Categories
Articles

Non Gode di Immunità Ecclesiastica

Fully qualified law graduate and state approved lawyer Dr Deborah Schembri has been told that she may no longer practice as a lawyer in the Church tribunal “because she is spreading incorrect information on the indissolubility of Catholic marriage”. There has always existed a possibility that a lawyer is suddenly “debarred” from duty before the ecclesiastical curia. Nobody – no liberal, progressive or otherwise (except maybe the eccentric Dr Bezzina) – had ever squeaked an ounce of protest regarding this state of affairs, perhaps because of our instinctive reaction of “why bother?”

The legal system of the catholic church is the oldest legal system still in use today. Named the Rota after the round rooms in which the judges originally heard cases, the church courts have jurisdiction over judicial trials related to the Catholic church. In our country, ever since the 1995 Marriage Act, the church’s jurisdiction extends to civil affairs insofar as church decisions on annulment have a civil validity. Boiled down to the bare minimum that means that the decisions of the church regarding who may practice as a lawyer before its tribunals are no longer a question, as Fr Gouder would like to have it, of “either believing or not”. Persons appearing before the church courts do NOT have a right to the lawyer of choice – and that is the crux of the matter.

With all due respect to Dr Deborah Schembri this is not matter of her livelihood (she chose to work within the system and therefore should comply fully with its requirements) – it is a matter of citizens of the state being deprived of a lawyer of their choice in proceedings they may submit to involuntarily. Kudos to Dr Balzan of the Chamber of Advocates for having pointed out that the right to choose ones own lawyer should not be limited in any way – sadly it was a typical knee-jerk reaction that had long been past its due date. Unfortunately, the divorce matter at hand has watered down the crucial highlighting of this abominable anomaly that results from the Church-State agreement.

Weapon of Choice
For the word on the street is not about this issue of a “right to a lawyer” but focuses instead on the Church’s “bullying”. The ignorant (for they ignore) crowds are even pressing with a petition for the “reinstatement of Deborah Schembri” – proving thusly that they have not seen the real problem underlying this issue. This is not, may I point out, a choice between Barabbas and Christ for it is not the representative of Ceasar who is deciding here. We have the indirect work of the successor of Peter interpreting an Apostolic Letter (Justi Judicis). The rabble has been wrongly roused.

At the heart of it all is our incredible inability to distinguish between the sacred and the profane. We cannot fathom why the church has every right as a social participant to send messages to its flock about its position on divorce while at the same time we claim to be fighting for a more liberal society where EVERY social participant has a right to express their point of view. Sure, the Church is inadvertently uncovering the weakness of this particular flock on the island of Paul – the flock that needs cushioning from the free choice that God gave them – and in doing so is proving to be a shaky witness to the sturdiness and incorruptibility of christian morals.

We may have Ministers that practically have a directly line with the Madonna (as if Angelik was not enough) but our particular brand of Catholics want a “choice-free” Malta for otherwise the flock would be so weak as to succumb to sin at the first opportunity: just remember DJ Cordina whose objection to divorce was that it would make him think about the option from the moment it was possible. Basically our specific version of the church, in conspiracy with the state is one massive prophylactic covering the island from any possibility of deviant activity. Onward Christian soldiers? More like pampered kids without a sense of volition… the naked ape indeed.

Praise You
This week’s Lou Bondi show was a pleasant surprise what with the presence of artists and writers discussing Malta and the Maltese. I was irritated by Lou’s confusing “Value” with “Identity” in his search for typical Maltese “values”. Gozitan author Pierre Mejlak was spot on when stating that we probably share most of our values with people close to our islands. I did find one moment to be particularly telling though. When Brikkuni vocalist Mario Vella intervened in a discussion about “il-Bar ta’ Taht il-Knisja” (the Bar below/Beside the Church) – a Brikkuni classic – he was defensive about the role of the “church” in the lyrics.

While Lou and the rest of the panel rightly examined the lyrics from the perspective of the interaction in society under the watchful gaze of the church, Vella – who I like to think of as a liberal and progressive musician (an appreciation from the lyrics of his music, if not nothing else) was dismissive of the importance being given to the Church in this particular appreciation. According to Vella the church was simply an indication of the geographic location of the bar and he seemed to imply that too much was read into the role of the church in that song. Vella’s stance was quasi-apologetic – and to me disappointingly inexplicable.

I may be wrong. Vella might very well have used the church as a geographical (and not moral) compass in the song but I get the feeling that once again the “censor in your head” syndrome was clearly manifesting its ugly head. Same goes for Deborah Schembri. Her apologetic reaction after the news of her debarring broke gave the impression that she is more concerned with being “reinstated” than with challenging the legal anomaly affecting the rights of representation of citizens in a tribunal with state and civil powers. Give us this day our daily bread.

The Rockafeller Skank – Intermezzo
I’ve begun to apologise whenever a long article is in the making. This is one of them for it has been a bountiful week, so may I suggest a quick cuppa before you return for the rest of the show. Unlike Lou I do not have an interminable rosary of adverts between different parts of the programme so you’ll have to make do with your imagination or look up the sublime Brikkuni pieces on YouTube for a musically pleasant interlude.

