Tag: conscience

Categories
Mediawatch Values

Conscience, liberally speaking

François Hollande has found himself in quite a fix. His government is currently pushing the kind of law that is very easily labelled as ‘liberal’ (and consequently carries all the baggage that you might identify with the word these days). It’s France – the epitome of laïcité – and you’d expect the citizens of the republic to be either enthousiastes or at the most nonchalantes about the adoption of a law that has been dubbed “Marriage pour tous” (marriage for everyone). Yep. The biggie in France right now (apart from the herd of elephants in the corner called Angela Merkel, the Economist and the failing economy) is the new law that finally legalises same-sex marriages.

The debate is not so simple. Protests this weekend led to up to 100,000 catholics hitting the streets. In some cases we had violent scenes against the French version of FEMEN who had bullied the protesters in their usual topless garb with the words “IN GAY WE TRUST” writ all over their angry boobies (like angry birds but sexier) and spraying “Holy Sperm” out of cannisters. The religious organisations – still unable to get to grips with the very basis of laïcité are vociferous in their criticism. It’s not just the Malta of Tonio Borg that has obvious trouble coming to terms with certain concepts.

What was really intriguing were François Hollande’s declarations yesterday. Faced with a backlash from the mayors of many municipalities who found the idea of having to bind two persons of the same sex in marriage appalling he came up with a controversial solution. We still have freedom of conscience. He said. They are free to step back and nominate a delegate in their stead. He said. The possibilities of delegation can even be widened. He said. (In the likely scenario of a whole commune of representatives – from deputy mayor to cleaner of the Hotel de ville – refusing to preside over a lay marriage he is suggesting that they nominate “a valid outsider”).

Really François? How bloody socialist of you. Seems to me that the socialists of the 21st century are all bla and no substance. The proverbial men without balls (and women without…. oh you know… balls). What is the bloody point of asserting a right within a lay constitution only to say that there is a freedom of conscience involved and that the official person appointed by government to sanction that right might step out because he does not like it? Is the socialist movement asserting that it is a right or is it not? I’d love to see the gay mayor of Juan-les-Pins (disclaimer I don’t know whether he really is gay) refusing to sanction a heterosexual marriage… claiming that his conscience dictates otherwise. Where does this stop? What civic rights and duties could we thenceforth forego on the basis that we are conscientious objectors.

You know Monsieur Hollande, my conscience does not see paying exorbitant taxes in too good a light. I think I’ll take a pass and leave the tax form empty…. In today’s jargon messy Hollande deserves to have one big WTF? tattooed across his chest and paraded all along the Champs Elysées.

***

So while Hollande was busy crafting an escape vehicle for all the officials in his country whose conscience barred them from performing certain duties within their “portofoglio”, his colleagues within the European Socialist Party were taking a vote with regards to whether or not back that great Conscientious Politician Tonio Borg. In the end the Nays had it. Sure, socialist leader Swoboda seems to have quite a fancy for Tonio (not that kind Mr Borg) but for two-thirds of the grouping, Tonio had not provided enough guarantees. What guarantees I hear you ask? Well, the socialists in Europe expect Tonio Borg to never raise a conscientious objection to whatever projects the Commission embarks upon based on the laws of the treaties.

At the end of the session Maltese Labour MEP Edward Scicluna had this to say on facebook (where else?):

“An hour long humiliating experience I, as a Maltese, could have done without in group meeting today. Irreparable damage to our reputation. […] Condescendingly Malta pigeon-holed as the most backward and intolerant in Europe. This as a positive reason why EP should approve Borg.”

Apart from the fact that we have yet another example of garbled nonsense from yet another politician it is hard to decipher whether Scicluna is angrier at the fact that the Socialists were being condescending to Malta or whether he is angry at the fact that they seem to be intent on rejecting Borg’s nomination. Scicluna is a socialist himself so it would not be too big a deal were he trying to give the impression of both. They’re a strange breed these socialists – and they’re about to do another of their “free conscience” moves by allowing their europarliamentarians a “free vote” : which basically translates into “we cannot make head or tail about what we really want so best leave it to the disparate group to send a garbled message”.

