
Similarly, Mr Deidun's Environmentalism and Conservatism would only be worthy of mention were it clearly demonstrable that centre-right conservative parties did not care about the environment on principle. I'm sure no one will suggest this.
Regarding many left-wingers trying to monopolise on green issues, this may be true at grass-roots (non-party affiliated) level, but certainly not at party-level: Hence the niche for Green Parties.
1. As a self-described 'environmentalist' I find it unbelievable how you would choose to contest with the party with the worst environmental record of all, the EPP. That speaks volumes about you since, as Busuttil and Casa have shown, if faced with a choice between doing what's right and going along with the EPP, the PN MEPs will choose the latter. I have no faith you'd be any different.
2. As a gay man I could never vote PN or EPP on the basis of their negative track record (not to mention bare faced lies) on gay issues.
However, reading this piece really sent shivers down my spine. How can young politicians in this day and age fail so miserably to distinguish between religion and politics. I'd like to hear what you think about people like me and our place in society. Thank god you stand no chance in hell of being elected.
Go ahead, Mr Micallef Figallo, I would love to see where a debate takes us on the issue of secular divorce.
Can of worms, Alan...you have opened a can of worms. It's not one of your good days.
Why are you surprised with Joseph DeGiorgio's comment? A powerful weapon of the indoctrinated is to demonise one's opponents, because they tend to believe that it is ok to lie (say untruths) for Jesus's sake.
How can one argue with someone who claims (like Mr DeGiorgio) that "abortion is the fruit of divorce"? Are these the "pearls" he is casting before what he patronisingly calls "swine" (pigs)? After such silly proclamations, lacking any kind of evidence or common sense, one feels pity rather than hatred towards such a proclaimer.
Now here's the deal: Will Mr Deidun do some damage-limitation, and disassociate himself from the "opinion" of Mr DeGiorgio? Let's wait and see...after all, he was so quick in replying to someone when the questions raised were not that difficult or damaging.
As for Mr Micallef Figallo's "put(ting) values before elections", that does depend on the values, doesn't it? It's one thing claiming values out of reasoned morality - quite another resting our values on religious dogma. If all of us practiced the latter, we'd be still selling slaves (as sanctioned by the Bible and never specifically opposed by Jesus).
You are wrong. I didnt say that environmentalism is a left-wing issue. I meant that many left-wingers try to monopolise green issues.
The attacks received have been numerous, countering them would be futile as certain "liberals" are more hardheaded than Inquisitors. Just one comment about anyone speaking of "imposing one's ethics", get yourself some facts about how laws are enacted in a modern and constitutionalist liberal democratic system and you'll understand that as things stand you are the pot calling kettle black. I can do without the imposition of social liberal "values" that as of yet have been demonstrated to not have enough political support to result in legislation. Speaking of that remember the 6 or so Labour MPs that spoke against divorce as soon as their leader lashed out in progressivi style in favour of divorce.
Am I missing something or what?! Where did you read in these comments that we are somewhat in favour of abortion??? As long as I know all comments hereunder are only in regards divorce. Divorce is one thing and abortion is another.
"Better and unsuccessful marraige than divorce" ?? Oh yes i would love to have the opinion of children who have unfortunately suffered from these circumstances.
What is your opinion on homosexuals? Let’s say if, hypothetically, you had to collaborate with a homosexual colleague in the European Parliament? Do you remain traditionalist or conservative or do you suddenly become all liberal, green and progressive?
Dr. Deidun please leave politics to politicians and naïve tree hugging exercises to insignificant idealists like you!
I am, unlike you, sixty years old. Iam not in favour of divorce, and have just had my 38th anniversary of married life. However, I have never preesumed, unlike you, to impose my moral ethics on anyone.
You are entitled to your own private opinion on this matter. However, God forbid if people like you were to ever be elected to our local or the European Parliament.
It is a pity that such a young candidate is not discerning why the PN is fast losing votes. Rather than acting as a democratic party in a democratic state, they are turning Malta into a sort of theocracy. Mr. Deidun evidently subscribes to the drift the PN has been put into. It's motto of "religio et patria" is fast turning into "relifio et religio et...".
