Category: Library

Categories
Divorce Politics

Open Document – the Divorce Arguments

Here is the blogging equivalent of linux. In order to contribute to the multilayered discussion (even if we think that there is nothing really to discuss at a principle level) we are providing a beta version chart of the arguments that will have to be dealt with and choices that have to be made in the Divorce Debate. Please note that this is a chart – some of the beliefs mentioned in the chart are our own, not all. Although we may seem schizophrenic at times and possessed of a multiple-personality we cannot possibly be held liable for all of them at once. Feel free to suggest changes.

The Arguments

1. Constitutional (the works)

  • Majority Rule: (the belief that) introducing divorce requires some form of approval that is based on the will of the majority of the country.
    • should this be an electoral mandate (party manifesto)?
    • should this be a consultative mandate (consultative referendum)?
    • should this be a propositive mandate (divorce by public referendum)?
      • Requires constitutional change, PLPN barrier
    • can it be subjected to confirmation (abrogative referendum)?
      • already exists, no PLPN barrier
  • Minority Right: (the belief that) introducing divorce is not a matter of majority decision. Divorce should be an accessible right to the persons who want to avail themselves of this right – the majority cannot impose its will on the minority.
    • should this be by an electoral mandate (party manifesto)?
      • Time-barred (at least 2013), PLPN barrier (none of the two seems prone to include a commitment to introduce divorce as a government bill), Private Members’ Bill would not work
    • should there be a consultative/propositive measure anyway?
      • no longer useful once you accept it is right for the minority you accept the argument that the majority/minority will need not be quantified
    • can it be subjected to confirmation (abrogative referendum)?
      • it already exists, no PLPN barrier
    • Is Private Members’ Bill feasible?
      • outside the issue of mandate but raises question of duty for other parliamentarians, still forces debate
    • a majority vote of current members of Parliament should suffice
      • MPs are representatives (not delegates) and are voted to represent (The country’s constitution does not recognise political parties. How much less, then, does it recognise the electoral programmes of those political parties. Party electoral programmes have no force of law. A political party need not have a manifesto at all. – (from the Runs)) see Spiteri – Wrong Reactions after divorce shell-shock

The Values (Morality, Religion and Tradition)

  • Divorce as a personal issue
    • the right to remarry/second chance argument (see Cassar – When the trust is gone)
    • the right to reset civil status and ancillary rights beyond patchwork measures (cohabitation)
    • the right to determine one’s own lifestyle choices
    • divorce as closure (Some people are interested in divorce because they do not want to be party to something that’s no more than a legal fiction).
  • Divorce as a social curse
    • the damaging effects of divorce (and consequences)
    • the potential increase in divorce (vs separation statistics)
    • the devaluation of the married unit
  • Divorce as religious anathema
  • Myths
Categories
Sport

The Penalty (a suggestion)

The rules of Association Football are over a hundred years old but rarely need a revamp. Of course recent improvements in technology have meant an increase in calls for fairer methods to ensure that the original rules are applied more thoroughly. Some may beg to differ since the original rules envisaged a fallible human as referee and not a robot or techno eye in the sky. Having said that you do often get a hunch that the rules of the game could do with a bit of polishing up – which is why the busybodies behind J’accuse (that’s the Royal We) have come up with an alternative use for penalties within the 90 minutes of the game (and possibly also within the 30 minutes of extra time).

The inspiration behind this audacious suggestion is the hunch that all too often penalties seem too harsh a meter with which to mete out punishment to the team having (a) fouled an opponent; (b) handballed  or (c) committed whatever other outrageous crime within the deisgnated area. We also considered the problem of the “penalty seekers” – those strikers or midfielders who float into the penalty box with the deliberate intent to obtain a penalty in their favour by hook or, as is more often the case, by crook.

As with all suggestions to change a century old way of thinking and applying the rules the J’accuse Penalty Rule will of course be as controversial a suggestion as any other but we urge you to look at this option as objectively as you can. Here goes.

Essentially the rule is as follows. Excepting for penalties in a penalty shoot out, any other penalty awarded in the course of a game and successfully converted does not automatically amount to a score goal. The team having converted a penalty will be awarded the goal if, and only if, the opposing team scores a subsequent goal.

