Tag: cohabitation

Categories
Mediawatch

(Don’t) Kill Bill

Mark Anthony Falzon penned a piece in today’s Times called “Kill the Cohabitation Bill” in which he argues that the best thing to do with the cohabitation bill is to dump it or kill it.  “The Bill proposes to give rights to people who don’t need and/or want them and deny them to those who do. It is quite simply an ass’s ass.” – Mark Mark’s words. I don’t agree with Mark. I don’t agree at all. The fundamental difference between what Mark is advocating and what I have been advocating from this little corner of the punditry universe is that Malta needs a Civil Partnerships Bill.

Thing is that what Malta also seems to be ready for is legislation allowing Same-Sex Marriage. There’s more to it. What happened in Malta is that we trod down the path towards a law regulating Civil Partnerships only as a result of a sort of compromise between the legislators and LGBT lobby groups. That is why we are hearing all this talk of “the Cohabitation Bill is not what we were led to believe that it would be”.

So yeah. Killing the Cohabitation Bill because it fails to take the same-sex marriage issue by the horns is a bit like wanting to shoot down a bill aimed at improving conditions for cyclists because such a bill discriminates against motorists. I’m not a big fan of the cohabitation nomenclature and would have much preferred a Civil Unions Bill or something similar. What’s in a name and all that? More crucially I believe that with some bona fide tweaking the bill that is currently on the table could become a valuable legal instrument that could be useful to quite a few citizens – by filling important lacunae that end up being uselessly discriminatory.

As for “intended” or “promised” bills relating to same-sex marriages. Well the enactment of a Civil Unions Bill should not in any way preclude serious work and progress in a parallel field of legislating same-sex marriages. Free of the contorted compromises and half-baked solutions, a draft bill with clear and concrete position on same-sex marriage and ancillary rights is not only the correct basis for proper decisions but also benefits all parties concerned.

Such a same-sex marriage bill would also oblige the shufflers and equivocators within the traditional party system to stop fence-sitting and get down to concrete action. Joseph Muscat will finally have to bear the decision making responsibility and stop faffing around with rainbow coloured flags while going nowhere. Same goes for any other politician who thought he could pull a smart one with the LGBT community by promising some half-baked bill (the legislative equivalent of promising with fingers crossed behind their back).

Meanwhile the serendipitous package of rights that is developing around what is currently called the Cohabitation Partnerships Bill deserves more respect from all parties. It does not need any killing or euthanasia attempts. It needs the right attention from the right parties.

Don’t Kill the bill.

Categories
Uncategorized

The State of Our Unions

Chris Said must not be too happy with the reception that has been afforded the Civil Cohabitation Partnerships Bill. The MGRM and AD as well as the Civil Rights group Aditus have all slammed one aspect or another of the bill. It must be said that the greatest hype has been around the expectations that had been instilled among the gay community with regards to a move that would finally constitute the adoption of a gay marriage law in Malta. Not being an infallible sentient being I am not sure whether I am getting all the signs right but I do have more than a modicum of suspicion that there is more than a strong tinge of confusion in the matter from all parties concerned – either wilfully and in line with particular agendas or unwittingly and underlined by a particular level of ignorance of what the law is about.

On PACS and othe civil partnerships

Let us begin with the abstract – away from the hustle and bustle of what is the current line of thought in Malta. The first point that must be clearly established is that a law on civil partnerships and a law on gay marriage are two very different pieces of legislation. The fact that the former (a civil union law) could facilitate the life of gay couples (and that is an understatement) does not in any way make the two any less different. The clearest and most straightforward example is France and French law where thankfully the confusion that may be brought about by the religion inspired forms of marriage is virtually non-existent.

Since the 15th November 1999 France has what is called a PACS -translated in English as a civil solidarity pact. By definition it is an agreement between two adults (see: no mention of gender or blood relation) who enter such an agreement with the purpose of jointly organising and administering their lives. It changes their situation in the eyes of the law: couples are said to be pacsé on their status description and they stand to be considered as a unit in different situations such as fiscal calculations and entitlements as well as presumptions in the case of inheritance. PACS was introduced in France when marriage was on the downturn and was definitely not exclusively considered as a marriage solution for gay couples (in 2012, 94% of PACS were between opposite sex couples). It goesd without saying though that the concept of a civil union or a recognised cohabitation includes the possibility of same-sex couples.

PACS was never intended to replace or come close to the concept of marriage – the civil concept mind you. Most civil unions are intended in this manner.

Same-sex Marriage

Very different from PACS is the legislation of gay marriages. If we look at our Wikipedia fact machine we will see the following verbal venn diagram:

Currently 22 of the 51 countries in Europe recognize some type of same-sex unions, among them a majority of members of the European Union. Eight European countries legally recognize same-sex marriage, namely Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. An additional fourteen have a form of civil union or unregistered cohabitation. San Marino only allows immigration and cohabitation of a citizen’s partner. Several countries are currently considering same-sex union recognition.

Do note the difference. 22 countries recognise some type of same-sex unions. Of these eight recognise same-sex marriage. The additional fourteen have a form of civil union or unregistered cohabitation. Malta’s Bill would add it to the latter fourteen. It has nothing to do with the formal recognition of gay marriages. Even after the Cohabitation Bill is passed we would still be aeons away from any form of legal sanction of marriage between same-sex couples.

So what’s happening in Malta?

I have it on quite a reliable source that on the eve of last election a deal was struck between a panicking Nationalist party and the MGRM. The deal was simple: MGRM would block vote for PN and PN would enact a cohabitation law. That got some uber necessary votes away from the PL (the hopeful vote) and the AD (the protest vote). Let’s call this the Xarabank deal for want of a better description. Now we know how the PN legislative agenda has been disrupted ever since the divorce surprise but the Bill had to be shoved through as promised otherwise the next election would find the PN with its pants down… and we don’t want any of that do we?

So we have a cohabitation bill being drafted at gunpoint so to speak and whatsmore – as Raphael Vassallo pointed out – being piloted by a former head honcho of the anti-divorce movement. What we end up with is a bill that seems to be blatantly discriminatory and fails to produce the goods insofar as the goal of a solid civil unions law is concerned. It’s the second (non-couple) part of the law that has drawn much attrition – mainly for what are being described as discriminatory conditions.

The bill fails to take into consideration the situation of siblings sharing the same household – failing to factor in recent ECJ case law in this regard. It also ignores completely the tax issues relating to the civil union – practically neutering one of the most important aspects of the law. These criticisms – and, if they are proven to be true, the criticisms aimed at the different time-frame for the recognition of civil unions depending on the type of union – are not only founded but very important if any bearing is to be had on the final version of the law.

There is though the issue of “family” and “gay marriage” that has been thrown into the discussion by most of the groups reacting to the bill. Such talk is highly misplaced. Fine tuning the Cohabitation Bill is not only good but imperative. The criticism and constructive suggestions should be confined to the declared aims and intentions of the bill. Same-sex marriages is definitely not one of them. Don’t get me wrong –  it will never be too soon for a discussion and process to be opened in order to have a same-sex marriage law in Malta. It is important to recognise the difference though and not to be drawn into facile conclusions.

The Cohabitation Partnerships Bill does seem to need more than a bit of fine tuning. It would be unfair and very underhand of all parties concerned should the remit of such a bill be extended to the introduction of same-sex unions. Such an introduction does not deserve to be made surreptitiously. Rather. It should be made openly, consciously and following an open national consultation – possibly including a vote (unless all our parties include the proposal in their next manifesto – in which case we will just be voting in the government that would turn the proposal to legislation).

If the country was deemed mature enough to debate, vote upon and ultimately enact a divorce law then there should be no reason why the same should not hold true of same-sex marriages. I for one believe it’s inevitable.