Its deputy leader, in an astonishing outburst some while ago, practically invited people with a liberal frame of mind not to vote PN.
With such illiberal people, it is no wonder we are losing votes !
Two replies are in order: First, what makes you think so? Don't you see that when a party has candidates with opposite views on issues (like hunting, for instance), people can still vote "for the party" while rejecting particular candidates? Secondly, what makes you think divorce is a left-wing issue? Are you saying that all European countries have left-wing governments, since they all have divorce?
As for Mr Deidun being a "balanced person", one cannot be balanced while taking sides (no to divorce, or yes to divorce). Not even Mr Deidun himself claims he is "balanced" on this issue - quite the contrary in fact, and this is a plus point for him.
Also, how come you are at one stroke implying that environmentalism is just a left-wing issue (you say Mr Deidun is "balanced" because he is an Environmentalist and conservative at the same time, as if this is somehow surprising), and then you say that "unfortunately many so called environmentalists are also left-wing"?
Of course, such contradictions are to be expected from someone trying to pull out someone else from a self-imposed mess.
In you vote fishing excercise, I think you embarked on the wrong boat.
You did not lose my vote, you never had it in the first place.
Live another 30 years ,then come and give us your view on marriage and if you are such a good christian with strong christian value as you've said,then you should know that divorce is permitted in the bible
By the way,values do change with time.Remember back in time when God use to ask his favorites prophetes to kill any groups of people worshiping others gods?is the church still doing it today?No..why? cos peoples nowadays are more tolerante of diversity(u c,big changes in values there)
And what about slavery and the place of woman in the society according to the bible?i bet you will love to have few slaves and lots of woman to serve u but hey!u cant,why?changes in the values...or maybe u'll like these kind of values restored!,,and what about gays in the bible?,,i can go on like this for ever and ever in my list :-)
stick to politics,u seem better at it and live with your time
Will he condemn these too?
Also please see that should you be elected you will be a representative of all your constituents, even those who do not necessarily share your values, or indeed have values different to your own. You seem to be mixing up your own personal morality with that of the entire nation.
Maltese society is in a state of flux. There is great social exclusion because of various injustices, such as the lack of divorce and minority rights. At a time when even the PN is starting to sense and acknowledge the tensions and pressures within our society, you are sounding positively ante-deluvian and even irrelevant.
And that is a stupid stance to take before a major election.
And yes, one can profess to be in favour of marriage while being in favour of divorce when necessary, just as one can be in favour of freedom while agreeing with the imprisonment of violent criminals. Only a naive indoctrinated mind sees all issues as black or white. Do we really want such a person to "represent us"? I certainly wouldn't.
Your place is in the priesthood, not in Brussels.
Cheers mate, and I hope you don't get elected for everyone's sake.
With your explanation on how you see things on divorce, I have stricken you off my list.
Can the PN come up with at least two credible candidates.
What a weak choice!!!!!!
Thanks for making it easier for me to strike off another candidate from my cross-party list.
While the others are trying to please everyone with endless innuendos, and thus never taking a stand, you had the guts to stand by your beliefs.
You've got my vote.
“ I am proud to be called a conservative or a traditionalist, even though I am still 30 years old, and to call for respect by all candidates of Christian values, such as those of marriage, which is indissoluble ”... I'm really wondering whether we are going to elect cardinals or representives of all people irrespective of their beliefs. Mr. Deidun, you should make a clear distinction between religion and politics. I can't give you my vote.. I'm sorry.
This is one vote you just lost mate.
Do you support multi-culturalism and diversity in our society? If you are such a dedicated conservative and traditionalist, your answer should be an emphatic NO!
On the other hand, if you do, how do you reconcile the fact that the increasing muslim population amongst us demands divorce legislation because it is allowed in Islam and therefore Malta's laws must be updated to reflect these new realities?
I suspect that, ironically, it is you who are guilty of making "proposal of social values to rake in votes". You are trying to win the votes of that section of the electorate who does not feel the need for divorce legislation and therefore by their perverted logic, nobody else does.
The PN is desperately trying to be all things to all men and will end up pleasing no one.
But if I had, the above would have been enough to rule it out.
Talk about hidebound!
Deidun, from what i read in the article, the film reminds me of how your future in politics will develop.