The PN Conclave

Posted on 31. Jul, 2010 by jacques in Divorce, Mediawatch

Image via Wikipedia

“Ideas, Vision, Discussion” is the heading of the new Pre-Budget Document presented by the PN government. There must have been plenty of exchange of ideas, possibly a little vision and quite a vivid discussion happening at the meeting of the PN Executive Committee presided over by (PN President) Marthese Portelli (read the link and do tell me how many ideas and how much vision you can discern from the over 1,000 word interview – apart from the “jobs for Gozitans rant” and the claim to fame of multiplication of votes in favour). The executive met in the open manner of dialogue and transparency that the PN has gotten its potential voters used to. Where other parties elsewhere might hold open conferences to discuss such points of principles before the media and anybody interested, the PN must needs first get its hydra-like head together and hammer out a “common position”. We will not know exactly what the ideas, vision and discussion are all about – instead we will be presented with a single strategy.

Undoubtedly this single strategy will be built with one basic premiss in mind: VOTES. The discussion that could be prompted by such a strategy -once it is forged – is simply one based on limiting the number of votes that could be potentially alienated with a wrong step. For suggestions in this direction read Ranier Fsadni’s “Legitimising a divorce law” that already includes some calculations based on “voter alienation”. There will of course have been a number of principled positions such as those of Tonio Borg and Carm Mifsud Bonnnici who will have thundered on about the anathema of divorce to a confessional party. We will not be able to confront them with questions about the constitutional relevance of their statement and with questions about how they plan to reconcile their concept of catholic imposition with the lay state. We cannot ask members of the PN conclave whether they believe the PN should be a champion of universal rights or a champion of the catholic model of society.

The PN conclave met behind closed doors and the strategy that their archaic system of voting will forge supposedly will represent the automatic 40% of the population who already know where there vote will go come next election. The internal debate will be a “long process” in the words of an undoubtedly charming Portelli (mother, lawyer AND politican) but it will remain that for a long enough time to refine the positions. We can only count on the renegades trumping the conclave members once again. And on more anonymous voices feeding their master’s voice for the occasional doctored update. (Unless of course MaltaToday or the Indy get a longer version of these “leaks”).

At the moment all we can doat this stage of extended “discussion” is watch the smoke that comes out of the chimney… and don’t we all know that when it comes to smoke generation the PN spin gurus can turn into a mean machine.

Breaking News: God has no vote

Posted on 18. Jul, 2010 by jacques in Divorce, Politics

And now they’ve turned on the heat. It seems that just as JPO turned up somewhere in Zebbug (is it mass? is it the band club? the article does not help) he was greeted with a massive placard stating “God is against divorce”. Let’s just set aside the failure of the placard to specify whose God it is talking about exactly (not all have gone on record as being against divorce – and even YHWH has been know to give second swings at marriage in certain circumstances) and concentrate on the most basic and obvious corollary to that damn poster:

GOD HAS NO VOTE

… and we don’t seem to be seeing too many posters pointing that out either. Clear enough?

***

And since we will inevitably have to face the scripture quoting ministers of the Imposition J’accuse provides you with a handy guide to a clear interpretation of Deuteronomy 24 that incidentally deals with the question of divorce (both in the times of Moses and Jesus). In sum God is not against divorce, God never commands you to divorce but God permits you to divorce.

Deuteronomy on Divorce

Related articles by Zemanta

• God understands divorce (sincemydivorce.com)
• The scientific secrets to a happy marriage (telegraph.co.uk)

I can’t believe it’s a majority

Posted on 18. Jul, 2010 by jacques in Divorce, Politics

A Maltatoday survey published this Sunday provides us with the eye-opening statistic that a total of 59.4% of respondents can be said to be in favour of the introduction of divorce. Yes, it’s a survey, and yes, there is the annoying matter of the “ayes” including the enigmatic “in certain cases” that stinks of busybodiness as much as a blinding no but we have a new figure to play with.

