Categories
Divorce Mediawatch

The PN Conclave

Marthese Portelli, Lawyer, Politician, Malta
Image via Wikipedia

“Ideas, Vision, Discussion” is the heading of the new Pre-Budget Document presented by the PN government. There must have been plenty of exchange of ideas, possibly a little vision and quite a vivid discussion happening at the meeting of the PN Executive Committee presided over by (PN President) Marthese Portelli (read the link and do tell me how many ideas and how much vision you can discern from the over 1,000 word interview – apart from the “jobs for Gozitans rant” and the claim to fame of multiplication of votes in favour). The executive met in the open manner of dialogue and transparency that the PN has gotten its potential voters used to. Where other parties elsewhere might hold open conferences to discuss such points of principles before the media and anybody interested, the PN must needs first get its hydra-like head together and hammer out a “common position”. We will not know exactly what the ideas, vision and discussion are all about – instead we will be presented with a single strategy.

Undoubtedly this single strategy will be built with one basic premiss in mind: VOTES. The discussion that could be prompted by such a strategy -once it is forged – is simply one based on limiting the number of votes that could be potentially alienated with a wrong step. For suggestions in this direction read Ranier Fsadni’s “Legitimising a divorce law” that already includes some calculations based on “voter alienation”. There will of course have been a number of principled positions such as those of Tonio Borg and Carm Mifsud Bonnnici who will have thundered on about the anathema of divorce to a confessional party. We will not be able to confront them with questions about the constitutional relevance of their statement and with questions about how they plan to reconcile their concept of catholic imposition with the lay state. We cannot ask members of the PN conclave whether they believe the PN should be a champion of universal rights or a champion of the catholic model of society.

The PN conclave met behind closed doors and the strategy that their archaic system of voting will forge supposedly will represent the automatic 40% of the population who already know where there vote will go come next election. The internal debate will be a “long process” in the words of an undoubtedly charming Portelli (mother, lawyer AND politican) but it will remain that for a long enough time to refine the positions. We can only count on the renegades trumping the conclave members once again. And on more anonymous voices feeding their master’s voice for the occasional doctored update. (Unless of course MaltaToday or the Indy get a longer version of these “leaks”).

At the moment all we can doat this stage of extended “discussion” is watch the smoke that comes out of the chimney… and don’t we all know that when it comes to smoke generation the PN spin gurus can turn into a mean machine.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Admin Politics

We Come Unstuck

Van Isacker Pourquoi Pas 1931
Image via Wikipedia

Apologies for the relative paucity of blogging but we have been affected by a rather irritating bout of the gastric. It was not nice and it has kept us away from the nicer side of blogging for over three days now. Just so you know, we are following the Great Divorce Debate at PN HQ with a rabid interest and are particularly intrigued (and vaguely suspicious) of Ranier’s speculation as to how PN will proceed with the gambit. Will the Gonzi clan really take the neither here nor there approach as advanced by Ranier as the final solution? Will they do their turn of “turiamoci il naso” and find a way to include the civil right while shoving a load of constitutional caveats in a slipshod manner? Short of doing a Re Baldovino (of the Belgian variety) it might be Gonzi’s way out to keeping his premiership period relatively Vatican approved.

Then there’s Minister Fenech’s spanking new document called pre-budget something in which we are told that the economy is shrinking and that one of the reasons (surprise, surprise) is that notwithstanding 20 odd years of nationalist direction we still have a relatively stupid population. By relatively stupid we mean that we still have an extremely high level of early school leavers. Which is not the best statistic to stand aside the glaringly obvious fact that our need to diversify the economy can only be satiated by improving on the quality of our workforce (and not the manual labour kind). Being competitive means also offering a relatively competitive wage system though at the same time the Blues at the Helm would love to tell us how our salaries have gradually approached EU27 averages over the past ten years (there’s a sweet straight line graph of steady growth somewhere in that document).

Surely the funniest pages in the doc must be the new buzzowrd of “creative works” or the monetarisation of creativity in order that it contribute towards the growth and happiness of this tiny nation. Find it and read how the government intends to become the champion of creativity (and don’t forget competitiveness). Correct me if I am wrong but if there is one place that is definitely an infertile ground for competitive development in the creative world (and pardon the heretical combination) then that is this tiny country of friends’ networks where the few IT and creative enterprises only exist because of a continued and sustained patronage from government contracts. Q.E.D.? I guess it’s more a case of tough shit.

