Category: Divorce

Categories
Divorce Politics

Who will love my expats?

An article penned by Nestor Laiviera in MaltaToday (Cheap flight for divorce referendum still up in the air) attempts to stir the waters with regard to the issue of whether or not Airmalta will be asked once again to foot the bill for expats coming home to vote. It’s sad really that we have to go over this business every time there is a vote or two to be taken.

You’d think that by the 21st century we’d have voting in embassies as a given – at least on a Yes/No issue such as a referendum. We don’t though and we have to hear a number of absurdities based on a twisted way of perceiving reality. Here go some of “luoghi comuni“:

1. Airmalta should never foot the bill – if expats want to vote they can damn well pay for the trip in full.

Right and wrong. Yes, Airmalta should not bear the brunt for PLPN obtuseness but that does not mean that voting should cost an arm and a leg. Actually voting should not cost the citizen anything.  So unless the PLPN movement gets its head out of its arse and agrees on legislation for ballots abroad, then all expats (myself included) will go on “abusing” of the cheap flight – even if only to make the point.

2. All expats vote PN.

Another good one that. Rewind back to Alfred Sant’s fury placing on the parliament table a list of all passengers who had used the Airmalta flights for elections. They’re all nationalist votes he thundered! Many, like Luciano Busuttil, seem to believe that all jobs at the institutions are obtained thanks to some favour with the blue eyed boys (and are sadly probably hoping for Labour to be in government to dish out such jobs accordingly). Well – they aren’t. Most jobs aren’t anyway. Unless of course we are speaking of Maltese representations in Brussels in which case it is no biggie that they are full of people who would not cause undue obstacle to the party in government. And anyway… since when does political affiliation qualify one person over another for the right to vote? What if all expats are part of the loony right? Does that give the PLPN the right to suddenly cut them off from exercising their vote?

3. It pays PN/PL more.
Not this time it doesn’t. Given as how none of the parties have a position of divorce (have I told you that before) it’s irrelevant to any of them how many of us vote in the end. Of course I’d like to hear Joseph Muscat shed a crocodile tear or two for us the expats – it’s not about divorce is it? It’s about exercising one’s opinion. I want my frijvowt too! I mean what do the 2,800 youths have that we have not got? Scratch that. I EXPECT a little video from Joseph telling me how he is doing his utmost to guarantee that my vote will be cast because it is my right. Let’s hope he does not screw up the next motion in parliament either… a ballot in Luxembourg City Hall would do nicely thank you very much. As would one in London, Brussels and probably Paris and Frankfurt. Go ahead Joseph… fight for my rights to say Yay!

 

Categories
Divorce Politics

Fault Li(n)es

Distractions, attractions and more. How easily we get waylaid by some mountainous pile of bull conjured up by the PLPN charade. Here’s the two videos made by both sides – each laying the blame squarely at the foot of the other with regards to the disenfranchised 2,800. They must both be seeing this issue as manna falling from heaven… yet another distraction to add to the referendum farce: all in the name of “consultation”. Remember – the real votes that count will be the 69 votes in parliament – and no matter what you or I say it’s the INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCES of 69 citizens that will decide whether divorce legislation is enacted or not.

PL

PN

the Beatles

Categories
Articles Divorce Politics

J'accuse : The Lost Boys (and Girls)

For the second time in a few weeks, Joseph Muscat’s spin office has been producing promotional video clips for the divorce referendum that are about everything but divorce. This week Inhobbkom’s little video clip was about the 2,800 Lost Boys and Girls who will not be allowed to cast their frijvowt (free vote) in the referendum. Joseph says he does not care how they would vote − if and when they are allowed to vote − and his inadvertent frankness on that particular point is rather moving.

What Labour’s Peter Pan fails to stress in his little bit of propaganda is that the outcome of the divorce issue has nothing to do with whether 2,800 youths apparate or disapparate on the electoral register thanks to the latest antic from the PLPN bag of tricks. Peter Pan is right though: his party does not care which way those 2,800 votes would go. It’s not those 2,800 votes that will determine whether or not divorce legislation gets through Parliament. It’s the 69 free votes of conscience that will do the trick.

Right now it pays Peter Pan to don his best suit and shed crocodile tears for the Lost Boys and their votes. It pays him to spin the latest of fables in our Fairy Tale politics where the Evil Gonzi is depicted as the villain who taketh away the votes and aspirations of the youth of the day. It’s revolting. Peter Pan’s party is on the same side as Gonzi’s on this one. Together they have contrived to leave the fate of the introduction of crucial legislation in the hands of 69 individual consciences − even after the outcome of the divorce referendum is known. Even Joseph thinks he is dragging us into Europe will eventually “respect the vote of the people” which means that a “No” vote in the referendum is one more No vote in Parliament as far as Joseph is concerned.

I’ll repeat this ad nauseam if I have to: The Labour Party has no position on divorce. The Nationalist Party has a position against divorce. Both parties have abdicated their representative responsibility by allowing a free vote in Parliament independently of what 2,800 youths, their constituencies or the whole electoral franchise thinks about the issue. Now that should make you sit down and weep.

Tinker Bell

Then there was the business of the Attorney General’s appeal in the Realtà case. The gut reaction was one of astonished disgust coupled with rhetorical questions as to whether the AG office’s timetable is not sufficiently stocked with interesting distractions. A second, more political, reaction targeted the occupier of Castille blaming him for allowing the AG to get on with this nonsense.

Writing in MaltaToday, James Debono tried to find out who was “politically responsible” for the Realtà case. As a nation we are beginning to demonstrate an acute inability to cope with the underpinnings of the rule of law and why we need it. Perhaps the knee-jerk reaction to dismissing a coherent set of arguments as “lawyer-speak” while reverting to the chaotic world of Maltese relativism has much to do with it. Sure we know the laws are there but hey − they must be twisted to make more sense in this day and age right? And why didn’t Lawrence Gonzi do just that with the Realtà case? It’s the 21st century no − what do we need laws and regulations for?

It’s the same thing for Joseph Muscat’s beef with the referendum motion and dates. Joseph’s solution was for the electoral commission to sit on the President’s writ for 18 days, just in time for the new electoral register to come into effect. You know that type of “I’ll close an eye just for this time” suggestion. As for the AG − many speculated that the Prime Minister should have intervened and prevented him from appealing. Sure. When would that be right and when would that be wrong? Who would decide? Laws and rules are not suggestions or guidelines − they are laws for a reason. They give us a sense of order and continuity as the old cliché goes: we are servants of the law so that we may be free.

Wendy Darling

Even though I do not find myself in agreement with the AG’s arguments as made in the appeal − particularly with his choice of inconveniencing deities once again (wasn’t divorce enough?) − I am still comfortable with the knowledge that this appeal forms part of a greater mechanism of interpretation and clarification of the law that is necessary for our society to work. The alternative is chaos and anarchy based on relative values. This appreciation should be part of every body’s civic conscience and not just of those who have gone through six years of law at university.

Understanding this objectively becomes even harder every day when the paladins of representative democracy twist and turn the picture to their own needs and devices. It is useless talking of “hidden rules of society” or conspiracy theories of some theocratic plot in some quarters if we are unable to get the message across about the usefulness of the rule of law that transforms − to the best of its imperfect capabilities − the will of the people into a working social system.

Nana

It’s a fine line between on the one hand a real society based on real laws and on the other a sham set of rules behind which hides the arch-democratic dictator. We’ve been very close to the latter before; I like to think we can still aspire towards the first… despite our politicians.

“All the world is made of faith, and trust, and pixie dust.” − J.M. Barrie

www.akkuza.com − this column has been short-listed as a finalist in the Opinion Article section of the XXIst Malta Journalism Awards.

Categories
Divorce Politics

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”

Categories
Divorce Politics

The Horse's Mouth

I got an email from Joseph Muscat. The subject line said “Pajjiz verament ewropew”. It was a link to a one minute video clip by His Inhobbkomness trying to wriggle out of the fact that the Party of Moderates and Progressives DOES NOT HAVE A POSITION ON DIVORCE.

Inhobbkom is bandying around the idea of the frijjvowt (one word for “free vote”). It turns out that his magnanimous self has “granted” the people a “frijjvowt” – something the Nasty Dastardly DottorGonzi denied them. Yay! We should thank Inhobbkom Joseph for enfranchising the nation.

Really? What has this battle been about? Well Joseph gives us the first half of an answer:

“Jien ma nemminx li din il-kwistjoni hija dwar referendum jew divorzju”.

There you have it. The horse has spoken. So there you are you stupid, peddling peasant who has been celebrating for a great victory for the progressive modern Malta being catapulted into Europe by Joseph and his Horde (+JPO and Mugliett). You thought it was about divorce? Fuck no. It isn’t.

You have been GIVEN the right to express your opinion on the 28th May. It’s an expression that will count for Jack Shit come the vote in parliament following the referendum. Because the same party that is claiming to be dragging us kicking and screaming into the Europe of modern progressive values DOES NOT HAVE A POSITION ON DIVORCE. It has a position on frijvowts. It gives its MPs the frijvowt on the referendum question. It gives the people a frijvowt to say what it thinks on divorce AND it will give another frijvowt to its MPs to vote on the eventual bill in parliament ACCORDING TO THEIR CONSCIENCE. (see “Tie Your Brother Down“).

That means that this sniggering geezer who is so patronisingly smug about moving Malta closer to Europe (puhlease) would love to have y’all believe that the frijvowt is actually a yes to divorce. It is not. Because the probability is that even with a positive referendum result (and Joseph is not doing much to encourage that) the chances are that the 69 eejits voting “according to their conscience” shoot down the bill. Godbless.