Imagine Red United playing Blue City. The score is 0-0 when at the 15th minute, Oscar, the United attacker is brought to the ground by Hatchet, the City defender and the referee points to the spot. Puntov duly converts the penalty. At that point the score remains 0-0 and United are awarded a ghost goal that will only figure on the score sheet should City score a goal in the next seventy-five minutes of play.

So if for example City did score in the sixtieth minute then the score would automatically be 1-1. Even if the Reds had scored more goals in the meantime, let’s say two goals after the converted penalty and City score when Reds are 2-0 up then the score is transformed to 3-1.

This rule would transform the penalty into a defensive rather than attacking bonus in the sense that the team converting the first penalty has not automatically won the match with the penalty but obliges the other team to attack and cancel out the potential conversion.

In order to avoid the abuse of this rule by defences (fouling to keep the match at 0-0) then we could add that two converted penalties would amount to a score independently of whether the other team manages to score a goal in the interim. I.E. two ghost goals = one normal goal.

I know it sounds complicated but for starters it is far simpler than the offside rule and given the low-scoring nature of todays’ game it has an added incentive:

1) Penalties risk being less decisive on the end result – favouring in game goals.

2) The team conceding a penalty is statistically often the more defensive of the two. The rule obliges it to take on a more attacking mentality and avoid the consequences of the penalty.

What do you think?

Categories
Divorce Politics

Divorce – the Viral

There is of course the adage about lies, damned lies and statistics but it is inevitable that in a discussion on divorce the dreaded ‘s’ word will surface time and again to prove the point of one side or another. Now J’accuse has long declared that its vote in the divorce issue is a thundering “about effin’ time” so our bias in the matter is clear. Having said that it does not mean that we will not fulfill our journalistic duty of presenting you with subjects that might serve to feed the debate further. So here goes one of those instances:

Yesterday’s L’Essentiel (a luxo metro-style journal) carried two articles related to marriage. The first was a reproduction of various articles that have been appearing in the syndicated press about a recent study at a US university concerning the links between divorce and social networking (SN) (geek warning: this is classic social networking not SN of the facebook type – the latter would fall within a smaller circle of our imaginary venn diagram). It would result, from a scientifically conducted experiment, that divorce can be “contagious” along the lines of social networks. Enter the short catchy statements destined to become modern day old wives’ tales as they result from the study:

  1. Divorce tends to spread among the networks of people having already divorced. (Basically divorcing becomes less difficult if everybody else around you is doing it too). Luxembourg seems to follow this rule since the number of divorcees has increased to 45% nowadays from 9.6% in 1970.
  2. Now for the SN effect. Friends of divorcees see the chances of themselves getting divorced within the next 2 years (from their friends divorce) increase to 147%.
  3. If it is your brother or sister who isdivorcing that increases the chances of your own divorce by 22%.
  4. Married parents with children are less influenced by divorces within their social network than childless couples, and the more children the couple has, the less the influence. “Interestingly, we do not find that the presence of children influences the likelihood of divorce, but we do find that each child reduces the susceptibility to being influenced by peers who get divorced,” the report says.
A segment of a social network
Image via Wikipedia

Interesting no? Here is (Yale associate fellow) Rita Watson blogging about the results of the study:

But is the contagion factor the only reason for divorce in later years? Edward O. Laumann suggested that it may also have to do with our age, health and longer life span. A sociology professor at the University of Chicago, he is the analyst for the Global Study of Sexual Attitudes and Behavior, a survey of 27,500 men and women 40 to 80 years old in 29 countries.

Dr. Laumann explained to me that “in the early 20s those who marry exhibit a two-year age difference. If you plot a graph, you begin to see differences as time passes. Between ages 18 and 45 the gap widens between women and men with regard to age difference in marriage. “At age 44 it becomes interesting, the lines cross at 44 which is when women become less likely to be in a sexual partnership. By age 70 we find that a full 70 percent of women will not have a partner. But if you take a look at the men at age 70, just 35 percent will be without a partner.” He added that “men trade up for younger women. And the more sexually active will die in the arms of a woman, whereas older women often die alone in nursing homes.”

If divorce is looking too good to men, what is wrong with marriage? A theory making headlines these past few weeks is that we simply do not know how to be married. Therefore, the federal government and the military are funding marriage-education programs that are being called successful. A strong dissenting voice sounded in Psychology Today from Bella DePaulo, a social scientist and visiting professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara. She is the author of “Singled Out: How Singles Are Stereotyped, Stigmatized, and Ignored, and Still Live Happily Ever After.”

When I spoke with Dr. DePaulo, she expressed some frustration with media misinterpretation of studies, in particular the Building Strong Families (BSF) program. “BSF studies were conducted in eight different locations, and the participants were unmarried couples who were expecting a baby or just had one. What was the bottom line from scholars who summarized the results from the more than 5,000 couples? Fifteen months after entering the program, the relationship outcomes of BSF couples were, on average, almost identical to those of couples in the control group.”

She added, “In one of the studies, people were more likely to have broken up and less likely to be living together and not married.” As for the contagious-divorce theory, Dr. DePaulo thinks that “the idea of social norms is potentially important. What people around you do does influence behavior.” If divorce is contagious and marriage programs are failing, here’s hoping that newly divorced and divorcing women are not suddenly looked upon as today’s Typhoid Mary — infecting men with their single status.

The tiny country of Luxembourg might have been tempting for a comparative idea of what would happen in Malta. It is not the case though since attitudes to divorce and marriage here are extremely different to the situation in Malta. Even insofar as entitlement of couples to certain rights – such as tax benefits for the purchase of a house – all that is needed is an official declaration that two people live under the same roof or consider themselves a unit. Cohabitation? C’est quoi? As for the PACS – a social contract for couples that is not marriage, the news yesterday is that the Luxembourg PACS has just been strengthened legally with more rights:

Les couples pacsés auront désormais davantage de droits. Les députés ont voté, jeudi, une loi qui attribue certains droits d’un couple marié aux partenaires.

Ainsi, ils pourront bénéficier de congés pour la mort d’un membre de la famille du partenaire ou prendre un congé sans solde après la naissance d’un enfant. Une Union civile, contractée à l’étranger, sera reconnue au Grand-Duché. Pour les socialistes et les Verts, les changements ne sont pourtant pas suffisants car des inégalités par rapport aux couples mariés subsistes.

Telle la succession qui doit être réglée par un testament entre les partenaires. Depuis l’introduction de l’Union civile en 2004, 92% des couples pacsés sont hétérosexuels. Un projet de loi pour rendre le mariage civil accessible aux couples homosexuels sera déposé la semaine prochaine.

In short the new rights include: bereavement leave upon death of partner, unpaid leave in case of birth of child, civil unions contracted abroad will be recognised in the duchy. Changes still remain to be made such as in the field of inheritance. Since the introduction of the PACS (Civil Union that is not marriage) in 2004, 92% of the couples that have benefited from the union are heterosexual.

You have just been exposed to a flood of statistics. The debate continues….

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Arts

Stitching (An Illustrated Conversation)

The debate rages on. Yesterday’s lunchtime discussion veered onto the issue of censorship and the recent Stitching decision. After the break two persons, who I shall call Caius and Titus not to deviate from the subject, resumed the discussion with an exchange of emails. I found the discussion very interesting (and only intervened once between a meeting and another) and would like to share it with the J’accuse readers. You should note that the email exchange kicked off with a reference to a blog post by lawyer Kevin Aquilina that was heavily critical of the play. You can read the post by clicking here before returning to this discussion.

CAIUS: Artikolu tajjeb dwar id-dramm Stitching mill-aspett legali (provides link).

TITUS: L-artiklu (Kevin Aquilina ex chairman tal-awtorità tax-xandir), qrajtu (mhux fid-dettall). Ma impressjonani xejn anzi pjuttost kellu l-effett kuntrarju fuqi. Huwa jsostni li ġej:

1. Uncivilized Use of Language: Rude and vulgar, obscene and blasphemous language is used throughout the play.

2. Glorification of perversion: The play glorifies perversion, depicting it as being the acceptable norm in a civilised society rather than the exception (stitching a woman’s vagina as an act of sexual pleasure; bestiality – having sex with animals; a woman eating another woman’s shit; seeking pleasure in (a) child rape; (b) child murder; (c) having sex with the mothers of the raped and killed children, etc.

3. Disparaging the Right to Life: … the ‘discussion’ in the play on abortion is so valueless and baseless that there can be said to be no recognition of human dignity of the person including the unborn child, bearing also in mind that abortion in Malta is a criminal offence.