Change. You want it? Vote for it.

 

Categories
Mediawatch

Cohabitation stupid.

Over at the Runs there seems to be some backtracking about whether or not the JPO-PN arrangement is actually a coalition. It would seem that someone more competent than Daphne wrote a guest-post upon invitation clarifying why the JPO and PN arrangement is not a coalition: An Independent-Nationalist, not a ‘coalition’. Well there’s nothing new there that we have not been saying before (More Lessons in Irrelevance – 19/07/12)) or that has not been said clearly by James Debono (This is not a coalition – 20/07/12).

There is an effort though to shoot down the term cohabitation:

So, please, let’s use political terms properly and correctly. ‘Cohabitation’ has also been floating around on the internet. But that only happens in France – and the United States, without the term being used as such – when a president with executive powers does not enjoy the support of the majority in the National Assembly, or in the case of the United Staes, of Congress.

Which is stretching things a little bit isn’t it? The anonymous guest poster does point to the UK example of a Conservative MP resigning the party whip and being called an Independent-Conservative. Bollocks. That’s not true. They are called nothing of the sort. They either resign the party whip and become independent or resign the party whip and cross the floor. Here is a list of British politicians who have done so since (hold your breath) 1698. There’s no such nonsense as an Independent-Conservative as there is no such nonsense as an Independent-Nationalist.

Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando famously “felt liberated” after resigning from the Nationalist Party. He is no longer a member. He is not an Independent-Nationalist. He is an independent MP who has opted for cohabitation with the nationalist MPs on the strength of a number of terms. His vote is conditional on the PN adhering to the electoral manifesto.

He reiterated that he would continue to collaborate with the government on the points listed in the electoral programme but said it would be a mistake by the prime minister if he did not consult him on a one-on-one basis as agreed, on matters which were not specifically mentioned in the electoral programme. This also included the Budget.

There you go. It’s not a coalition. He is not an independent-nationalist.

It’s cohabitation, stupid.

How’s that for a snazzy t-shirt?

Categories
Articles

J'accuse: Say Cheese

At the beginning of the 20th century, Eastman Kodak introduced the Brownie camera in an effort to encourage families and consumers to “capture moments in time” without being too concerned with the amateurishness of their photographic efforts. The “kodak moment” was the photographic equivalent of carpe diem and had that kind of breakthrough effect on consumers as happened with such historic products as the Model T and the iPod. With an eye through the viewfinder and a click of the index finger, the user would capture an image that would last forever – and the camera for the masses was born.

The iPod, iPhone and iPad have been charting a new path in consumer trends for some time now, as homo sapiens makes the best use of his opposable thumb and index finger to feed on the benefits of mass communication. With a tap, a swipe or pincer movement, the news of the world is at your fingertips. It’s not just that, the idea of “Apps” – versatile applications that can do anything from convert units to replacing a spirit level to identify songs by just “listening to them” – has revolutionised the potential of the homo sapiens’ pocket. The iPhone is Apple’s answer to Baden Powell’s “Be Prepared” and MacGyver rolled into one.

And boy, has Apple begun to reap the rewards. It was announced this week that Apple is officially bigger than Microsoft. The Apple Revolution, masterminded by the prophet Steve Jobs, has now reached a very particular milestone for a company that was on the verge of shutting down and bankruptcy less than 20 years ago. They may be slightly elitist in their outlook (their philosophy is not to sell cheap but to sell desirable) but hey… to paraphrase the man from Apple Studios (no particular relation)… Apple is now more popular than Jesus.

Jesus Saves

Apple was still 10 years from being established and England were fresh World Cup winners when John Lennon sparked what came to be dubbed “The Jesus Controversy” when he observed that the Beatles had become “more popular than Jesus”. His declaration provoked the usual hysteric effect on the more religious members of the global community, who engaged in anti-Beatle protests, much vinyl burning and even the issuing of physical threats. Ever since the times of Cyril of Alexandria and the Christianisation of the Roman Empire, an angry Christian crowd has never been the most ‘Christian’ of customers.