Daphne Caruana Galizia wrote a good analysis in today’s Independent that shows how many of us who are in favour of divorce legislation but not in favour of this partisan circus feel. I have heard many friends in the last few hours who are considering abstaining or even voting NO in a referendum because of the whole hijack by this PLPN charade.

J’accuse remains convinced that the truly modern, progressive and (if you want, though I do not see the point of this) “European” way of introducing divorce can only happen when one or more parties have the balls to declare that should they be elected to government they will introduce divorce legislation. It is the only way that the people can be empowered to decide – with a vote at the electoral ballot.

Meanwhile as we discuss our referendum question in 2011 and as our leader of the opposition kids himself of having “allowed” us to express our opinion, (Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster for that)  this is the stage Luxembourg is at with regard to divorce legislation. I won’t bother translating. If you can’t read French then you’re not European enough and you’re not bloody worth it.

Le divorce possible dans six mois

Dans les cartons du Parlement depuis plus de cinq ans, le texte tarde à se finaliser. Les difficultés des députés à s’accorder tiennent en deux points: l’opportunité de maintenir le divorce pour faute à certaines conditions (violences conjugales) et la question des points retraite pour le conjoint qui aurait interrompu sa carrière pendant la durée du mariage.

Hier, les députés ont toutefois réussi à s’entendre sur le divorce par consentement mutuel. Ainsi, la durée de la procédure a été ramenée à six mois au lieu d’un an. Les parlementaires ont acté que la pension alimentaire versée lors d’un divorce par consentement pouvait être révisée ce qui n’est pas le cas aujourd’hui. Pour la députée socialiste Lydie Err, «les progrès sont laborieux, mais au moins nous avançons».

– L’Essentiel, 17th March 2011

I almost forgot… but it’s become our new byline:

In un paese pieno di coglioni ci mancano le palle.

– J’accuse 2011

 

Categories
Divorce Politics

Overwhelming (In a world gone mad)

It’s been a difficult day for us expats. For starters we could not tune in to the parliamentary “debate” that preceded the vote on the wording of the referendum question so we had to rely on secondary sources. Then like the early tremors before the quake and storm it started to come across. The information seeped slowly at first until it built itself up into a tsunami, an orgy of inconsequential non-sequiturs, a glorification of partisan ignorance and a confirmation that it is reasonable for many of us to lose hope.

Why bother? As I sounded out friends by email and facebook I noticed that as the debate raged on many people who I like to consider intelligent were thinking of packing their bags and leaving the country. For yes, even though the debate and vote were simply about the phrasing of a consultative referendum question we we were getting a taster of what the real debate would be about. Ferraris, conscience, Jesus, stereotypically ignorant Irish and battered wives featured randomly in this tasteless spectacle.

Then came the vote. A vote, mind you, that was not tied to any government confidence vote, a simple vote that basically determined the format of the question in the consultative referendum. Those who liked the conditional question (or as Lawrence would have it – the “complicated” one) won the vote on the day. 36 -33 with JPO and Mugliett voting with the PL clan.

Then it all went haywire. The labour rent-a-crowd went ballistic. On facebook, Luciano Busuttil, the erudite constitutionalist, fed the faithful with the “GONZI HAS LOST HIS PARLIAMENTARY MAJORITY” (caps complimentary of labour newspeak). There you had it again. It was not about divorce after all. It was about Gonzi’s government. Little did it matter that this was an open vote, not tied to any government confidence. No. Busuttil would descend to the sublimely ridiculous when I would point out the legal inconsistency of his argument. Backed by his crowd of fawning lejberites he retorted: “Can you feel it Jacques? Power slipping from your hands?”

J’acccuse? Power. Ah the ignorance. Sublime. This is what you will get with PLPN style confrontation on a theme. This is what we get if we are unwitting accomplices to the programme for the introduction of divorce as conceived by the PLPN crowd. This is what we get when we give our consent to the idea of a consultative referendum to introduce a “minority right”.

How else can I write it? Let’s try bold.

Muscat’s Labour has NO POSITION on divorce. It has a position on a free vote. Gonzi’s PN has a position on divorce but it doesn’t count because the PN MPs will be given a free vote. SO WHAT THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER IS EVERYONE SO HAPPY ABOUT? A consultative referendum?

And then what? The people have spoken? We all know what that means to most MPs…. Vox Populi, Vox Xejn.

I don’t know what irritates me most: the hypocritical contradictions of a supposedly christian democrat party that abuses of the system or the unlimited opportunism of a pseudo-progressive party that doesn’t have the balls to take a clear lead on the issue that counts. No Luciano or Joseph – a lead does not mean asking the people… it means giving them the clear option by saying that a Labour MP means a YES vote for the divorce law.

But what am I saying? Balls? In today’s parties? That’s a good one. No wonder today’s activities have been overwhelming. It’s back to the trenches.

In un paese di coglioni, ci mancano le palle. – J’accuse 2011.