That Green Jesus
If figuring out the fine line between sacred and the profane was not enough, the news that broke on Saturday’s papers was guaranteed a full blown “national discussion” as we know best. The people had been informed of the decision to shift the icon that is the Triton Fountain to a different place on the Floriana plateau and away from the vacuum of vacuums that the Place Formerly Known As City Gate is fast becoming. It would seem that the law of open spaces (and the administrative connivance of those in power) hath decreed that the maravilious monument to giants would be removed from its position of prominence.

Maltese Identity? Would you imagine Piazza Navona without its obelisks? How about shifting the Trevi Fountain to a more “convenient” spot? Imagine a reshuffle of Washington’s monuments in order to accommodate some new-fangled plan. You cannot, can you. Of course not. I cannot put my finger on it but I have a feeling that this too has to do with our inability to be more assertive about our identity. When even our national treasures (for it is a treasure) can fall victim to redecoration by the temporary temporal powers, it means that the planner believes himself to be greater than the treasure itself. It says much about the importance that we attribute to our heritage.

Right Here, Right Now
It is perhaps fitting that my long stay in Malta with a task list full of wedding preparations had to end the day Prince William and Kate get to tie the knot. If you were one of the millions watching the ceremony you will have notice the immense sense of occasion that only the Brits can pull off. They are definitely assisted with the presence of monuments and heritage that go back a thousand years (since the marriage of William the Conqueror in Westminster).

For me it is time to return to the Duchy. Sadly, I leave a day too early and will miss the Norman Cook concert that is bound to have been magnificent by the time you read this article. Fatboy Slim… now that describes my targets until next November – from Fatboy to Slim … hopefully I’ll make it in time for the wedding.

www.akkuza.com – the sacred, the profane and the wedding fantastic all in one blog

Categories
Mediawatch Uncategorized

The Common Good Nazis

Austin Bencini has been busy spinning the “hurt” every single anti-divorce lobbyist must surely have felt when their position on the Common Good was equated to that of the Nazis. How bloody typical. “Twegga‘” (it hurts) is a common adjective in our Don Camillo and Peppone political parlance. It is a technique favoured by the politician who was dying for an excuse to avoid the subject matter and discovers that the opponent might just have thrown him a lifeline with some vague and spurious accusation. Twegga‘ is the political discussion equivalent of the footballer faking an injury and squirming on the ground in the hope of conning the referee into an undeserved send-off.

So there you have Bencini and the anti-divorce parade taking a break from the God Will’s It theories to switch to the sympathy approach. “We have been unjustly accused of being Nazis”. Not. From the little I have read of the yawn-inducing exchanges between the army for marriage and the battalion of the second marriage nothing could be further from the truth. It’s no as though the fact that equating the Nazi arguments for the common good to those of Austin Bencini will change anything from the actual substance of the debate. But Austin does not care about that does he? He cares about labelling his opponents as liars while squirming on the ground faking a career-threatening injury.

Now where’s the referee?

Categories
Divorce Politics

Who will love my expats?

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

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

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

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

2. All expats vote PN.

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

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

 

Categories
Divorce Politics

Fault Li(n)es

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

PL

PN

the Beatles

Categories
Divorce Politics

Labour's Church

It’s not the interdiction is it? The PLis currently spinning the idea that the party is pro-divorce. I have no time for people who will vote NO to divorce just to spite Joseph Muscat’s spin. That’s stupid. However there is much to be said about this excessive opportunism by Labour and its leader – particularly after the insulting assertion that he is taking Malta into Europe.

J’accuse said it time and time again. Labour has abdicated from its responsibility as a progressive, modernist party. It has failed on all counts the moment it decided that any vote on divorce is not one for it to contemplate as a party. The “frijvowt” granted by Joseph to his parliamentarians is the proof of this abdication.

Labour has no position on divorce. Insofar as the vote on divorce is concerned Labour is as close to the Catholic Church’s position as it can get : it’s a question of conscience. This makes claims of a “new interdiction” as revived on the social media doubly ridiculous.

Here is Labour MP Adrian Vassallo in a letter to the Times:

It is being argued that MPs are in duty bound “to respect the will of the people who elected them”, and that “they were elected by the majority and, therefore, they should respect the will of the same majority”.

In the specific case of the divorce issue, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando et al had no mandate to propose divorce legislation. Much less is he (or the Iva movement for that matter) qualified to pontificate on the moral obligation of MPs when they come to vote on an issue of conscience.

As far as I am concerned, I made it amply clear that I am determined to navigate by my own star in matters of conscience.

I have no hesitation in publicly affirming my intention to be loyal to my conscience and steadfast to my principles.

I am comforted by the added knowledge that, ever since I was elected to Parliament, I have had no mandate to tamper with the Maltese social structure by means of divorce legislation. Moreover, all Labour MPs have a “free vote” on this sensitive issue.

There you have it. It’s a sensitive issue so Labour has skirted it. It has given MPs like Adrian Vassallo the comfort to vote with their conscience and in doing so has abdicated on its duty as the only party in Malta that claims to be progressive. Just think of it: if PL was capable of carrying the vote on the simple issue of the referendum question then it basically has the key to a majority vote on the bill: all it needs to do is find a pair of balls big enough to take a position as a party.

Taking us into Europe? What bullshit Joseph.

Image taken from poster for “L-Interdett taht is-Sodda

Categories
Divorce Politics

The Horse's Mouth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Le divorce possible dans six mois

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

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

– L’Essentiel, 17th March 2011

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

In un paese pieno di coglioni ci mancano le palle.

– J’accuse 2011