***

Finally yesterday was also the day when the Church of England’s synod session continued. Hot on the agenda was the introduction of female bishops in a church that has already embraced the concept of lady priests (that’s not a cross-dressing father but an honest-to-god female with a dog collar). The “House of Laity” (The synod is tricameral, consisting of the House of Bishops, the House of Clergy and the House of Laity) fell 6 votes short of approving the motion that would allow women to be appointed Bishops. Both the House of Bishops and the House of Clergy had obtained the 2/3 majority necessary for the motion to pass but this fell at the final house – the one where the lay members of the church are represented.

The vote against women bishops included some women’s votes and this was a huge disappointment for the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams. The new Archbishop Justin Welby has also described the vote as a disappointment. Interestingly, the Bishop of Christchurch (New Zealand – where female bishops have been ordained for decades) Victoria Matthews described the result of this vote as “the product of fear”.

***

21st century Europe might be afflicted with economic problems. Beneath these problems lies a deeper moment of crises that is shaking the foundations of our moral and political compasses. Much of what happens around us today is a result of this struggle that is afflicting or effecting the collective conscience of the Old World.

 

Categories
Articles

J’accuse : Sophistry, Protagoras & San Ċipress

The return of summer has meant the return of the time-slot dedicated to listening to podcasts at a leisurely pace while lapping up the sun on a beach. This week I caught up on the “History of Philosophy without Gaps” series delivered by Peter Adamson of King’s College (available gratis on iTunes). As luck (and universal karma) would have it, I had stumbled on the episode called “Making the Weaker argument the Stronger: the Sophists” (ep. 14 if you care to look it up) and it couldn’t have been a better time to discover the sophists and their school of thought.

Thanks mainly to Plato (see “Protagoras”), the school of the Sophists has had quite a bit of philosophical bad mouthing through the ages and this is mainly because they were seen as a professional class of thinkers who dabbled in the art of “spurious learning that would lead to political success”. From the sophist school (or rather from their detractors) we get the word “sophistry”, which is invariably defined as “an argument that seems plausible but is fallacious or misleading, especially one that is deliberately devised to be so”, or as “the art of using deceptive speech and writing”.

The early sophists invested much in the concept of “virtue” but would soon inject it with a huge dose of relativism − as Protagoras himself would tell us: “Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not”. The problem with sophists however was that via this relativism they were more concerned with persuasion than with the value of truth. In teaching the early politicians the art of persuasion they also thought them that truth could only stand in the way of a successful politician. Truth was not a priority − they would boast that a good sophist could persuade someone that the worse was the better reason… they could make black appear to be white.

The Sophist school lives

The Divorce Debate Hot Potato has left the hands of the people who spoke decisively on the matter and is back in the hands of the bungling lot who are still at odds trying to understand why the rest of the world calls them “representatives”. This is the short-term after-shock when the rocked establishment does what it does best and pulls out the shots for its own survival. Let me put it bluntly: We have two anachronistic parties that had been stripped bare of any semblance of principle beyond the one and only grail of vote-grabbing. Both parties are at this point busily attempting to show the people that they represent their will (Hell Yeah) while contemporaneously attempting to have officially nothing to do with it in the process (Heavens No).

A few weeks back I wrote about Pontius Pilate. His ruse of “release Barabbas” never worked. The people threw the Messiah back into his hands and all he could do was wash them. Not with our modern day Sophists though − far be it from them to wash their hands publicly. Instead they do the impossible and find themselves ditching truth in order to sell the implausible and fallacious packaged as political dogma. To me, the prize of the day, nay the millennium, must go to Inhobbkom Joseph. Sophist to a tee, il-Mexxej has wriggled his way out of Labour’s non-position to the extent that a huge amount of his supporters actually believe that the Labour party is in favour of the introduction of divorce legislation.

Muscat’s post-result speech fell just short of letting people assume that it was thanks to Joseph and his party that Yes carried the day. Nothing new there… I still meet Nationalist Party card carriers who believe the spin that the Yes movement seven years ago was a purely in-house affair. Muscat then performed logical acrobatics of an impressive kind in which he managed to imply that the Nationalist Party is obliged to vote Yes (or resign) while conveniently ignoring the fact that this paladin of progressive politics has not got the balls to tell his own party to stuff the free vote where the sun does not shine. The fallacy (Labour is a pro-divorce party) had been sold − hook, line and sinker to the electorate − while Muscat abetted anti-divorce MPs in his own party. Epic representative fail but huge sophist success.

The powers of an MP

At the other end of our poor political spectrum, the only man with a pair of considerable male attributes remains unsurprisingly Austin Gatt. Much as I disagree with his position (completely and utterly) on divorce itself, there is no doubt that Austin Gatt was clear from day one and his position is an interesting standard in the sea of wavering compromises that are the official party positions. Austin said he could never fit in a party that would be in favour of divorce and that he would resign if his party would pronounce itself in favour. His position is that his conscience trumps the voice of the people in this matter and that he is willing to face the consequences with the electorate (luckily for him he will not be contesting the next election so not much facing to be done there).

I have consistently argued that a referendum was not the right way to introduce a civil right such as divorce. One reason was that in the real world we would have clear direction from parties who could legislate responsibly and professionally with the balance between common good and minority rights in mind. The mess this referendum has put us in is not a result of the YES/NO answer (it has been pointed out that the 53/47 per cent ratio was the same as when the “debate” was officially launched) but a result of our representatives abdicating their responsibility at the start of it all. We cannot have spineless parties without a position (two sets of free votes − 69 consciences − and a collective bandwagon of shameless sophistry) suddenly being trusted with the enacting of such a delicate piece of legislation − and all the signs show that they cannot seem to understand how to do it either.

Kollox suġġettiv (everything’s subjective)

It’s now all about fine-tuning for the parties and the electorate would do well to take note. Muscat’s PL and Gonzi’s PN are about to pull one of those wool-before-your eyes tricks in which they excel. Our tendency to be card-carrying voters before being free-thinking emancipated citizens risks nullifying all the awareness that has been gained over the last four weeks. Both PL and PN want to be seen as fulfilling the will of the people while also being non-committal as parties on such an important aspect as a minority right.

Through the divorce debate we saw the gradual rise of a kernel of a Civil Rights Movement. It was one that “Stood Up” and called a spade a spade beyond the useless rhetoric and empty sophistry of the parties. It was promising − and we recognised the momentum. What seems to have been heavily underestimated though was the pulling power of the parties in their attempt to hegemonise (and in the process mollify) the political decision making in our country. Sure, eventually the Ayes will have it − and Austin will do his little tantrum − but will we revert to the spineless politics and the slow pace of opiated Maltese dualism?

The answer to this question seems to be a resounding “of course”. Deborah Schembri has done us the honours. She was a more than promising leader for the kernel Civil Rights Movement and proved her ability to argue above the noise. She surprised everyone by announcing on the people’s forum − (very aptly) Xarabank − that she would choose a career in politics over a vocation as people’s representative (my choice of words). Another one bites the dust (forgive us for being sceptical about the chances of Debbie changing Labour rather than vice-versa).

San Ċipress

And if you were wondering whether Debbie’s absorption will be a one-off distraction factor then look at the new spin from the PN camp involving another budding star − Cyrus Engerer. No sooner had Deborah announced her “career path choice” did the spin begin to portray the liberal side of PN as the new stars. Much as you might like Cyrus and Deborah as politicians who showed their mettle in the divorce debate, you might be heading towards grave disappointment as they are transformed into the latest tools for survival by the PL-PN opiates.

The boredom threshold of a tired electorate is lower than that of a prime time “journalist”. Having taken great pains to cast his decision, the voter just cannot wait for his representatives to just get a move on beyond the fuss and enact the damn law. The voters’ impatience is the political party’s boon − they will reason their way out of this mess and both will try to sell the idea that they are the people’s party. Meanwhile, the short-lived Civil Rights Movement risks being the greatest loser: can you imagine the PLPN handling other important issues beyond divorce? Of course not. And yet Cyrus and Deborah chose to obstinately operate from within the rudderless ships and allow themselves to be paraded like the latest “vara” (statue) at some village festa.

In the words of one of Malta’s foremost philosophers of the 21st century… “jekk intom ghandkom vara, ahna ghandna vara isbah minnkom, jekk intom qieghdin hara, ahna qieghdin hara iktar minnkom,… u jekk intom ghandkom lil Debbie… ahna ghandna ‘l Cyrus (ahjar minnkom)”….

Will we ever learn? If you’re still not convinced by all this sophistry then you might want to try to take a peek on Alternattiva’s quest to remind our representatives why they should stop dilly-dallying. They’re meeting (aptly again) on 7 June at Hastings Garden at 9.30am. If you’re taking an iPod along then do buy the single “I’d rather dance with you”… by the Kings of Convenience − a pleasant tune to listen to before the latest round of philosophy – hopefully there will be less sophistry involved.

www.akkuza.com − thinking different because you don’t seem to want to.

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
Articles

J’accuse: Conscientious objectors and objectionable consciences

Last Thursday’s UN Resolution 1973/11 did more than just belatedly clear the Libyan air of the one-sided aerial assaults by Gaddafi’s troops. The resolution also cleared the air of a lingering suspicion that the scheming Colonel had managed to get away with hypnotising the international community into an inert bubble of passive gobsmackedness. He had not. As green troops honed in on Benghazi and as we held our collective breath for the inevitable bloodbath in the eastern rebel stronghold, the UN Security Council finally voted to impose a no-fly zone over Libya (and a bit more).

Britain and France (for spearheading the vote) and the US (for belatedly seeing the light) became the new symbols of the fight for liberty and democracy. They were the West’s answer to the Libyan rebels’ plea for support. There were also five abstentions on the day. None of the permanent members exercised their veto but the five abstentions carried the weight of five nations’ conscientious objection to the means being suggested. The abstention roll call is a roll call of giants who refused to commit to decisive action to prevent an impending bloodbath: Russia, China, Brazil, India and Germany.

Lay down your arms

Thankfully for the international community, Malta did not have a vote on the Security Council resolution. I’d hate to see the likes of Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama wait for our nation’s representatives to fret about who to pass the decision-making buck to in such a situation − referendum? free vote? who knows? We cannot however hide from the geopolitical reality of the situation and, after having milked what we could of our “heroic” acts of bravery in the “evacuation”, we now find ourselves bang in the middle of the effective area for enforcing a UN mandated no-fly zone. What would OUR conscience say?

After a couple of hours (over 15 but who’s counting?), during which we had to “suffer the ignominy” of being tagged as a British military base on some lax international news channels (so much for 31 March − but thank God for the Malta Tourism Authority for setting them right), our conscience finally dragged itself to a podium and addressed the gathered assembly of journalists.

But back to the conscience. Our Prime Minister found some time to stay away from the hotline with Libya or from the god-awful diversion of “the divorce referendum question” and addressed the nation. This was in a way our moment of truth. Which side would Malta be on? Would the neutrality question raise its hypocritical head again, almost 30 years on from the infamous “compromise”? Would the heroic George Cross Island once again become a fortress and bastion for the forces of liberty and democracy?

Fear and Loathing

Well, watching Prime Minister Gonzi at work was an experience. I did not see an assertive Prime Minister on the podium. I did not see a leader of men who put his country on the same side as those who would do their utmost to help their brothers in distress. Gonzi looked more like an Archbishop. You could fill the gaps in his press conference by inserting the Maltese “jekk Alla jrid” (if God wills).

If God wills, the guns will be put down. If God wills, the Libyan leader who threatened bloodshed in the Mediterranean basin will suddenly develop a human side and will not proceed with the massacre. If God wills, there will be no need to enforce the no-fly zone because there would be no more fighting. If God wills, we will not need to send planes from our island. If God wills, we will remain the selective Florence Nightingale of the Mediterranean – the unsung heroes. If God wills, the Malta Tourism Authority will remain the only authority reminding the world that all we care about is tourism – and that, hey, we are not a British base, we are an independent republic that freed itself of the Brit oppressor (and Nato) in 1979. Jeez… haven’t you guys seen Gensna?

On the one hand, there’s British Prime Minister Cameron saying “to suggest that we should pass a resolution like this and then sit back and hope that somebody somewhere in the Arab world will act instead of us is profoundly wrong.” We get Archbishop Gonzi being the non-committal apologist worried of shaking the hornets’ nest of anachronistic neutrality clause or of standing on the side of liberty. We do not even get a condemnation of Gaddafi and a clear “Get out!” We get a half-baked prayer that hopefully the arms are laid down and that there will be no need to enforce the no-fly zone. Yes. And the ugly monster will go away on its own. Is this really a position based on conscience and principle? I’m not too sure about that but the impression we seem to be giving is of a country lacking the serious attributes to stand tall among nations. Ah, but we sure have a great big conscience.

bert4j_110320_02

Free vote and free conscience

Archbishop Gonzi’s video to his flock was not the only one to drop into my inbox this week. We also received Inhobbkom Joseph’s vid following the parliamentary marathon vote on the question to be asked for the referendum. It was a gut wrenching performance by the paladin of Maltese Progressives that begs the question: Does he know no shame? Joseph’s fans still swim happily in the belief that the divorce question is somehow interlinked with the survival of this government. Joseph does nothing to dispel this confusion for the sake of a clearer divorce debate. No. He actually tells us “this is not about the referendum or divorce”.

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

You have been GIVEN (thanks Joseph) the right to express your opinion on 28 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.

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.

bert4j_110320_01

Balls and bollocks

Two videos. Two men addressing the nation. Two supposed leaders that represent our country. They only managed in their own way to make me squirm with anger and disgust. I know for a fact that they made many others want to leave − rip up their passports and conscientiously object to being a part of this country full of men abusing their objectionable consciences. Twice, in the space of a week, we have had to suffer the arguments of supposed leaders of men who are hiding behind convoluted reasons that they like to attribute to conscience. The end result is that we have leaders and potential leaders who have abdicated their decision-making responsibility − all in the name of a conscience that is increasingly hard to decipher (and justify).

It’s sad. Very sad. In both cases the lives of men are at stake. On the one hand our PN government is failing the rebels in Benghazi, Misratah and more on the flimsy excuse of a neutral conscience. On the other our supposed PL Progressive Leader has failed to grab the bull by the horns and forge together a party that asserts the right to divorce and remarry in the 21st century. Taking us into Europe is he?

I’ve got a new slogan for J’accuse for 2011. It’s proving to be more and more true as the year unfolds. It’s best said in Italian and I guess this week really proved its point: “In un paese pieno di coglioni, ci mancano le palle”.

This article and accompanying Bertoon(s) were published on today’s edition of The Malta Independent on Sunday.

Categories
Articles

J’accuse : ‘Les sanscouilles’

At the time of the French revolution, part of the French population took to calling another part of the population “les sansculottes”. According to one theory, the name is derived from the fact that the partisans of this particular revolutionary faction wore pantaloons (full-length trousers) instead of the fashionable knee-length culotte. (Wikipedia’s summary). I’ve always wondered why rather than being called ‘Les Pantaloons’, they were defined by what they did not wear, but that must be down to the fact that the point where sartorial affairs and politics converge more often than not involves criticism rather than praise.

Anyway, together with the Jacobins, the sansculottes were among the violent elements of the revolution. Unlike the Jacobins, they came from the working class and have bequeathed us the term “sans-culottism” meaning extreme egalitarian republican principles. The sansculottes disappeared shortly after the fall of Robespierre’s reign of terror and they left us the image of the carmagnole, the red cap of liberty and the sabots (clogs).

In today’s exciting times we have witnessed revolutions linked to colours, such as the red, purple and orange revolutions. We have also, in moments of great social upheaval, witnessed the blooming of “styles” and “fashions” that are a result of or reaction to the current political mood. In that sense, the sansculottes were the precursors to the mods, the punks, the rebels and the twittervolutionaries of today’s world but never, ever in his life would Jacques (René, if you please) Hébert, the revolutionary mentor of the sansculottes, have imagined the possibility of the movement of “les sanscouilles”.

Balls

Yet, all through this past week you couldn’t help but wonder whether just such a movement is forming in our collective sub-conscious and whether or not it manifested itself in the guise of our more prominent politicians and so-called investigative journalists when the divorce issue was once again discussed. Maltese, being the flowery expressive language that it is, lends itself perfectly to explaining what les sanscouilles is all about – and unless the linguistic fascists are hiding in ambush behind some corner, the best way to spell the Maltese version of sanscouilles is bla bajd.

Yep. The sanscouilles movement is made up of a combination of political Farinellis combined with the journalistic eunuchs who tend to fan their divas during performances. Lest I be accused of gender bias, I invite you to consider this whole ballsy business as an extended metaphor that applies to male and female alike. The defining trait of the sanscouilles is their inability to shoulder a modicum of responsibility and provide an inkling of inspirational politics; instead of responsibly taking a stand one way or another, they will wait to see which way the wind is blowing and find innumerable ways to postpone putting their neck on the line.

Contrary to public perception, the notion of the sanscouilles has less to do with ideas of virility and more with the ideal of responsible leadership. A quick run through the week’s events on divorce should really lead this country’s last remaining conscientious voters to despair. The sanscouilles movement is gaining ground… it is out there. It is everywhere.

The Emperor’s Clothes

I was told that Joseph Muscat pulled of quite a performance on Tuesday’s self-referential show of investigative journalism. I was told that by friends of mine who don’t usually bother turning up at the ballot box on Malta’s five-year anniversary equivalent of Doomsday. It was when the press started to report Joseph’s refreshed position on divorce that I wondered how my friends could buy this kind of pitch from a politician who, in the words of a commentator on J’accuse, “appears to have acquired his political education from the back of a Belgian beer mat”.

Then it clicked. Surely the prancing and sashaying of Malta’s prime example of castrato journalism could only have unwittingly (absence of wit is taken as read in most programmes) aided and abetted Muscat’s unprincipled approach to the divorce debate. Of course, if, unlike me, you are more than willing to watch the Emperor march around naked without giving him so much as a word of warning as to his glaring state of nudity, then you too will be equally appeased with his idea of “responsible divorce” combined with a “free vote for his party”.

The presenter’s position is compromised from the start. Comforted by the fact that his bias no longer needs to be declared (it’s to himself, lest you were wondering), his programmes are beyond “boring and dull”, having transformed into a self-referential sequence exposing the very best of selective journalistic incompetence. At any other time, on any other channel, Lou could be playing whatever tune he likes but prime time investigative journalism on national TV deserves much more than the image of castrated journalists playing second fiddle to whatever member of Parliament is on stage at the moment. Given that WE’s other programme has now completely taken leave of all senses and started to discuss close encounters of the third kind, the urgent need of a non-castrated style of journalism is all the more glaring.

But back to Muscat. His particular brand of sanscouillism is of the incredibly non-committal kind while sounding the exact opposite. Unless you manage to cut beyond the words and look into what is really being said, you might as well be listening to Ahmed the Dead Terrorist. Which is why Bondi’s castrato style journalism could not work. If he challenges Muscat he gets reminded that he is biased. If he goes along with him he ends up promising to endorse his “responsible divorce” campaign.

Muscat’s tergiversation stems from an inability to place the divorce issue in real constitutional terms and fails to appreciate his responsibilities both as Leader of the Opposition and aspirant leader of a nation. Divorce is not the kind of “right” that results from some majority-voting stint but is a legal possibility that is enacted in the interests (more often than not) of the few. What Muscat fails to understand is that you can be in favour of divorce legislation without necessarily being in favour of divorce.

Muscat tries to get away with this new-fangled notion of “responsible” divorce as though there is such a thing as irresponsible divorce. Sure we do not want a situation where the mere repetition of the cursèd word thrice would result in divorce like some Red Slippers gone all matrimonial. On the other hand, this shuffling of feet and hiding behind terms is not progressive at all. A progressive leader should have taken the bull by the horns and by this time presented what his idea of divorce should be – caveats and all – and be pushing to get it enacted in parliament for the benefit of those citizens who fulfil the conditions and desire to move on to a different, married life. Instead we get enigmatic “responsible divorce”. Well, so long as it’s responsible. Then again. What if I said “responsible mercy killing”? What say you about “responsible heroin consumption”? “Responsible castration”?

The high kind of pitch

And while Muscat was busy dancing with Lou to whatever music was being played at the never-ending end credits, Malta’s own Don Quixote was busy meeting our Prime Minister on the matter of his draft law on divorce. Now, I have already once more lauded JPO for the single-handed way he has pushed the sanscouilliste movement into some form of action on the divorce matter. On the other hand it was particularly jarring to see the push and pull of the JPO-Gonzi saga shortly after the meeting took place. First JPO met some members of the free press and declared that next year would be a great time for the harvest of both parliamentary discussions and referendum.

What-ho? Yep. The erstwhile backbencher had apparently been given the nihil obstat from up high to announce to the men of the realm that divorce would definitely be on the agenda in 2011, as would be an eventual referendum. Referendum? Did anyone say referendum? Is our hero tilting at windmills, suddenly drained of all mental faculties? Has he too succumbed to sanscouillism? Who on earth mentioned referenda? Do these folks even know how things are meant to work in this constitutional republic of ours?

Better still out came the OPM claiming that, yes, there was an agreement to proceed with the discussion but there was no mention of a referendum and that it would be best left to the electorate to decide. The electorate? It was like being knocked out twice within an hour. No referendum plus the electorate can only mean one thing in my book: that we will wait for the next general election for the divorce issue to be placed in the party’s manifesto and that a vote on the matter could only be taken after such a national vote.

Marchons! Marchons! A la Castille! You could hear the hordes of sanscouilles marching in line. They would storm Castille once again and spread the revolutionary fervour of the ball-less to the four corners of the islands. The divorce question had become a question of pass the parcel all over again and from Muscat to JPO to Gonzi the movement of the sanscouilles could only offer the electorate a castrato version of realpolitik. Wash your hands and let them decide. Pontius Pilate would be proud.

bert4j_101017

The seven brothers

Then it came. When you least expected it and from the last place you would expect it. The voice of reason. Seven Church brothers sat down around a table and fleshed out a declaration “on conscience and divorce”. In the land of sanscouillism, seven men of the cloth came up with an eye-opener of a declaration that made you want to stand up on the nearest pulpit or stage and shout “Hallelujah”. Here was a ballsy statement divorced from the fire and brimstone rhetoric of brother Said Pullicino and divorced from the foot shuffling opportunism of the sanscouilliste community. The seven brothers called a spade a spade. And they reminded the whole bloody lot of the sanscouilliste community of the political role of one’s conscience – and one’s responsibility towards both society and one’s conscience.

For yes, there was much more to be read into the seven brothers’ invitation than a simple reminder that a real Catholic votes with an informed conscience. They went beyond that. They had no qualms reminding the devout that “for Catholics divorce is wrong whether permitted by civil law or not”. However, they did also emphasise the importance of evaluating one’s options by acting with an informed conscience bearing in mind one’s own morals and values – in this case God’s teaching.

The seven brothers introduced a new, important angle to the argument. They have not only repaired the damage to the Church’s image caused by Said Pullicino’s media-eval stance, but have provided an important example for the wider society. I dare go so far as stating that theirs is the real Christian democrat position that is miles apart from the tergiversation within the soul of the supposed Christian democrat party of Malta.

This is the how the role of a social actor is fulfilled. With a clear indication and an appraisal of every individual’s role in society and how he should go about fulfilling it. Instead of fire and brimstone, the brothers gave us the duty to inform our conscience and decide in good faith based on those considerations. After all, it is not just votes on the introduction of divorce that require greater reflection and an informed conscience. Someone, somewhere, still has faith in intelligent voters who will get us out of this mess.

www.akkuza.com is still sick of laryngitis. We’re sicker still of the sanscouillistes but still can’t find the right prescription.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Divorce Politics

Those Influential Priests

The Church (in Malta) has spoken. Then again it has not. Seven men described by the Times as “high-profile” priests got together and fleshed out a declaration “about Conscience and Divorce”. The paper is described as follows by the Times:

The paper is a personal initiative of the priests even though some of them occupy prominent roles within the Church hierarchy. According to sources, the position paper has the tacit approval of the Archbishop who had mentioned the initiative during a meeting of the Diocesan Assembly.

So it is not exactly an official position of the Catholic Church – as, I must haste to add, neither was Said Pullicino’s Sunday Rant (although, one controversial element was its appearance on the website of the Archdiocese – giving it more than a look of tacit approval). In any case while the inner workings of the Church as to what constitutes approval or otherwise are not up to us to dicuss it would be sensible to have a clear cut statement at least confirming that whatever consitutes an authority in this corner of the world for the purposes of church business is in accord with the statement by the seven brothers in Christ.

The statement is a welcome contribution in the sense that it is a much less “fire and brimstone” approach to the social role of catholics in society. It must be handled in that manner. It is not blackmailing a catholic into submissive obedience but is reminding him his duty to use his conscience according to God’s word. The word “sin” is used once and qualified with “possibly” – a word denoting uncertainty. It’s not that simple though. For Catholics Divorce is not good – point 4 of the letter is as clear as crystal on that and I have absolutely no intention to argue with that because it is neither my business nor any other lay person’s. What this letter does contrary to Said Pullicino’s Sunday Rant is that it puts the catholic person’s decision in perspective of the society around him as well as making it clear how his conscience should deal with the issue.Incidentally the Times’ accompanying picture of the infamous billboard is not only misguiding but unfair towards the very efforts of the seven brothers to clear the air.

In a very Lutheran approach, the seven brothers ask the Catholic to look into his heart and use his own conscience at what he thinks is the best answer – as inspired by God and as they believe God’s will is for the common good. Man’s free will and choice based on informed reflection can lead him to any decision – he will have to face his own conscience when deciding if he chose based on good will, good intention and upon proper reflection. And that – may I remind you – is what applies to the practising Catholic.

Personally I have long reached the conclusion that were I a practising Catholic I would vote in favour of divorce legislation. As a practising catholic that would not mean that I am in favour of divorce or that I would use the option but that I am aware of my role in a wider society in which people with different faiths from my own are being discriminated against by this imposition of one faith’s precepts over another. On a social level the arguments for and against the evils of divorce might as well be the arguments for and against the evils of marriage. As a catholic living in a wider society that is not necessarily catholic I would feel safe in my conscience voting for the introduction of divorce legislation by way of my belief that I have a duty to contribute to the general well being of society as a whole. The possibility of divorce does not detract from that well being. In certain cases (though not all) it could even improve it. (An argument that applies for both marriage as contracted nowadays and divorce).

The seven brothers have introduced a new, important angle to the argument. They have, in a way, repaired the damage to the church’s image caused by Said Pullicino’s medieval stance. Their contribution should not only be noted by the greater society but should be used as an example. After all it is not just votes on the introduction of divorce that require greater reflection and an informed conscience.

***

Declaration about Conscience and Divorce

We, the undersigned, have all written about the introduction of divorce in Malta. Sometimes, we may have seemed to contradict each other. So we decided to meet and clarify together our ideas on conscience and divorce and on what stand Christians could take regarding the proposed legislation favouring the introduction of divorce.

We all agreed on the following points:

1. All citizens, Catholic or not, if asked to give their judgement whether they wish or not the introduction of such a law in favour of divorce have the right and duty to follow their own conscience which needs, however, to be well informed and well formed, keeping in mind the common good.

2. Catholics should strive to have a Christian outlook on the family and on marriage and, according to the teaching of Christ and the Church, witness to this in all circumstances and to strive to see it practised in all structures of society.

3. Both as citizens as well as Catholics they should work hard so that in their country there should be stable and lasting marriages, strong families bound by love and fidelity because this is of great benefit to society at large.

4. For us, Catholics, divorce is wrong whether it is permitted by civil law or not.

5. The decision of every Catholic concerning legislation in favour of divorce in order for it to be a good and responsible decision must be reached with a formed conscience and enlightened by the teaching of Christ who is “the Way, the Truth and the Life.”

6. The Catholic, who not caring about having an informed and formed conscience, decides to follow one’s whim, without seriously paying attention to the teaching of God’s Word and of the Church, but only follows one’s feelings, one’s own thoughts or personal advantage, if not also one’s prejudices, should realise that one is not doing one’s duty as a Catholic. One is responsible for such action before God and may possibly be sinning.

7. In order that as Catholics we reach a good moral judgement whether we want or do not want the introduction of divorce law we must in a responsible manner form our conscience and then decide according to this conscience.

Therefore, after trying seriously to form one’s conscience according to God’s Word and the teaching of the Church and trying sincerely to discover the whole truth and what really leads to the common good, a Catholic:

a) may either reach a right decision or may also in all sincerity reach a decision which, in itself, is mistaken. But whatever the case, one is always obliged to follow and decide according to one’s conscience,

b) may still, in spite of having all the necessary knowledge and having done everything to find the whole truth, in conscience not see why to vote against legislation favouring divorce. This one too has the right and the duty to follow what one’s conscience tells one.

c) may also see that in this matter one is faced by the choice between two situations which both in themselves are harmful to the common good. It is legitimate, in this case of conflict, for one to choose the lesser evil after prayer, reflection and sincere search for the whole truth.

8. This declaration should calm all those who are worried that among us there might be differences regarding the teaching of the Church. This declaration is meant to throw light on the moral responsibility of every Maltese regarding their conscience and regarding the common good of society when they have to take a position about a possible proposal to legalise divorce in our country.

Rev Prog Emmanuel Agius, Dean of the Faculty of Theology.

Fr Joe Borg

Fr Charlo’ Camilleri, O.Carm. Lecturer at the Faculty of Theology.

Mons Anton Gouder, Pro Vicar General.

Fr Alfred Micallef s.j.

Fr Joe Mizzi, Direttur tal-Moviment ta’ Kana

Rev Prof Peter Serracino Inglott

Enhanced by Zemanta