Finally the image accompanying this post is my latest foray into the world of self-deprecation. It’s a tee I made with one of my favourite holiday images when I did my best impression of how I thought Adonis would pose (while floating on a boat near Comino). The captions read “MY BODY, MY TEMPLE” and “Our bodies are our gardens and our wills our gardeners – William Shakespeare. (My gardener sucks).” Who said Threadless tees are the only nice tees around? (this one’s from Vistaprint) I know, I know, it’s gym time for me… but at least I get some jest out of it.

P.S. Watch this video of the Sliema Council Meeting (take 2 – they found the keys and got the time right). You’ve got to love the eye contact that’s happening in the meeting. Video from Maltatoday.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Divorce Politics

Breaking News: God has no vote

And now they’ve turned on the heat. It seems that just as JPO turned up somewhere in Zebbug (is it mass? is it the band club? the article does not help) he was greeted with a massive placard stating “God is against divorce”. Let’s just set aside the failure of the placard to specify whose God it is talking about exactly (not all have gone on record as being against divorce – and even YHWH has been know to give second swings at marriage in certain circumstances) and concentrate on the most basic and obvious corollary to that damn poster:

GOD HAS NO VOTE

… and we don’t seem to be seeing too many posters pointing that out either. Clear enough?

***

And since we will inevitably have to face the scripture quoting ministers of the Imposition J’accuse provides you with a handy guide to a clear interpretation of Deuteronomy 24 that incidentally deals with the question of divorce (both in the times of Moses and Jesus). In sum God is not against divorce, God never commands you to divorce but God permits you to divorce.

Deuteronomy on Divorce

Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Divorce Politics

I can't believe it's a majority

A Maltatoday survey published this Sunday provides us with the eye-opening statistic that a total of 59.4% of respondents can be said to be in favour of the introduction of divorce. Yes, it’s a survey, and yes, there is the annoying matter of the “ayes” including the enigmatic “in certain cases” that stinks of busybodiness as much as a blinding no but we have a new figure to play with.

Let’s get that “in certain cases” out of the way. 18.7% of the respondents did not reply with a straightforward “Yes” when asked the question “Do you agree with the introduction of divorce for persons who have lived apart from their partner for the past four years?” but they chose an option (presumably provided by the surveyors in question) that read “in certain cases”. Is this the scientific equivalent of agreeing with divorce “as such”? If it is not a wholehearted “Yes – and get a life” then why is it being counted/totalled with the ayes rather than with the nays? My problem here is that the “in certain cases” bit smells of busybody assessments such as “only in the case of irremediable breakdown” or some bullshit of the sort.

You either have the dissolution of a civil contract or you don’t. You don’t have “in certain cases”. I believe that the part of the question that stated “for persons who have lived apart from their partners for the past four years” was enough of an all-encompassing “certain case” to be able to forego any further caveats and qualifications. The “Don’t Knows” on the other hand have been slapped onto the end of the “nays” in a reminiscence of the Great Santian Assumption. They would be a quasi-insignificant portion (3.3%) were it not for the fact that once you remove the as-suchers (18.7%) out of the equation they are basically the difference between the Ayes (40.7%) and the Nays (37.3%) . With the “Don’t knows” thrown in with the “Nays” you have an infinitesimal 0.1% difference between the Ayes and Nays. Weird innit?

Which brings us back to the “as-suchers”. They could turn out to be the deal clincher if (and I stress the if) this were something to be determined on the basis of majority vs minority – which it obviously isn’t. What this survey (and others which that will surely follow) does is turn the tables on that ridiculous assumption of “catholic Malta” that is one hell of a fallacious premise in today’s world. Bishops, PMs and other Mullahs of the Catholic Imposition are warned. Hopefully the shift to a more laique (secular) discussion will be speeded up.

I’m melting here. Is this what global warming is all about? More blogging this afternoon.

Categories
Divorce Politics

Helen Fisher on Love, Lust (and Divorce)

Just like the Water business earlier I came across this next video through serendipity. While on the TED website I could not resist the urge to search the site for “divorce” and I came across this interesting analysis by anthropologist Helen Fisher. It’s a study of romantic love, sex and attachment. Helen Fisher is interested in what goes on in the brain when we talk about love and attachment. Watch the video. Trust me.

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