4. Sensationalising Perversity and Inhumanity: Both characters (Stu and Abby) are perverse and inhumane: they do not show a single shred of remorse on the killing of Daniel (their first child); they do not appear to be willing to carry out their parental responsibilities as part of their right for respect of family life in order to save the second child from abortion… burning children alive and then killing them and seeing the mothers of the murdered children seduced, fucked, fingered in their arseholes and putting the whole films portraying these heinous criminal acts on the web …

6. Advocating Degradation, Mutilation and Humiliation of Humanity: Abby is continuously degraded and humiliated by Stu in so far as his sexual demands go and in the way how he speaks to her and treats her (he repeatedly calls her a ‘whore’, he requests her to submit her person to various perverse and degrading sexual acts from her and addresses her with no sense of respect or décor);

7. Uncivilized Behaviour: uncivilized behaviour is considered to be normal and acceptable… Some of these conducts constitute criminal offences not only under the Laws of Malta but in other Council of Europe Member States, in Council of Europe Conventions and international criminal law ????????????????????

Re il-vittmi tal-olokawst, is-soltu vera nkun kontra ideat bħal meta bniedem jinnega l-olokawst eċċ, iżda sempliċement il-fatt li l-karattru jammetti li kien iġerrieh għan-nisa sejrin jinqatlu ma hijiex espressjoni ta’ opinjoni. Huwa sempliċement mezz (forsi “in bad taste”) biex juri l-perversità tal-bniedem.

Kollox ma kollox naħseb qrajt u ġejt espost għal dan kollu !!!!

CAIUS: Għaldaqstant huwa ċar li d-dramm juri l-bniedem fl-agħar tiegħu u għalhekk fih hemm kull forma ta’ aġir immorali u illegali, liema aġir huwa kkundannati f’ħafna soċjetajiet. Fil-fehma tiegħu l-arti għandha teżalta u mhux tbaxxi lill-bniedem u turi l-agħar perversitajiet tiegħu.

J’ACCUSE: Quote “Fil-fehma tiegħu l-arti għandha teżalta u mhux tbaxxi lill-bniedem u turi l-agħar perversitajiet tiegħu” Unquote i.e. fil-fehma tieghu l-arti ghandha tigdeb. Nahseb kien imur tajjeb ma mussolini u shabu.

CAIUS: Le mhux tigdeb imma turi l-verita’ fuq il-valur tal-bniedem. Dan il-valur ma jinsabx fl-istinti annimaleski li jbaxxuh.

TITUS: Li tiekol il-ħara għal gost sesswali ma huwiex istint annimalesk. Ma nafx b’annimal li jagħmel hekk … Dak huwa l-bniedem fil-kumplessità tiegħu …

CAIUS: Fil-fatt forsi huwa agħar minn annimalesk, huwa anki kontra n-natura. Għalhekk dak li jiddeskrivi d-dramm ma fihx valur pożittiv.

TITUS: Ok… Mela allura min jimxi kontra n-natura għandu jiġi ċċensurat … L-istess bħal ma niċċensuraw il-perverżjonijiet tagħna … Ninsewhom u ngħixu l-illużjoni li l-bniedem huwa safi minn kull dnub.

Mela r-ritratt tat-tifla taħrab għarwiena minn bomba tan-napalm fil-Vjetnam għandu jiġi ċċensurat għax huwa att agħar minn annimalesk kontra n-natura … (Premju pulitzer 1972).

Pulitzer Prize Winner - 1972

Glorification of perversion

Disparaging the Right to Life:

Advocating Degradation, Mutilation and Humiliation of Humanity:

Uncivilized Behaviour

Iżda xorta jibqa’ l-fatt li għandu valur, mhux biss bħala dokument storiku iżda wkoll minħabba proprju dawn l-affarijiet hawn fuq imsemmija li skont Kevin Aquilina (u int) għandhom iservu bħala bażi għal ċensura …

CAIUS: Fil-fatt hemm liġijiet kontra tali atti.

TITUS: Iva hemm u tajjeb li hemm… imma ma jfissirx li ma tistax tagħmel rappreżentanzi tagħhom jew turi xbihat tagħhom lil pubbliku adult …

***

I end this post with a quote from an essay by Umberto Eco (more next Sunday in the Indy)  called “Hands off My Son”. It is about people who “were unable to distinguish between the Christ of the Gospels and the one of the film (ed. Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ)”:

“To see a representation as the Thing Itself is one of the modern forms of idolatry.” – Eco.