We witnessed some hysteria of our own in the flaming controversy regarding cohabiting couples and communion. Frankly, the biggest lesson to be had from this controversy is that the lessons in religious doctrine are not exactly having the expected effects. Any self-respecting Roman Catholic should know the dos and don’ts of the sacrament of the Eucharist. The moment someone pointed out that cohabiting couples do not qualify so easily for communion should not have been a eureka moment but rather a simple reminder.

It’s not like the man formerly known as Saul never came to our islands. Admittedly, he never wrote any letters to us in the same way he wrote to the learned peoples of Corinth, but that does not mean that we can overlook their content. It was in a letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 11: 27-29) that Paul wrote: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”

Now there goes that conscience bit again. It’s quite important methinks, as the Catholic Church does not employ bouncers and lie detectors to patrol its aisles in search of the unworthy sinner for whom communion is not kosher. The Catholic Church explains its precepts and then leaves it up to you and the Jiminy Cricket in your head to work out the maths (erm, OK – metaphysics). Which is why all the protests are in vain. If the protesters so disagree with the Church’s disdain of a life outside matrimony or homosexuality (when practised) and more, then they are cordially invited to look elsewhere for their spiritual fulfilment. Others have been there before them – notably a certain Martin Luther way back in the 16th century – and it could spare them the hassle of having to reason with modern day Cyrils who believe they have some direct exclusive tap for the love of God.

Smile – through gritted teeth

A remark left on my blog this week pointed out that while there is a rather daunting economic crisis out there, “ Malta can afford to discuss communion to cohabitants, hypothetical coalitions, Daphne Caruana Galizia, Lou Bondi and whether secularism is a disease.” And Fausto has a point. It is true that Malta’s most talked about blog has retreated to the Lilliputian disquisitions as to the proper pronunciation of the Maltese word for ricotta (I say rikotta, you say irkotta) and that our talk show hosts are known to shy away from taking the proverbial bull by the horns (do check out this week’s Dissett though – it’s all about the humungous cock-up on student funds: you can bet on Mr Bugeja asking the pertinent questions) but there’s a world outside waiting to be discovered.

Cheesy issues apart, there really is a dark cloud still assembling out there and I don’t mean Eyjafjallajokull’s latest tantrum. For the life of me I still cannot figure out what part of the Vision 2015 is a tangible project and not simply a label to slap onto any idea that looks vaguely promising, but my biggest worry is that the dark cloud will hit Malta with the fury of a Eurovision contestant scorned and it will not be good. Austerity measures are the vogue all over Europe and they too might not be enough. Only yesterday, news was out that credit agency Fitch had devalued Spain’s credit rating, notwithstanding its €15 billion worth of budget measures.

Spain joins Portugal at the AA+ level (down from AAA – credit ratings sound suspiciously like battery types) and this was not good news for the Iberian strugglers fiercely battling the economic downturn. A brilliant write up on Gavin Hewitt’s Europe blog (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/gavinhewitt/) describes the “battle of ideas” that Europe might be facing: governments introducing the necessary austerity measures and unions raring for strikes and countermeasures. Spain, Italy and France all face potential general strikes to battle the reform plans and we all know of Angela Merkel’s woes. Meanwhile, at eurobase, Manoel Barroso has hooked onto the idea that this is Europe’s existential moment – do or die. It is not just the euro that is in peril but the whole project, as the mantra of “integration or bust” is put firmly to the test. What of the battle between “national interest” and “solidarity”? Will populism finally trump the lot? And will our leaders – actual or potential – fall from the clouds and get cracking?

bert4j_100530 copy

Snapshots

This is really a time to have information at your fingertips and the iPad has just landed in Europe and promises to do just that and more. This week I witnessed the fascinating transformation of the UK Times portal and the aggressive marketing that the iPad got simply by having pages and pages of print in different papers vying to explain to their clients how they will be accessible on the new technology too. Is the iPad a crystallisation of the Kodak moment? Is the iPaper the 21st century’s answer to the Kodak moment?

The answer might (hopefully) not lie solely in the hands of the Apple church and its prophets. The democratisation of the technology might be faster this time around and I am quite sure Apple knows that too. The habits will be here to stay though – and the news industry is among the first to take note. Expect experimentation with fees for online reading very soon after the initial honeymoon. You will get addicted to scrolling down your iScreen to read the latest edition of your paper and then you will be charged for the service. As it should be after all… for your conscience should be enough to tell you that one does not feed from the altar of information without paying a price.

So long as you don’t sell your soul to the devil, I’d say it’s all kosher. Now… stand still and say “irkotta”…

www.akkuza.com has cameras on its mind this week. Come take a few (snap)shots and capture the moment – warm refreshments will be provided.

Categories
Mediawatch

Sacred Rights

So cohabiting couples should strictly speaking not be allowed to take part in the sacrament of holy communion. We were reminded that recently and suddenly there is a furore, a raising of the metaphorical ruckus and more by an indignated part of the populace. What do our Bishops think they are doing? Don’t they know that there are people who traipse up the aisle and swallow the wafer who are much less deserving than the poor cohabiting couples whose only crime is to love each other?

Say what? I could not believe my eyes as more and more people jumped on the anti-church bandwagon once again. Suddenly people were pontificating on a virtual classification of “communion merit”. Soon enougha ritual of a specific denomination on the island was discussed in the same manner as one would a universal human right.

Christ Handing the Keys to St. Peter by Pietro...
Image via Wikipedia

Have I got news for the pseudo-libertarians: there is no universal human right to communion. On a scale of human interpreted religious ritual – one that strongly believes that what the earthly representatives of a divinity say is truly inspired by the aforementioned divinity – whatever anyone else has to add is pure balderdash. Communion is a religious ritual that has quite possibly existed ever since the man from Nazareth chose to ask is apostles to break bread and eat it in his remembrance. True, at that point in time there were no postillae or qualifications as to who could partake of this commemorative meal whenever it happened (neither did Haysus mention anything about wheat intolerance – something the Catholic Church would only solve in early years of the 21st century) but we must perforce presume that he left such work to Peter “the Rock” and his followers.

That last presumption is also crucial since the Catholic Church is now the supreme authority of what is kosher in communion. Which is why the sudden jumping and yelling when it was made clear that cohabiting couples should stay put on their church seats while the purer folk go about their queuing and communing is all very out of order. And what is all this nonsense about the Church being picky and hypocritical when it spares the more obvious candidates from wafer deprivation? I do not recall the church or any pointy hatted representative say that liars, thieves etc CAN have communion while cohabiting couples CANNOT. The rules are quite clear for everybody and there is also a mechanism for the repentant and the contrite – it’s another ritual which involves a sort of skype with God via his earthly rep.

Do we really need to get into the ritualistic details of Roman Catholicity to understand the difference between a rite and a right? But, they protest, the Church also has a social role and is a social example. Bollocks. Let the church deal with its own contradictions in its own time. Let it explain to its flock how sex before marriage, cohabitation, adultery, theft and murder are all on the same level in the “Does Not Qualify for Communion” point system. What the church also does is something very sly. It does not police its aisles with lie detectors and identifiers of premarital fornicators – it simply and very calmly puts it on your own conscience. It does not need a reminder from Mario & Cremona for a good catholic to know that sins and contrition are all part of the mechanism of personal development. Religion and spiritual development is all about rites in this case – and about the relationship between you and God – should you believe in her of course.

It’s a rite, not a right so stop harassing the catholic flock and if you don’t like it just do not go in there.

The Times of Malta. Debate rages on communion to cohabiting couples.

Not Only in Malta. In Holland controversy over a priest who refused to give communion to a gay person.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]