Let’s get that “in certain cases” out of the way. 18.7% of the respondents did not reply with a straightforward “Yes” when asked the question “Do you agree with the introduction of divorce for persons who have lived apart from their partner for the past four years?” but they chose an option (presumably provided by the surveyors in question) that read “in certain cases”. Is this the scientific equivalent of agreeing with divorce “as such”? If it is not a wholehearted “Yes – and get a life” then why is it being counted/totalled with the ayes rather than with the nays? My problem here is that the “in certain cases” bit smells of busybody assessments such as “only in the case of irremediable breakdown” or some bullshit of the sort.

You either have the dissolution of a civil contract or you don’t. You don’t have “in certain cases”. I believe that the part of the question that stated “for persons who have lived apart from their partners for the past four years” was enough of an all-encompassing “certain case” to be able to forego any further caveats and qualifications. The “Don’t Knows” on the other hand have been slapped onto the end of the “nays” in a reminiscence of the Great Santian Assumption. They would be a quasi-insignificant portion (3.3%) were it not for the fact that once you remove the as-suchers (18.7%) out of the equation they are basically the difference between the Ayes (40.7%) and the Nays (37.3%) . With the “Don’t knows” thrown in with the “Nays” you have an infinitesimal 0.1% difference between the Ayes and Nays. Weird innit?

Which brings us back to the “as-suchers”. They could turn out to be the deal clincher if (and I stress the if) this were something to be determined on the basis of majority vs minority – which it obviously isn’t. What this survey (and others which that will surely follow) does is turn the tables on that ridiculous assumption of “catholic Malta” that is one hell of a fallacious premise in today’s world. Bishops, PMs and other Mullahs of the Catholic Imposition are warned. Hopefully the shift to a more laique (secular) discussion will be speeded up.

I’m melting here. Is this what global warming is all about? More blogging this afternoon.

Helen Fisher on Love, Lust (and Divorce)

Posted on 12. Jul, 2010 by jacques in Divorce, Politics

Just like the Water business earlier I came across this next video through serendipity. While on the TED website I could not resist the urge to search the site for “divorce” and I came across this interesting analysis by anthropologist Helen Fisher. It’s a study of romantic love, sex and attachment. Helen Fisher is interested in what goes on in the brain when we talk about love and attachment. Watch the video. Trust me.

Open Document – the Divorce Arguments

Posted on 11. Jul, 2010 by jacques in Divorce, Politics

Here is the blogging equivalent of linux. In order to contribute to the multilayered discussion (even if we think that there is nothing really to discuss at a principle level) we are providing a beta version chart of the arguments that will have to be dealt with and choices that have to be made in the Divorce Debate. Please note that this is a chart – some of the beliefs mentioned in the chart are our own, not all. Although we may seem schizophrenic at times and possessed of a multiple-personality we cannot possibly be held liable for all of them at once. Feel free to suggest changes.

The Arguments

1. Constitutional (the works)

• Majority Rule: (the belief that) introducing divorce requires some form of approval that is based on the will of the majority of the country.
  • should this be an electoral mandate (party manifesto)?
    • Time-barred (at least 2013), PLPN barrier (see Bondi – No Mandate, No Party and Bencini – Divorce, the referendum and Maltese democracy)
  • should this be a consultative mandate (consultative referendum)?
    • Non-binding, PLPN barrier (see Caruana Galizia – When a referendum is undemocratic)
  • should this be a propositive mandate (divorce by public referendum)?
    • Requires constitutional change, PLPN barrier
  • can it be subjected to confirmation (abrogative referendum)?
    • already exists, no PLPN barrier
• Minority Right: (the belief that) introducing divorce is not a matter of majority decision. Divorce should be an accessible right to the persons who want to avail themselves of this right – the majority cannot impose its will on the minority.
  • should this be by an electoral mandate (party manifesto)?
    • Time-barred (at least 2013), PLPN barrier (none of the two seems prone to include a commitment to introduce divorce as a government bill), Private Members’ Bill would not work
  • should there be a consultative/propositive measure anyway?
    • no longer useful once you accept it is right for the minority you accept the argument that the majority/minority will need not be quantified
  • can it be subjected to confirmation (abrogative referendum)?
    • it already exists, no PLPN barrier
  • Is Private Members’ Bill feasible?
    • outside the issue of mandate but raises question of duty for other parliamentarians, still forces debate
  • a majority vote of current members of Parliament should suffice
    • MPs are representatives (not delegates) and are voted to represent (The country’s constitution does not recognise political parties. How much less, then, does it recognise the electoral programmes of those political parties. Party electoral programmes have no force of law. A political party need not have a manifesto at all. – (from the Runs)) see Spiteri – Wrong Reactions after divorce shell-shock

