Tags
Related Posts
Share This
Labour's Church
It’s not the interdiction is it? The PLis currently spinning the idea that the party is pro-divorce. I have no time for people who will vote NO to divorce just to spite Joseph Muscat’s spin. That’s stupid. However there is much to be said about this excessive opportunism by Labour and its leader – particularly after the insulting assertion that he is taking Malta into Europe.
J’accuse said it time and time again. Labour has abdicated from its responsibility as a progressive, modernist party. It has failed on all counts the moment it decided that any vote on divorce is not one for it to contemplate as a party. The “frijvowt” granted by Joseph to his parliamentarians is the proof of this abdication.
Labour has no position on divorce. Insofar as the vote on divorce is concerned Labour is as close to the Catholic Church’s position as it can get : it’s a question of conscience. This makes claims of a “new interdiction” as revived on the social media doubly ridiculous.
Here is Labour MP Adrian Vassallo in a letter to the Times:
It is being argued that MPs are in duty bound “to respect the will of the people who elected them”, and that “they were elected by the majority and, therefore, they should respect the will of the same majority”.
In the specific case of the divorce issue, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando et al had no mandate to propose divorce legislation. Much less is he (or the Iva movement for that matter) qualified to pontificate on the moral obligation of MPs when they come to vote on an issue of conscience.
As far as I am concerned, I made it amply clear that I am determined to navigate by my own star in matters of conscience.
I have no hesitation in publicly affirming my intention to be loyal to my conscience and steadfast to my principles.
I am comforted by the added knowledge that, ever since I was elected to Parliament, I have had no mandate to tamper with the Maltese social structure by means of divorce legislation. Moreover, all Labour MPs have a “free vote” on this sensitive issue.
There you have it. It’s a sensitive issue so Labour has skirted it. It has given MPs like Adrian Vassallo the comfort to vote with their conscience and in doing so has abdicated on its duty as the only party in Malta that claims to be progressive. Just think of it: if PL was capable of carrying the vote on the simple issue of the referendum question then it basically has the key to a majority vote on the bill: all it needs to do is find a pair of balls big enough to take a position as a party.
Taking us into Europe? What bullshit Joseph.
Image taken from poster for “L-Interdett taht is-Sodda”
Ah well, never expected different from Vassallo. Good man though he is, and entertaining as his parliamentary questions can be, this is the guy asking the police to investigate porn in local hotels after all, so there you go. http://markbiwwa.com/2010/06/08/of-porno-and-adrian/
You state that the Labour party is the “only” party to state that it is “progressive”. Now, apart from the fact that “progressive” is to my mind a cliche, which can mean anything and everything (like “liberal” and “conservative”), do you mean that only the PL uses this word as a slogan, or do you state that only the PL claims to have “progressive” and “modern”
policies, or both?
PS – are “progressive” and “liberal” identical terms?
Thank you for your comment David. I shall waste no time in answering it.
Is not respecting the consciences of MP’s on such delicate matters – especially when the same MP’s had no notion that they would be voting on the matter in Parliament before deciding to contest in the interests of the party – reflective of that constellation of values informing “progressive” policies?
Of course one always be cynical and accuse the parties of opportunism when they behave this way, and castigate them for political insensitivity when they don’t.
Manuel, I almost took you seriously for a second then I read this:
“It is patently untrue that divorce does not affect those who do not want it. Ask those who, contrary to their wishes, will find themselves divorced 4 years after their spouse leaves home.”
Seriously?
Absolutely, Jacques.
There are individuals who, despite having been abandoned, would not not wish to see the marriage legally dissolved. Reasons could range from bloody-mindedness to revenge to beliefs about the permanence of marriage to residual attachment to the absconded spouse.
One may have one’s views about the validity of these reasons; the point remains that the claim that divorce would not be foisted on those who do not want it is manifestly untrue. Yet the pro-divorce movement persists in chanting the false mantra over and over again.
dear mr mangani,
I understand the pro divorce argument to refer to catholic marriages who want to live by catholic rules. The proposed divorce legislation will not make one iota of difference to these marriages.
That is the argument of the pro divorce lobby as i understand it to be.
When a marriage breaks down,then a divorce comes at the tail end of a very lengthy process. Even St Paul argues that should a non-believer abandon a marriage then the believer is no longer tied to that marriage. It is common practice in other non-maltese catholic communities for adults in broken marriages first obtain a civil divorce that is very (repeat very) often followed by annulment by the church.
Re one party wanting to hold on to the ‘married’ tag, i know of a good number of individuals who have abandoned their marriage and yet want to hold on to their marriage status for a miriad of reasons. Hence it is not always the ‘good’ guys who want to retain the ‘bogus’ married status
Mr. Attard,
I would agree with most of what you said – but not that the pro-divorce argument refers to Catholic marriages. We have heard the assurance that marriage would not affect those who do not wish to divorce – without discriminating between Catholics and non-Catholics – over and over again.
Secondly, Catholic parties may be deserted by spouses, still wish to preserve the legality of the union, but find themselves divorced against their well.
Non-Catholics may also wish not to divorce but will have divorce rammed down their throat after 4 years separation.
That is merely one example of the dishonesty of the arguments put forward by the pro-divorcists.
hi, tks for reaction…one point…divorce is a civil act…a catholic who will want to remain married despite being abandoned will remain to be so married in the eyes of the church.
Absolutely, correct. However that point is not being contested by anyone.
The source of thw wuoatation is not stated. Now to the point, if someone does not want to be divorced, while the party wants divorce, what can the former partner do? One can also mention the children of the couple. Are their wishes to be respected?
David, the only difference between separation and divorce is that divorce gives you the option to remarry. If someone does not want that option, they can live as if they are separated and not divorced. What difference would that make?
With regards to children, it’s the same. Children would only care if their parents are separated or not. If their separated parents get a divorce or not, will not affect them in any way. So the wishes of the children are to be taken in consideration when discussing separation and not divorce.
Malcolm, when we speak of divorce we are really and truly speaking of re-marriage.In case of remarriage,
David, the quotation is from an article in my blog: manuelsmumblings.blogspot.com .
However by divorce law, the person who does not want a divorce will be considered as a divorced person.
Who said divorce does not effect children? http://www.splendidlyblended.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4:article-2&catid=1:catcontact&Itemid=8