J'accuse: Far from the madding crowd
For my sins I tuned into One TV’s Affari Taghna on Friday night. Bundy’s programme is going through its own apotheosis and will soon be sitting at the Olympian table of Maltese television alongside the other opiates of Maltese thinking. On Friday, Deborah Schembri (likes divorce) and Joyce Cassar (doesn’t like divorce) crossed swords before a scientifically inexact but sufficiently random cross-section of Maltese society. I chose to persevere and ignore the initial twitches in my brain caused by Joyce’s ability to swing from one non sequitur to the next like a metaphorical Tarzan in a jungle of illogical misconceptions.
The Great Divorce Debate has served as the Great Eye Opener in many ways. It may seem offensive to speak in terms of “medieval thinking”, “moving time backwards” or “brains where time stood still”, but the absence of the clear PLPN divide this time round allows us to dissect our national way of thinking as we have not been able to for a very long time. I must confess to finding myself overwhelmed by the sudden overdose of “opinions” on the matter when only a while ago a blog post or article supposedly made as much sound (or was just as conveniently ignored) as the tree falling in the empty forest.
Genesis
Far from the baying hounds and loud noises, you catch glimpses of moments of lucidity in the debate. I have recently come to the conclusion that the reason for the prolonged discussions and misunderstandings on what should be after all the straightforward legislation of a basic right is our inability to distinguish between the secular and the spiritual. In the history of our young nation, two great events compounded the confusion among even the supposedly more intelligent and emotionally detached of our members.
The first event was the period of the Mintoff-Gonzi wars culminating in L-Interdett (Interdiction) and the second was the 1995 Church-State Agreement between Eddie’s and Guido’s PN government and the Roman Catholic Church. The first has left long lasting scars of rancour that inevitably pollute any discussion that involves anything remotely spiritual, and the second has proven to be detrimental to the (crucial) roles of both the Church and the State in our society. At the end of Affari Taghna I could only ask a rhetorical question to the “fathers of the nation”: “Can you see what mess you have left us in?”
For the love of God
There were a couple of reassuring voices on the night though. The first came, surprisingly enough, from Fr Charles Vella. Surprising because of all the controversy that has surrounded the notorious clip in which Fr Vella declaims his lack of fear of divorce. In the full clip, as aired on Bundy’s show, it is clear that Father Vella is stating what every rational human being who participates responsibly in society should be saying. Fr Vella has no problem reconciling his dislike of divorce (as discovered through the words of God and the teachings of the Church) with the civil issue of the availability of divorce. It is men like Charles Vella and the spokesperson for the Catholics − Yes because it is a right (I believe it was Carmel Hili) − who have managed to shed the blinkers inherited by our black and white society.
Father Vella does not favour divorce. No, the Cana movement director was quite clear about that when he appeared on Norman’s show. He is though, a strong enough Catholic not to fear it. He knows what is right and what is wrong according to the tenets and moral principles of his Church and − as he said − he is prepared to fight to the death to protect the principle of marriage. What Father Vella did add is that he cannot countenance the possibility of ramming his tenets down other people’s throats.
Free will is an element common to both the tenets of the faithful and those of the lay. Both have a set of guidelines intended to ensure that the exercise of free will brings about the best in mankind. It may be that my mixed Lasallian and Jesuit upbringing combined with my legal background allows me to appreciate the importance of both situations. A citizen expects to be able to exercise his sovereign free will insofar as he causes no harm to others. A believer is thankful to the Almighty for having created him a free thinker and granted him his time on this earth to choose between right and wrong. The accomplishment of the virtuous citizen − whether lay or faithful − comes with making the right choices: and not with having those choices being made for him.
Movements
Father Vella of the Cana Movement knows that. So do many of those participating in the discussion. Even those lawyers, like André Camilleri and Arthur Galea Salomone who are arraigned on the side of those adamant to oppose the introduction of divorce legislation, find it hard to explain their position when it comes to deciding for others. The NO side can perform verbal somersaults and claim not to be grounding their arguments in religious ethics (on what then? on misreading of scientific studies? on the hushing of the real questions?) but at the end of the day there is little to go on between Galea Salomone’s ultimate aim and that of the preacher on Bundy’s programme whose heart beats for Christ and whose only argument against divorce is that God hates it.
And there we are. As more movements spring up than in a kitsch Monty Python Jerusalem Liberation Front sketch, we are stretching an open and shut case to realms that go far beyond the Kafkesquely absurd. Our political backwater still soldiers on and can only take a breather until “the people have spoken” and then − in the case of a YES vote − the fun will begin. For I cannot wait to see how our “leaders” will squirm out of this one. They do after all represent this motley crew that is our nation.
Cheap flights, cheap votes
Finally, I have had it up to here with this stupid idea that people abroad get some kick out of taking days off and flying to Malta on a “cheap flight” just because the collective leaders of the nation and the people who vote for them every election have their heads stuck so far up where the sun does not shine that they cannot see the absurdity of this exercise.
Last time I was in Malta I got my voting document delivered by a postman. I don’t see why I cannot return that service. Barring any last minute change of heart that can only be provoked by further ridiculous arguments by the NO camp, I will not be taking the flight from Luxembourg to Malta to vote. Make that two of us. That’s two YES votes down the drain because work does not get done on the Friday we would be away and, quite frankly, I’ve had enough of abetting this ridiculous backward way of doing things. Votes in embassies should be the priority of the next movement to crop up in this country.
Free will
How hard can it be? Free will. A vote for divorce means allowing people to choose to start a new life − married − long after their previous marriage has broken down. Is divorce a solution? It was never meant to be one. Divorce is a grown-up and mature acknowledgement that “rien ne va plus”. It is much more mature than the arbitrary denial of the existence of a marriage via “annulment” if you ask me. Maturity, fairness, free will. That’s adult talk isn’t it? I’m hoping that the referendum will prove that there is hope for that yet.
Vote ‘Yes’. It’s a matter of choice.
Far from the madding crowd’s ignoble strife
Their sober wishes never learn’d to stray;
Along the cool sequester’d vale of life
They kept the noiseless tenor of their way.
www.akkuza.com freely exercising hard headed will since 2005.
This article appeared on yesterday’s edition of The Malta Independent on Sunday.
Related articles
- Non Gode di Immunità Ecclesiastica (akkuza.com)
- Cheap Spin by the Times (akkuza.com)
- This is my Church (akkuza.com)
- Silence of the Nats (akkuza.com)
Dear Jacques,
Work aside, is protesting against the voting system by not coming to Malta for 1 or 2 days worth it in the whole scheme of things?
Hi Andrew,
Yes it is (worth it).
This referendum is not only about divorce. It is about showing up the hypocrisy of the way we go about things. I am not claiming to be a victim here but on the other hand all this bullshit about cheap holidays is so easy to sell isn’t it?
The SUNDAY TIMES dedicated the main part of its editorial claiming that the greatest winners in this divorce debate are the voters from abroad. By some coincidence my article last Sunday described the people making such arguments as having their head stuck so far up their arses that they don’t know what’s going on around them.
According to the Sunday Times’ editor I should not be allowed to vote for divorce because I don’t need it in Malta since I can get a divorce here. What rubbish. Does the editor of what claims to be a prominent newspaper in Malta have any idea of the basic workings of democracy?
No. The answer is no. So yes I will stay in Luxembourg. Alternatively I might even decide to book a flight and STILL NOT VOTE. Isn’t that why I would fly there anyway? For a cheap holiday?
What the hell. I was against the holding of a referendum as much as I am in favour of introducing divorce. Not being able to vote in an embassy (again) is just the cherry on the cake.
Divorce yes – by normal legislation passed by responsible representatives in parliament. How do we get that? By choosing who to vote for and not falling for their shit cheap tricks – like stygmatising a whole class of voters because of their retrograde attitude.
Sahhiet.
I agree with you on most counts, if not all, but they are besides the point at this juncture. I would pose this question to you: If the divorce referendum is lost and the issue is killed for at least another generation or two: would you look back with regret? Or will you be proud of the stand you took? It’s like a British citizen not voting for a more proportional electoral system just to spite Nick Clegg the way I see it. I think your protest vote should be made in a general election not in a divorce on a civil right. But that’s just my two cents.
Apologies: “divorce on a civil right” should obviously be taken as “referendum on a civil right”.