The Values (Morality, Religion and Tradition)

• Divorce as a personal issue
  • the right to remarry/second chance argument (see Cassar – When the trust is gone)
  • the right to reset civil status and ancillary rights beyond patchwork measures (cohabitation)
  • the right to determine one’s own lifestyle choices
  • divorce as closure (Some people are interested in divorce because they do not want to be party to something that’s no more than a legal fiction).
• Divorce as a social curse
  • the damaging effects of divorce (and consequences)
  • the potential increase in divorce (vs separation statistics)
  • the devaluation of the married unit
• Divorce as religious anathema
  • Catholic church frowns on divorce (see Roamer under Hey! There’s Jeffrey again! )
  • Catholic politicians or long arm of the church? (see Spiteri – Wrong reactions…, and Serracino Inglott – Can a Catholic politician vote for divorce?)
  • Lay values vs Catholic nation (see Borg Cardona – Cats, Pigeons and Moral Authority)
• Myths
  • Expensive myth
  • Divorce can already be obtained abroad
  • The only country without divorce bar the Philippines (see inter alia Hansen – Lone Ranger’s Motion might end in tears)

Divorce – the Viral

Posted on 09. Jul, 2010 by jacques in Divorce, Politics

There is of course the adage about lies, damned lies and statistics but it is inevitable that in a discussion on divorce the dreaded ’s’ word will surface time and again to prove the point of one side or another. Now J’accuse has long declared that its vote in the divorce issue is a thundering “about effin’ time” so our bias in the matter is clear. Having said that it does not mean that we will not fulfill our journalistic duty of presenting you with subjects that might serve to feed the debate further. So here goes one of those instances:

Yesterday’s L’Essentiel (a luxo metro-style journal) carried two articles related to marriage. The first was a reproduction of various articles that have been appearing in the syndicated press about a recent study at a US university concerning the links between divorce and social networking (SN) (geek warning: this is classic social networking not SN of the facebook type – the latter would fall within a smaller circle of our imaginary venn diagram). It would result, from a scientifically conducted experiment, that divorce can be “contagious” along the lines of social networks. Enter the short catchy statements destined to become modern day old wives’ tales as they result from the study:

1. Divorce tends to spread among the networks of people having already divorced. (Basically divorcing becomes less difficult if everybody else around you is doing it too). Luxembourg seems to follow this rule since the number of divorcees has increased to 45% nowadays from 9.6% in 1970.
2. Now for the SN effect. Friends of divorcees see the chances of themselves getting divorced within the next 2 years (from their friends divorce) increase to 147%.
3. If it is your brother or sister who isdivorcing that increases the chances of your own divorce by 22%.
4. Married parents with children are less influenced by divorces within their social network than childless couples, and the more children the couple has, the less the influence. “Interestingly, we do not find that the presence of children influences the likelihood of divorce, but we do find that each child reduces the susceptibility to being influenced by peers who get divorced,” the report says.

Interesting no? Here is (Yale associate fellow) Rita Watson blogging about the results of the study:

But is the contagion factor the only reason for divorce in later years? Edward O. Laumann suggested that it may also have to do with our age, health and longer life span. A sociology professor at the University of Chicago, he is the analyst for the Global Study of Sexual Attitudes and Behavior, a survey of 27,500 men and women 40 to 80 years old in 29 countries.

Dr. Laumann explained to me that “in the early 20s those who marry exhibit a two-year age difference. If you plot a graph, you begin to see differences as time passes. Between ages 18 and 45 the gap widens between women and men with regard to age difference in marriage. “At age 44 it becomes interesting, the lines cross at 44 which is when women become less likely to be in a sexual partnership. By age 70 we find that a full 70 percent of women will not have a partner. But if you take a look at the men at age 70, just 35 percent will be without a partner.” He added that “men trade up for younger women. And the more sexually active will die in the arms of a woman, whereas older women often die alone in nursing homes.”

If divorce is looking too good to men, what is wrong with marriage? A theory making headlines these past few weeks is that we simply do not know how to be married. Therefore, the federal government and the military are funding marriage-education programs that are being called successful. A strong dissenting voice sounded in Psychology Today from Bella DePaulo, a social scientist and visiting professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara. She is the author of “Singled Out: How Singles Are Stereotyped, Stigmatized, and Ignored, and Still Live Happily Ever After.”

When I spoke with Dr. DePaulo, she expressed some frustration with media misinterpretation of studies, in particular the Building Strong Families (BSF) program. “BSF studies were conducted in eight different locations, and the participants were unmarried couples who were expecting a baby or just had one. What was the bottom line from scholars who summarized the results from the more than 5,000 couples? Fifteen months after entering the program, the relationship outcomes of BSF couples were, on average, almost identical to those of couples in the control group.”

She added, “In one of the studies, people were more likely to have broken up and less likely to be living together and not married.” As for the contagious-divorce theory, Dr. DePaulo thinks that “the idea of social norms is potentially important. What people around you do does influence behavior.” If divorce is contagious and marriage programs are failing, here’s hoping that newly divorced and divorcing women are not suddenly looked upon as today’s Typhoid Mary — infecting men with their single status.

The tiny country of Luxembourg might have been tempting for a comparative idea of what would happen in Malta. It is not the case though since attitudes to divorce and marriage here are extremely different to the situation in Malta. Even insofar as entitlement of couples to certain rights – such as tax benefits for the purchase of a house – all that is needed is an official declaration that two people live under the same roof or consider themselves a unit. Cohabitation? C’est quoi? As for the PACS – a social contract for couples that is not marriage, the news yesterday is that the Luxembourg PACS has just been strengthened legally with more rights:

Les couples pacsés auront désormais davantage de droits. Les députés ont voté, jeudi, une loi qui attribue certains droits d’un couple marié aux partenaires.

Ainsi, ils pourront bénéficier de congés pour la mort d’un membre de la famille du partenaire ou prendre un congé sans solde après la naissance d’un enfant. Une Union civile, contractée à l’étranger, sera reconnue au Grand-Duché. Pour les socialistes et les Verts, les changements ne sont pourtant pas suffisants car des inégalités par rapport aux couples mariés subsistes.

Telle la succession qui doit être réglée par un testament entre les partenaires. Depuis l’introduction de l’Union civile en 2004, 92% des couples pacsés sont hétérosexuels. Un projet de loi pour rendre le mariage civil accessible aux couples homosexuels sera déposé la semaine prochaine.

In short the new rights include: bereavement leave upon death of partner, unpaid leave in case of birth of child, civil unions contracted abroad will be recognised in the duchy. Changes still remain to be made such as in the field of inheritance. Since the introduction of the PACS (Civil Union that is not marriage) in 2004, 92% of the couples that have benefited from the union are heterosexual.

You have just been exposed to a flood of statistics. The debate continues….

Related articles by Zemanta

• Is divorce contagious? (holykaw.alltop.com)
• Are Homosexuals Immune to Contagious Divorce Syndrome? (queerty.com)
• Does Having Children Contribute To Your Risk Of Divorce? (blogs.forbes.com)
• Divorce Clustering Subject of Researchers (brainz.org)
• Japanese craft ritual for divorce (theworld.org)