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….

Enhanced by Zemanta
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.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Politics Rubriques

Democracy on Hold

The Banana Republic Files. In today’s Times we find the report that “At the start of yesterday evening’s sitting of Parliament, the Speaker gave a written answer to a question by Nationalist MP Franco Debono on progress in talks on the financing of political parties, which he considered urgent.”

Well, thanks to Labour’s recent walk out and tantrum this is the current situation: “The House Select Committee on the Strengthening of Democracy had advanced its discussions on the topic. A period of public consultation on the electoral process and system had expired on December 18, 2009. The Speaker expressed the hope that the current situation, wherein the select committee was not meeting, would be temporary and the committee would soon be able to continue its work.”

Notwithstanding all the Speaker’s high hopes the bottom line is: democracy is on hold.

Earlier this week the Green Party filed a judicial protest over the electoral law. The legal challenge to article 52 of the Constitution was filed in Court as another direct result of the Labour abandoning of the process for “Strengthening of Democracy”.

No way forward for rules on party funding. No way forward on electoral reform. The future is dull. The future is a Banana Republic.

Categories
Politics

About Gays in the Village

Poor old Edwin Vassallo. He kicked off a new chatterfest with his declaration that “what heppens in the bedroom is, up to a point, the government’s business, because it often had to solve problems caused there”. Now I am sure that Edwin Vassallo does not really mean that the government will be adding to the spam already in your inbox about erectile malfunction, viagra and cialis or solving vaginitis issues. Nope this was the Chairman of the House Social Affairs Committee discussing their latest topic: “the situation of homosexuals and transgender individuals in Malta”.

Apparently the committee learnt that what happens in the bedroom often ends up before the state to do something about it – citing as examples (wait for it) single parents and teenage pregancies. Once again I cannot vouch for the reporting on the times but surely – surely – Edwin Vassallo is not equating problems in some hypothetical bedroom peopled with homosexuals resulting in a teenage pregancy? By who? The Gay Holy Spirit? And single parents? Who? Gay Geppetto? Sorry Pinocchio if you thought being carved out of wood and having the wrong part of your body grow longer at the wrong time was a problem then think again – daddy is a homo.

Following that mother of all non sequiturs the Times tried to fan the fire by throwing in a few choice quotes from MGRM’s Gabi Calleja about creative ways to have children. I can’t wait for the comments to get rolling on that one. Meanwhile politicians were still having that tit for tat. Vassallo (PN) was reacting to Anthony Zammit (PL) who had repeated what Progressive Joseph had said, which was basically “the state did not care what happened in the bedroom”. Professor (yes, professor) Anthony Zammit’s contribution to the discussion (apart from parrotting his leader) was this: “I am happy to say that I have a lot of gay friends” adding he was never ashamed to be seen with them (not like David Laws then). Anthony Zammit’s declaration reminded me of this episode from Mock the Week (replace “black” with “homosexual” and you see how this kind of statement only fits in a comedy scenario):

The came the coup de grace. Both parties have their fair share of ugly heads that are best kept below the radar. PL has that Anglu Farrugia shooting illogical theories every other day. This time it was the PN’s very own Catholic Mullah who gave us the loveliest and juciest of quotes:

“Dr Fenech Adami asked MGRM representatives whether in homosexual couples there were “mother and father” roles. In his and his wife’s experience, Dr Fenech Adami said, when they tried filling each other’s roles the results weren’t that good”.

Well. I guess if Beppe has trouble switching roles then everybody else does. How’s that for a non sequitur?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Legatus non violatur

The big three credit ratings agencies were threatened yesterday with fines and the creation of a new state-backed competitor, only weeks after European leaders attacked them for exacerbating Greece’s problems with downgrades. – The Times (UK)

Readers will be familiar with reactions by the Maltese administration to certain reports from particular institutions. “Audit” is the byword for a scrutiny or check that was originally applied to matters accounting but is now extended to such realms as “democratic accountability” and “freedom of press” to give but non-economic examples. The auditor is supposed to be as impartial as possible and his job is simply to report on the state of affairs – the idea being that it is up to managers, politicians and lobby groups to make do with the report as best they deem fit.

Recently we have seen an increased tendency to debate the validity of the auditor rather than the message itself. In other words, in these times of economic woes that might even effect the clear thinking of (non-economic) democratic institutions, there is a growing tendency to shoot the messenger.  A concerted effort by (Commission President) Barroso and (German Chancellor and French President) Merkel & Sarkozy has recently been stepped up with the intention to undermine the credibility of a very important set of “auditors” in this day and age.

credti rating marks.jpg
Credit Rating Chart

Europe’s continental leaders have targeted the three credit ratings agencies – responsible for the rating of governments and of their ability to pay their debts. The three: Standard & Poor‘s, Moody’s and Fitch (no relation to Abercrombie’s other half) have been busy downgrading Greece, Spain and Portugal’s ratings recently and were also on the verge of giving the same treatment to France. While Merkel and Sarkozy argued that the agencies need more scrutiny – a form of supervision and regulation – Barroso criticised the three for failing to alert investors on the imminent demise of Lehmann Brothers in 2008.

Barroso asks three questions:

  • Is it normal to have only three relevant actors in such a sensitive issue where there is a great probability of conflict of interest?
  • Is it normal that all of them come from the same country?
  • Is it normal that such important entities are escaping fundamental regulation?

Now the eagerness with which the “EU that counts” shoots down the three agencies is inevitably tied to the large amount of control that they hold on the mood of the market. their ratings are not simply an auditing assessment but any move of theirs tends to have heavy repercussions on the financial and economic sectors. Shooting the messenger is only half the story.

The EU does not only intend to regulate the auditors but seems intent on creating an auditor of its own – an in-house competitor. Questions will surely be raised about the independence of such a new monster. If the current three are not above suspicion because of the possibility of conflicts of interests what then of the new monster that will be financed by the very set of sovereign nations it is supposed to vet?

Barroso’s questions begin to sound more and more like Muscat’s quickly assembled 15 point plan to battle corruption. Loads of rhetoric and flimsy legal justification. In both cases they provide little solution and comfort. Back to the drawing board José (and Joseph)

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]