WARNING: The following video clip contains scenes of extreme violence, perversion and inhumanity that may be considered disturbing by certain audiences (the movie did qualify for viewing in Maltese cinemas though so I guess it’s ok).

Categories
Politics

He ain't heavy, he's my Jeffrey

As expected, GonziPN is already rallying up for the challenge of the double-D boob thrown at them by JPO (Double D stands for Divorce Debate in case you were wondering). The first concern for PN remains the need to convey the clear message that there is no threat to the relative majoirty – single seat government (obtained with a 1,600 vote majority – giving it very little moral authority to impose whatever principles it espouses beyond normal day to day managament of the nation). That concern has been shaken by JPO’s renegade move. At least we have to believe it is a renegade movethat has been both unvetoed and unvetted by the PN parliamentary group because, if we are to stick to this line, JPO presented this clone of Ireland’s Divorce Act without any help from his friends.

Unity before discussion is therefore a major point on Gonzi’s agenda. Even before venturing into the proselytising, catholic pandering and blatant ignorance of the duties of society towards the minority who do not believe that their life should be ruled by the Curia – even before that – Gonzi & Co had to reconcile JPO’s position with their own, for the sake of the government. Hence the comments last night by our PM appearing in this morning’s papers which are very revealing in deed – no need to wait for the parliamentary group’s meeting:

Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi said this evening he did not agree with Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando’s position and with the method he used in presenting a private member’s bill on bill. He told timesofmalta.com: “This is a very serious matter. I have called a Parliamentary group meeting tomorrow, this has to be followed by a discussion at party level. Only then will we be able to take an official position.” Dr Pullicino Orlando, the Prime Minister said, took a personal initiative based on his personal position which was well known, so his position did not surprise anyone. However, Dr Gonzi said, this subject was so important that the electorate should have the opportunity to express itself after being informed. (The Unlinkable Times)

There you have it. The three pronged approach.

In primis, (you can imagine the serious face here) there is the acceptance of the fact that (a) GonziPN (the entity represented by the man) does not agree with JPO (rally behind me those who care for our future!) (b) GonziPN draws second blood by criticising the method of this travesty of a backstab (Private Members’ Bill? What’s that?). So the battleground is clear. Insofar as principles are concerned GonziPN’s camp is clearly in disaccord with the renegade sipper of teas. Insofar as method is concerned the jibe is less effective. When, after all, is a Private Members’ Bill useful in this duopolistic excuse for a parliament of ours if not in this kind of situation when it is patently obvious that none of the two formations supposedly representing the people seem to have an interest in putting before the assembly the largest elephent in the national hall? Bollocks to “I do not agree with the method”. Of course you don’t Lawrence. Even (and I stress that even) the conniving ginger boy in opposition recognises the use of the Private Member’s Bill although admittedly his intended use thereof was the closest time ever that politics could be described as being dyslexic.

In secundis there is the “very serious matter” business (as opposed to the comic matter of the price of oil, the hilarious matter of the White Rocks Complex tender process and the side-splitting matter of the barriers to electoral reform posed by PLPN). Indeed divorce is a serious matter requiring serious and informed debate. A serious and informed debate includes an end that is a final decision on whether it is to become law or not and not the abstract debate based on mental masturbation and catholic smugness that has dominated the island for nigh twenty years. So yes, Gonzi is right in describing the subject as “serious”. Contrary to all impressions, Gonzi & PN – two of the branches of the uncomfortable trinity of Gonzi & PN & Renegades – still do not have an official position on divorce. Have we been given a clue to a possible “official position” for PN MPs? Instead Gonzi is telling us that GonziPn still has to refine this political opportunity before launching the counterattack.

The build up has already started because in tertio GonziPN does not hesitate to clearly and unequivocally declare that JPO “took a personal initiative” (bang) that is “based on his personal position” (bang, bang) “which was well known” (bandage), so “his position did not surprise anyone” (bandage). Of course JPOs position did not surprise anyone. He almost gets away with it, he does this Gonzi. The “he ain’t heavy, he’s my brother” approach focuses on the content and away from the earlier gaffe regarding the method. Not so bloody surprising eh? So you all expected a Private Members’ Bill introducing divorce right? But wait. That’s not what you are saying. You are saying that you are not surprised that JPO has a diametrically opposed position to the GonziPN mainstream and that he has backstabbed the whole parliamentary group with this bill without so much as a “by your leave”. No shit Sherlock.

And that brings us to Gonzi’s last tirade. He did say that the subject is important (and serious) so “the electorate should have the opportunity to express itself after being informed”. An enigmatic sentence from the Sphinx would have been simpler to solve. You can of course understand it in the sense that in this country the regulation of divorce has the same perceived moral weight as say the introduction of the death sentence, the legalisation of abortion and the legalisation of marijuana. From that perspective it is probably understandable that every step of the way is transparent to the electorate as does not happen in other areas such as the awarding of land to foreigners, or the partitioning of electoral clout by the two main parties. So we will have a debate – and what a debate that promises to be – over the summer and presumably over the first months following the resumption of parliament after summer.

For good times, for bad times

The hidden bomb in this recognition of the importance of the electorate is one that has not been reckoned hitherto by the liberal advocates – the abrogative referendum. That’s a referendum proposed by the people (or an interest group) purposely to abrogate a law that has been enacted by parliament. And this is why divorce is a serious subject. Unless the argument is won convincingly explaining that divorce is a “right” of an important minority in this country while recognising that a majority of this country are still free to practice their religious beliefs and not use that right (also watch out for the faux laiques – against divorce because of the damage to the social fabric), unless that is done we risk having the shortest-lived divorce legislation in history. And that too could be thanks to a smug section of Gonzi’s PN.

Finally Gonzi’s comments are reconciliatory. Once again Jeffrey is the naughty boy who is tolerated by the slim majority PN. Whether such magnanimity is due to the thin line of parliamentary majority held by Gonzi’s rainbow party is another question. It is important for GonziPN to seem to be unwavered by this latest backstabbing setback. True, this time the party has changed what seemed to be a slip into a golden opportunity to trump the empty words of Muscat’s progressives who are left cycling in thin air but once again the fruits of PN’s rag-tag assemblage before the election are being sown. No matter – everybody can be carried on the bandwagon – after all “he ain’t heavy, he’s my Jeffrey”.

The road is long
With many a winding turn
That leads us to who knows where
Who knows where
But I’m strong
Strong enough to carry him
He ain’t heavy, he’s my brother

So on we go
His welfare is of my concern
No burden is he to bear
We’ll get there
For I know
He would not encumber me

If I’m laden at all
I’m laden with sadness
That everyone’s heart
Isn’t filled with the gladness
Of love for one another.

It’s a long, long road
From which there is no return
While we’re on the way to there
Why not share
And the load
Doesn’t weigh me down at all
He ain’t heavy, he’s my brother.

He’s my brother
He ain’t heavy, he’s my brother

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Divorce – The Private Members' Bill

So the breaking news has it that Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando has submitted a Private Members’ Bill for the introduction of divorce. It’s a bolt out of the blue (or the fringe blue) and it would be good to see what we do know about the facts until now and what we could speculate about:

  1. Sources from the PN have told the Times that this was a personal initiative of JPO and was not discussed at the level of the PN parliamentary group. Will the PN keep its distance from the bill? Will it claim ownership of the initiative? Are any of these two questions relevant as to whether the bill has any hope of becoming law?
  2. The bill will not be discussed/voted upon before summer recess which gives the PLPN enough reflection time (and time to gauge the reaction) until the re-entry after summer. A well timed bill from that aspect one must say.
  3. Vote-wise we should definitely have PL’s MP’s given the freedom to vote as their conscience tells them. From this point of view PL will have the carpet swept from under its feet. The bluff of the “progressive party” with no real clear stand on the introduction of divorce is being called before the next election. The “divorce” promise will hopefully not be a conning addendum in the catch-all excuses for a manifesto come next election.
  4. Equally we could finally get a clear picture of what the PN makes of this kind of subject without either the hedging or the ayatollah style pronunciation depending on the interlocutor.
  5. AD has already welcomed the bill and congratulated JPO. No prizes for guessing where there votes would go should they make it to parliament (highly unlikely given the current attitude to electoral system reform).
  6. The dice are cast for the opening of a practical debate on the introduction of divorce with an actual aim and deadline – the vote on the Private Bill.

Well done JPO. Of course the bets are now open to discuss whether JPO’s move was another renegade mission or a convenient PN move that allows it to keep its distance and act with two heads – the mainstream line (still not ready to introduce divorce) and the renegade marginals prepared to accomodate a more liberal philosophy. Rainbow politics once again? If so hats off to Macchiavelli.

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta