‘Free Vote’ Articles at j’accuse

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

I’ve been active on Facebook today trying to spread the J’accuse list of indictments on the divorce debate in Malta. At one point I was trying to post links to the note on the wall of any politician who ventured onto Facebook to discuss divorce. One of my posts was on Evarist Bartolo’s wall as the labour MP had added another “parable” about a married man who has seen the light and will not be an obstacle to divorce for other people. Varist is one of the Labour MP’s who tries hard to give the impression that the PL actually has a position on divorce – so I asked him. I asked a simple question: What is Labour’s position on divorce? No answer from Bartolo of course, although I did get accused by some guy that I was some kind of mouthpiece for Lou Bondi (!).

In any case, at one point I got to have an interesting discussion with Marlene Mizzi who pointed out that the PL’s stand on divorce is actually the free vote fin case of a vote in parliament. I’m reproducing the rest of the exchange (till now) here in the hope that this kind of discussion can provoke more comments on this issue.

Marlene Mizzi:

‎@JRZanmmit: this insistence for some to keep asking the PL to ‘take a stand’ reminds me of those who who are deaf not because they cannot hear, but because they do not want to listen.

The PL HAS taken a stand in the divorce issue and that is to give their MPs a FREE VOTE. It would be very contradictory for this statemnet to be credible with the PL simultaneously stating it’s position for/ against divorce.
The PN on the other hand has taken this incredible stand where declaring itsefl agaisnt divorce but also giving its MPs a free vote .Ara kif jistgha jkin it-tnejn!! Now we will wait and see how many of the NP MPs will vote ‘ freely’ and not tow the party’s line- as should be expected from them once the PN took an official stand.

I am all for political parties to take stands . It is what is expected of them. But I make an exception in this case and agree entirely with the PL . Infact i know for certain that a number of PN MPs privaelty opine that the PN should have never taken an official political stand and the insistence for the PL to do likewise is to neutralise this strategic mistake. I do not think that Josph Muscat will be falling for this one!

Jacques René Zammit:
The PL stand on a free vote is NOT a position on the divorce issue. FREE VOTE is an ABDICATION of political responsibility and an opportunist move that reads: as a party (a progressive party to boot) I refuse to take a stand because I am unable to refer to set of basic values that I represent.

There is nothing for JM to “fall for” here. It is actually a move for leadership. I am for divorce legislation because I believe divorce legislation brings into force a civil right that can be availed of by a minority. As a party that claims to be on a progressive high this “position” on divorce is a double abdication of responsibility. The pro-divorce movement should have found a natural home in a progressive party – instead it is an orphan of a party too busy trying to please everything under the sun.

Read the comments of labour supporters Marlene. They are very obviously labouring under the impression that labour means divorce and that Joseph’s party automatically means a transition away from conservative Gonzi’s policy. How wrong they are. How unable to see spinelessness of this position of Joseph’s. Does he not realise that the free vote is a usurpation of a parliamentary seat and vote?

I’ve made my position clear here:
http://www.facebook.com/notes/jacques-rene-zammit/i-accuse-an-indictm…ent-related-to-the-divorce-debate-in-malta/10150139555532744

I stand by what I said. For those who will answer me by comparing PL to PN I will simply say that they miss my point. I am angry at both PL, PN as well as other social groups involved in this referendum debacle. I am angry because they have ALL abdicated from their social responsibility – all this in the name of short term gain.

Both Joseph’s faux progressives and Gonzi’s procrastinating conservatives are doing a disservice to a relevant minority in this country who would love to have the opportunity to exercise a choice – a right to remarry.

That is a fact. Free vote is a false vote. A usurpation of parliamentary democracy, an abdication from representative duties and the biggest heist of democratic liberties yet.

Marlene Mizzi:

JRZ: you have made some valid points and some I do not agree with. If I were adn MP I would rather have a leader give me a free vote on this ‘sui generis’ issue ,than a leader who tries to take the mickey by declaring the party’s official stand AND tell me I can vote freely. Perhaps that is why the PM was having meetings one to one today at Castille– to tell them to vote as they see fit. U hallina!

I can just about imagine the converstion this morning at Castille” I called you in just to remind you that you can vote freely in the divorce issue , ta…. as long as it is a NO. Ok ?Understood? Trid li Gordon jibghatlek email ha jfakkrek?”

Jacques René Zammit:

Interesting Marlene. But that’s not the point is it? Predictably, you are lost comparing PL and PN – it’s good fodder for the circus audience used to comparing their champions but is it really what is needed for a debate on the introduction of divorce legislation? Not really is it?

Your reasoning is as an “MP” and his preferences vis-a-vis his leader’s instructions. Fine it’s a preference. But it has nothing to do with the duties of representation towards the electorate. What do we elect parties for? What do we elect MPs for? What does an MP represent? His conscience? That’s bullshit and you know it. He represents his constituency and more directly his voters. That is how our electoral system defines representation.

Political parties are our only way of identifying the values and principles of those elected on their ticket. The free vote not only cuts off the umbilical chord from the party but it also renders them unanswerable to the electorate that put MPs in parliament in the first place. You will note that this applies to BOTH PN and PL. Frankly I don’t care which is the worst position of the two – in my mind they are both hopelessly out of order.

What does a free vote tell the electorate? It tells the electorate I don’t care what you think, I don’t have a position as a party ON DIVORCE, so I’ll just leave each MP to vote as he wishes. I emphasise the as he wishes. Did you vote for Silvio Parnis, Evarist Bartolo Karl Gouder or David Agius so they can sit in our house of representatives and vote as they wish on issues related to specific civil rights?

You’re right we may disagree. But please be clear about the fact that the position you prefer is one that renders parliamentary representation redundant. Might as well have dukes and barons voting as they will…. as for the people… who cares no?

spread the word:

spread the word: