Since I know that no matter what I write in this post I will be labelled “PN apologist” I thought of giving it a direct title and spare the superficial readers the typing. The final divorce vote has been taken and by now we all know which way the vote went. The conscience of the MPs who reflected the will of the referendum majority trumped that of those who still believed majority had nothing to do with what they decide. A majority of MPs, acting on their conscience, voted in a private members bill and Malta has been dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century thanks to the will of the people.

It’s funny how even the most “liberal” of commentators seem to have written this off as a Labour victory of some kind. True, they have not gone to the extreme of constitutional expert Luciano Busuttil who first posted this on facebook:

TODAY WE SHOULD PUT AN END TO THE DIVORCE SAGA WITH THE ‘LABOUR GOVERNMENT’ PASSING THE LAW TO REFLECT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!

Then, in a bout of euphoria he went on to impress us with his constitutional savoir-faire by adding:

IL-PRIM MINISTRU HU DAK LI L-PRESIDENT TAR-REPUBBLIKA JARA SKOND IL-KOSTITUZZJONI LI KAPACI JMEXXI MAGGIORANZA FIL-PARLAMENT. ILLUM IL-PRIM MINISTRU KIEN PARTI MILL-MINORANZA.

The “liberals” are busy pounding Lawrence though and let’s face it Lawrence could have only done worse had he donned a cassock and kick started an impromptu rosary in parliament. Fact is though that those busy pummeling Gonzi should be doing so with equal (or variable) measure to Joseph too. They still don’t get it do they? It’s one thing pooh-poohing Gonzi for sticking to his guns and voting Nyet all the way to the final vote and it’s another transporting this to the land of wishful thinking and collapsing governments. Here are a few inconfutable facts as to the why and because:

• we had a free vote (and yes, Joseph is back to calling it frijvowt – see Times interview and his reply about Adrian Vassallo). Our parties did not oblige their members to vote in favour or against. As JOSEPH said – everyone was free to vote as he thinks. So NO – neither Labour nor PN or any faction thereof can claim to have in any way been part of the vote. We’ve dealt with this before and it remains a true constant.
• the biggest consequence of the free vote is the shattering of Luciano Busuttil’s inexpert dreams. This was not a financial vote. It was not tied to the doing or undoing of government. It was a Private Member’s Bill in which EACH AND EVERY MP VOTED ACCORDING TO HIS CONSCIENCE. The vote was simple – do you accept the divorce bill or not? What does that say about the “KAPACITA LI JMEXXI MAGGIORANZA FIL-PARLAMENT”? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Because this vote does not tell the President who has the confidence of the majority of parliamentary members. It tells the President WHAT the majority of MPs voting on a specific motion decided. Punto (and unfortunately for constitutional beginners) e basta.
• What lessons do we learn? We learn that Gonzi stuck to his principle till the end. We learn that he was comfortable with voting no after ensuring that the will of the people is respected. That made many of us think less highly about Dr Gonzi. We also learnt that Joseph’s labour refused to take a position. More importantly we learn that Joseph’s labour is willing to take advantage of giving the false impression that it has a position on something – when it had nothing of the sort.

If anyone has been proven right by the turn of events then that must surely be this page, this blog and this blogger. Our two parties have confirmed their abdication from representative politics.

Voting PN next election translates into voting in chaos. A party without identity and values is not a party that can come up with proper programmes.

Voting PL next election translates into voting in absolute opportunism. Their weathervane approach to policy is extremely dangerous and is no guarantee for proper policies and programmes either.

Last Saturday I posted what I called a “Cyrus WTF moment” on facebook (it was later picked up by bloggers elsewhere). To me it illustrates the manner in which many have fallen for Labour’s non-policy hook, line and sinker. Others might put my statements down to “high handed opinions from abroad“. We’ve been there before – incidentally when we were told by PN stalwarts to shut up because they did not like what we were saying… it seems now that the weathervane has shifted for the Labourites and Joseph lovers to tell us not to interfere because we live abroad. Moviment Tindahalx indeed….

The Cyrus WTF moment :

 ”Engerer says that whilst he and Opposition leader Jospeh Muscat do not agree on issues such as same-sex marriage, Muscat is open to be convinced on the contrary.” – and thank f**k for that….

Related articles

• J’accuse : Pater nunquam (akkuza.com)
• J’accuse: Drawing conclusions (akkuza.com)
• Veiled Arguments (akkuza.com)
• J’accuse : Wasted (akkuza.com)
• Silence of the Nats (akkuza.com)
• Malta Divorce Bill: Divorce Legalized In Malta After Vote (huffingtonpost.com)
• Malta finally allows divorce following vote (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• The Wasted Vote (akkuza.com)

Former President and Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami has chipped in to the post-referendum debate with an article on the Sunday Times (MP’s credibility on moral issues being put to the test). The article is bound to attract its own corner of controversy – particularly because on the face of it, it is firmly grounded on theological interpretations and principles that have come to be closely associated with pronouncements made by the retired politician.

Part I – Understanding Eddie

It would be unfair not to try to understand the constitutional underpinnings of Eddie’s (forgive the familiarity but it was Eddie for too long to be easy to drop) reasonings simply because the moral values that Eddie subscribes to are so deeply intertwined with those of a particular church. As a small aside in these days when nostalgia for “Salvaturi ta’ Malta” seems to be a new trend it would be good to remember that the moral foundation of the wave of Solidarity, Work, Justice and Liberty was inextricably linked to the christian-democrat interpretation of the Catholic Church’s social doctrine.

Back to Eddie and MP’s credibility though. The former PM is no longer in the driving seat and he can afford to assess the situation from a more principled approach without the quasi-macchiavellian calculations that tarnished his later years in power. To put it bluntly the saving or crumbling of a government is no longer a part of Eddie’s calculations so he can afford to be morally honest with regard to his guiding principles.

The former PM first distinguishes between the moral issue behind the Independence and EU referenda and the moral issue that underlies a referendum on an issue such as divorce. Those among the media (and politicians) inclined to sensationalise will point to Eddie’s reference to Pope John Paul II’s list: divorce, free love (whatever that means), abortion, contraception, the fight against life in its initial and final phases, the manipulation of ‘life’. They will rush to compare it to KMB’s meanderings pre-EU accession about AIDS and Sicilian workers etc. At J’accuse we don’t think that Eddie is in the business of cheap scaremongering this time round. His question goes deep to the constitutional mechanism this country will choose in the future for determining issues that fall heavily on the “moral” side as against the “pragmatically political”.

Part II – Parliament’s Dilemma

This is where we begin to understand Eddie. Better still. Once the noise of controversy and rash anti-clericalism subsides we can even agree with him. Not with his position on divorce legislation but on his outlook towards constitutional frameworks that we form to enact such legislation. You see, the huge problem that this parliament has is that it is unable to come to terms with the fact that no matter how many times it twists and turns this Rubik Cube of Divorce the final decision will ultimately lie in its hands.

Our parliament is  designed around – and bends to – the will of a duopolistic anachronism. Once the divorce issue hit the fan it exposed the fundamental weakness of both parties: contemporaneously. No matter how much a “wobbly coalition of economic, social, religious and cultural forces” you can cobble together, no matter how far you can go with the oxymoronic faux progressives it is blatabtly impossible to retain a semblance of coherence when faced with a clearcut decision on a “moral issue”. The only party that would have been comfortable at the outset is still lying outside the closed club of our parliament.

J’accuse wrote at the outset: this is an issue for parliament to decide, not for the people to be lumped with. For parliament to decide this issue it needs to have at least one party that is committed (as a party, as a leader as MPs) to introduce divorce. This commitment must be clear at election time and the electors will have implicitly accepted divorce legislation as part of the party’s manifesto. Neither the conservative nationalists nor the pussyfooting progressives could get themselves to do that. We do get the sophistry of flags of convenience (cue PN with its token gay, liberal and ultra-cool section) or of the logistical sumersaults (cue PL with its private member bills, free votes) but no party wants to assume the responsibility of being the pro-divorce party on election day.

Part III – Why Eddie may be right (and wrong)

Here’s what our former PM did in 2003 – when Labour’s Sant insisted that the referendum result is neither here nor there:

The last two referendums held in Malta dealt with two major political developments. The people were asked to approve the proposed Constitution for Independence and Malta’s accession to the European Union. In both referendums there was a clear majority for the two proposals. Yet the Labour Party MPs continued to oppose both proposals notwithstanding the positive referendum results on those two eminently political issues.

It is worth recalling that as Prime Minister in 2003, faced with that stand by the Labour Party, I opted to advise the President to dissolve Parliament forthwith and call a fresh election in which accession to the European Union was the main issue. I have always maintained that moral issues should not be decided on the principle of democratic majorities but, rather, on the principle of what is morally right.

On the one hand Eddie distinguishes between political and moral decisions. For political issues it is simple. If one party insists on not recognising the will of the people then the solution is to dissolve parliament and call an election. The people can then either choose between two parties and their options (yes, sadly the dualism will prevail).

Eddie does however create a vacuum – legally that is. Here is his reasoning on taking decisions on what he terms “moral issues”:

I have always maintained that moral issues should not be decided on the principle of democratic majorities but, rather, on the principle of what is morally right. As a Christian I believe, on the authority of none other than Jesus Christ, the Son of God, that divorce is morally wrong and therefore wrong for society. Should one change this view because a democratic majority decides otherwise? Definitely not.

Which leaves us with a political and constitutional vacuum. Who will decide on divorce legislation for the people? The conscience of 69 parliamentarians? Elected on what basis? Eddie is being economic with the truth here because the convenient classification of a vote on civil divorce legislation as a “moral issue” effectively creates a vacuum of representation. It sabotages the very heart of representative democracy which is based on the principle that someone somewhere takes decisions “for the people”. You know the mantra: “a government for the people by the people”.

How do we therefore solve the impasse? The answer is written on the walls. Our political parties should be obliged to shed their convenient status of “wobbly coalitions”. On issues such as divorce there should be a clear position: not a free vote. I expect a party presenting candidates as future representatives in parliament to be clear about what they believe on such issues. By voting for a party I would then also be exercising my choice of or against a particular issue – and expecting it to shoulder the responsibilities in parliament.

Part IV – A parliament of representatives (with a clean conscience)

A parliament that would have been made up of representatives elected on a clean bill of ideas – and not on a mix and match of ideals in order to throw the widest net – would not have wasted the infamous €4 milllion euros finding out what was already a known fact before the debate. Such a parliament would have had a clear mandate to legislate beyond the individual member’s conscience.

Our current parliament will in all probability patch together a law of sorts that is passed with (what now seem to be) 37 ayes but it remains a parliament that is unable to come to terms with the requirements of a huge chunk of its demos. The battle for the emancipation of the Maltese citizen is far from being won.

Former Prime Minister and President Eddie Fenech Adami is right in one thing. The best solution in this kind of situation is probably the dissolution of parliament. This would allow the formation of a new parliament based on new parties hopefully committed to particular principles and policies. Hopefully too, parties will be clear with potential candidates about what the party represents and will ask them to leave their individual conscience at the front door, in the confessional or in any case outside parliament.

The greatest hope I reserve for the eventual voter : that he or she may learn a lesson from this hobbled parliament and choose to discern between false menus and the real deal the next time he or she has to make a choice.

Related articles

• Malta votes `Yes’ to divorce in referendum (thegreatone22.wordpress.com)

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.

• The full History of Philosophy Series
• ‘Xtruppaw’ − Malta’s prophetic philosophers
• www.re-vu.org enquire within upon everything

The noise had almost begun to subside and the metaphorical dust seemed to settle around the result of “53% IVA 47% LE” it became increasingly unclear whether another showdown was underway. The definitive conclusion that could be drawn from the last 72 hours is that this is definitely a crisis moment for Maltese society. Echoes of this conclusion can be heard all over the place and there is definitely no going back.

Interestingly enough in our multifaceted society of victors and defeated (because there always has to be a winner in our mind) the assumptions being made through the grapevine all the way to the reported ideas in the press do not seem to take in the wider picture. The citizen, the netizen, the reporter, the church, the politician, the party, the government – might all be engaged in a short-term assessment and quick recalibration of immediate requirements.

Let’s see how the actors played it out starting with this post about Citizen Jack.

CITIZEN JACK
Shaken. Very stirred. The divorce debate catapulted Jack out of his default position of “politics ain’t for me”, “it’s all the same anyway”, “they’re all a bunch of time-wasting egotists”. Was Jack aware that the question was more about emancipation and less about divorce? Maybe. For one thing he got to ditch his long-outdated political compass and was obliged to think for himself. No default/lesser-evil position would allow him to make ethical compromises.

Lacking the classical reference points Jack went solo. Where possible he found the comfort of numbers – from facebook movements to processions - yet this did not dispense him from having to think and think hard. It was hard to get a crash course in constitutional law and social mores what with all the noise: the perennial dilemma of the uninformed (a euphemism for uneducated? – but then how many are there?). The planes of discussion were at times too many for Jack to follow: Was this a battle between the devil and the Lord for his soul? Or was it a battle between the controllers and the controlled over a more liberal society?

As in Aesop’s fable the battle between the sun and the wind to strip one man of his vote escalated with worrying consequences on the man’s constitution. As the dust of the first battle settles you can sense an eagerness to end all this. Shouldn’t it be over by now? Hasn’t the YES won? Isn’t the parliamentary debate a formality? The people have spoken (the bastards) haven’t day? It’s time to get back to the cocooned life of casual complaint and leave it all to those who know best no? Jack might begrudge the very existence of your average MP but he sure is grateful not to have to carry his responsibilities.

The question we should be asking at the moment is whether the multiplicity of virtual and real movements have brought the message home to Jack that there is an underlying, deeper battle than the one that has just closed. Censorship, minority rights, social freedoms, respect for the environment, the battle against the networks of corruption, the stranglehold on representation …. and much much more. Is that too much for Jack to handle? Will he be wishing that the monster vanishes or that it will be swept under the carpet for hopefully another 50 years?

Can Jack be stirred further? Is Jack aware that cashing the change cheque will imply much more than simply ticking the yellow box in one referendum?

Se vogliamo che tutto cambi bisogna che tutto rimanga lo stesso.

I enjoyed reading yesterday’s Independent’s editorial (Period of silence silent no more) on the “cheap flight” to Malta. Michael Carabott describes the pre-electoral period of silence as being “as useful as a chocolate teapot”. The Editor’s take is split between the uselessness of the “silence” itself and the manner in which it is apparently ignored on the web.

During the 2008 elections this blog and its related sites (the Malta Chronicle) shut down for the day – choosing to respect a law with which we disagree completely. Other blogs – notably Running Commentary – chose to blog on in defiance opting for a more hands down approach to the issue. I recall that already then the Independent had pointed a (mild) accusatory finger at the online world while highlighting the disparity of treatment.

Whatever our opinion on the matter may be there is little doubt that the archaic laws apply to any publication: whether in print or on the ether. It is the law itself that has to be changed and there is no way of circumventing the prohibition (I’d dare say even on social networks) without risking falling foul of a particularly nitpicking officer of the law (who would probably have been duly informed by a whistleblower of sorts).

Having said that today’s period of silence is interesting. We technically cannot provide any propaganda urging voters to vote one way or another come tomorrow. On the other hand it serves us as a perfect excuse to reflect on the commonalities between this referendum and the normal electoral procedure. In the absence of the usual PL/PN divide we have demonstrated an inability to think and act differently. We dug the trenches, we formed the lines and above all every facet of our approach to a national decision required the Black vs White physiognomy that puts us all in familiar territory.

So the Rules of the Game (with intentional capitals) are applied to this little mini-bout. A Chief Electoral Commissioner is stunned into a non-reactive coma the moment “foreign elements” are placed on the plate. A Broadcasting Authority finds itself applying the very same paradigms that had been nurtured and abused by the parties. We had the “cheap flights”, we had the “billboards”, and we had the mudslinging about “dirty tactics”. It was all there to see. Barring the fact that the Holy Roman Catholic Church made a guest appearance this time round we had all the trappings of the usual PLPN debacle.

Back to the silence. It is ridiculous in this day and age that we still apply laws dreamt up for the 50′s, 60s and 70s when banning the use of the word “Malta” could turn out to be a sly political move. True, we are not the only nation to have “days of reflection” but then again the reasons behind these laws have become rather obsolete. One of the main justifications for a ban on press and media chit chat was the danger of “last minute lies” being spread without the opportunity of rebuttal. Nowadays it takes two hours for a tweet to go viral and spread across the web – how’s that for sufficient time for rebuttal (coupled with a massive in-the-face explosion for the original perpetrator)?

J’accuse had half a mind to break the silence. We might still do that but for now we will be hitting the beach in order to have the right angle for reflection. Meanwhile a series of pre-programmed posts have been set to entertain you throughout the day.

Also… look out on these pages over the weekend. We’ve got a lovely surprise for you that will be unwrapped on Monday.

I still have to watch Reno Bugeja’s program that aired yesterday and dealt with the aftermath of the referendum but I do think that we can begin to draw conclusions on the effect of the Great Divorce Debate on society as well as on the Maltese corner of the ether. As the referendum results are read out and Malta begins to come to terms with it’s latest snapshot for it’s collective ID card there may be carcades and hooting, there may be strings of Ave Marias and novenas of gratitude elsewhere but things will never be the same.

Beyond divorce

A divorce debate and law tends to be a landmark moment in a nations’ history as documented in this book review.

Of course we have been thinking, speaking and most of all joking about (more about that later) divorce but the first assessment of the aftermath has to be that this Debate was much larger than its original purported subject. Interestingly we managed to reaffirm a trait of our society – it’s inability to think beyond two. There’s black and there’s white, there’s Good and there’s Evil, there’s Us and there’s Them, there’s the Secular and there’s the Confessional. Then there are those with a “sense of humour” and those “without”.

As soon as it became clear that the issue is much wider than the right to remarry then it became time to dig the trenches… and dig them deep. There would have to be a victory of some kind: of good over evil, of one lifestyle over another – and a loss for the idea that somehow two ways of life can coincide. That is why voting YES or NO notwithstanding the apparent  inevitability of the shooting down of the bill by our spineless and unrepresentative parliament is still a matter of life or death. We have confirmed that this nation is destined to be bipartisan.

I hope God has a sense of humour

As the trenches formed the two sides emulated the tried and tested ways of doing politics – the billboards, the half-truths and the mediatic ploys and gimmicks. Nothing new there. We could be tricked into thinking that the individual was more “active” than before because of the flourishing of blogs, communities and pages mostly dedicated to asserting ones position for or against an idea. Then came humour. Again, the biggest effect has been the facility of the spreading of “jokes” and what in Malta passes as “satire”. Josanne Cassar described it as a Survival Kit a concept that unwittingly (or maybe purposefully) implied the need to survive (and be above or extraneous to) the discussion itsel.

Witness Josanne’s other creation: Moviment Tindahalx – a snowball effect of sorts led it to (currently) 3,513 members. Tindahalx (don’t interfere) is again less of an assertion of a position and more of a declaration of detachment – neither here nor there in the bipartisan sphere though ultimately  the ideal platform for roping in those whose first reaction to the ugly word “politics” is “Thanks but no thanks” – until they realise how it also can mean that others are determining your way of life.

I asked Josanne where she wanted to go with Tindahalx and the answer was quite emphatically “nowhere”. Which is unfortunate – because if there ever was a promising platform for gathering that snowball for the critical mass beyond the bipartisan fold then it was in this community. What might have diluted the original message “you take care of your soul and I’ll take care of mine” was the tsunami of humour that followed.

From Divorzistan to Mazzun to the rest the Maltese habit of “nervously dealing with the lighter side of life” spread to the net. I am the firs to click around and have a good laugh or two on these sites. There is also a political element in the humour itself this time round – and mocking the serious side is after all J’accuse’s unofficial motto (castigat ludendo mores). It’s not new though: the fact that it is more easily spread does not make it new. It began with the jokes at the grocer in the eighties (joking about Mintoff , Agatha et al was one way of coping with the sadness of daily life), moved on to email virals and youtube videos in the last two elections/referenda and is now settling in communities on facebook.

Critical Mass

It is easier to see how many followers a facebook page has than to count exactly how many people stepped out of the Zejtun parish church (unliked) last Sunday. Read the MaltaToday report and you’ll see what I mean: the heading mentions a “Mass Walkout” but the article starts with the word “several parishioners”… which will it be?

J’accuse continues to question whether the critical mass for change has been reached? Without intending in any way to minimise the importance of the newfound tools of engagement the question is what will happen when the dust subsides? Has the argument and discussion been provocative enough to provoke the necessary thousands into deciding to use their vote in order to bring about change and reform in the future? Or is this just a passing fad in which laughter has popped up as a temporary panacea for our argumentative colic?

James Debono gave us his interpretation as to why YES will prevail. His argument makes a lot of sense – particularly in the ability of a voting population to react positively in the face of quirky vs common sense. What that also means though is that we have done it before and we will do it again (choose common sense). 1987 and the EU are witness to that. Common sense has given us a confessional government, an opportunist opposition and a general set-up of actual or perceived laws that seem out of synch with the 21st century.

When the dust settles this time round will the critical mass still be there to fight the next battles for change to come about? We’ll just have to wait and see.

“In un paese pieno di coglioni, ci mancano le palle” – j’accuse 2011

For my sins I tuned into One TV’s Affari Taghna on Friday night. Bundy’s programme is going through its own apotheosis and will soon be sitting at the Olympian table of Maltese television alongside the other opiates of Maltese thinking. On Friday, Deborah Schembri (likes divorce) and Joyce Cassar (doesn’t like divorce) crossed swords before a scientifically inexact but sufficiently random cross-section of Maltese society. I chose to persevere and ignore the initial twitches in my brain caused by Joyce’s ability to swing from one non sequitur to the next like a metaphorical Tarzan in a jungle of illogical misconceptions.

The Great Divorce Debate has served as the Great Eye Opener in many ways. It may seem offensive to speak in terms of “medieval thinking”, “moving time backwards” or “brains where time stood still”, but the absence of the clear PLPN divide this time round allows us to dissect our national way of thinking as we have not been able to for a very long time. I must confess to finding myself overwhelmed by the sudden overdose of “opinions” on the matter when only a while ago a blog post or article supposedly made as much sound (or was just as conveniently ignored) as the tree falling in the empty forest.

Genesis

Far from the baying hounds and loud noises, you catch glimpses of moments of lucidity in the debate. I have recently come to the conclusion that the reason for the prolonged discussions and misunderstandings on what should be after all the straightforward legislation of a basic right is our inability to distinguish between the secular and the spiritual. In the history of our young nation, two great events compounded the confusion among even the supposedly more intelligent and emotionally detached of our members.

The first event was the period of the Mintoff-Gonzi wars culminating in L-Interdett (Interdiction) and the second was the 1995 Church-State Agreement between Eddie’s and Guido’s PN government and the Roman Catholic Church. The first has left long lasting scars of rancour that inevitably pollute any discussion that involves anything remotely spiritual, and the second has proven to be detrimental to the (crucial) roles of both the Church and the State in our society. At the end of Affari Taghna I could only ask a rhetorical question to the “fathers of the nation”: “Can you see what mess you have left us in?”

For the love of God

There were a couple of reassuring voices on the night though. The first came, surprisingly enough, from Fr Charles Vella. Surprising because of all the controversy that has surrounded the notorious clip in which Fr Vella declaims his lack of fear of divorce. In the full clip, as aired on Bundy’s show, it is clear that Father Vella is stating what every rational human being who participates responsibly in society should be saying. Fr Vella has no problem reconciling his dislike of divorce (as discovered through the words of God and the teachings of the Church) with the civil issue of the availability of divorce. It is men like Charles Vella and the spokesperson for the Catholics − Yes because it is a right (I believe it was Carmel Hili) − who have managed to shed the blinkers inherited by our black and white society.

Father Vella does not favour divorce. No, the Cana movement director was quite clear about that when he appeared on Norman’s show. He is though, a strong enough Catholic not to fear it. He knows what is right and what is wrong according to the tenets and moral principles of his Church and − as he said − he is prepared to fight to the death to protect the principle of marriage. What Father Vella did add is that he cannot countenance the possibility of ramming his tenets down other people’s throats.

Free will is an element common to both the tenets of the faithful and those of the lay. Both have a set of guidelines intended to ensure that the exercise of free will brings about the best in mankind. It may be that my mixed Lasallian and Jesuit upbringing combined with my legal background allows me to appreciate the importance of both situations. A citizen expects to be able to exercise his sovereign free will insofar as he causes no harm to others. A believer is thankful to the Almighty for having created him a free thinker and granted him his time on this earth to choose between right and wrong. The accomplishment of the virtuous citizen − whether lay or faithful − comes with making the right choices: and not with having those choices being made for him.

Movements

Father Vella of the Cana Movement knows that. So do many of those participating in the discussion. Even those lawyers, like André Camilleri and Arthur Galea Salomone who are arraigned on the side of those adamant to oppose the introduction of divorce legislation, find it hard to explain their position when it comes to deciding for others. The NO side can perform verbal somersaults and claim not to be grounding their arguments in religious ethics (on what then? on misreading of scientific studies? on the hushing of the real questions?) but at the end of the day there is little to go on between Galea Salomone’s ultimate aim and that of the preacher on Bundy’s programme whose heart beats for Christ and whose only argument against divorce is that God hates it.

And there we are. As more movements spring up than in a kitsch Monty Python Jerusalem Liberation Front sketch, we are stretching an open and shut case to realms that go far beyond the Kafkesquely absurd. Our political backwater still soldiers on and can only take a breather until “the people have spoken” and then − in the case of a YES vote − the fun will begin. For I cannot wait to see how our “leaders” will squirm out of this one. They do after all represent this motley crew that is our nation.

Cheap flights, cheap votes

Finally, I have had it up to here with this stupid idea that people abroad get some kick out of taking days off and flying to Malta on a “cheap flight” just because the collective leaders of the nation and the people who vote for them every election have their heads stuck so far up where the sun does not shine that they cannot see the absurdity of this exercise.

Last time I was in Malta I got my voting document delivered by a postman. I don’t see why I cannot return that service. Barring any last minute change of heart that can only be provoked by further ridiculous arguments by the NO camp, I will not be taking the flight from Luxembourg to Malta to vote. Make that two of us. That’s two YES votes down the drain because work does not get done on the Friday we would be away and, quite frankly, I’ve had enough of abetting this ridiculous backward way of doing things. Votes in embassies should be the priority of the next movement to crop up in this country.

Free will

How hard can it be? Free will. A vote for divorce means allowing people to choose to start a new life − married − long after their previous marriage has broken down. Is divorce a solution? It was never meant to be one. Divorce is a grown-up and mature acknowledgement that “rien ne va plus”. It is much more mature than the arbitrary denial of the existence of a marriage via “annulment” if you ask me. Maturity, fairness, free will. That’s adult talk isn’t it? I’m hoping that the referendum will prove that there is hope for that yet.

Vote ‘Yes’. It’s a matter of choice.

Far from the madding crowd’s ignoble strife

Their sober wishes never learn’d to stray;

Along the cool sequester’d vale of life

They kept the noiseless tenor of their way.

www.akkuza.com freely exercising hard headed will since 2005.

This article appeared on yesterday’s edition of The Malta Independent on Sunday.

Related articles

• Non Gode di Immunità Ecclesiastica (akkuza.com)
• Cheap Spin by the Times (akkuza.com)
• This is my Church (akkuza.com)
• Silence of the Nats (akkuza.com)

Many moons have waxed and waned since our days in the schoolyard under the watchful supervision of adults. In those days of Lemonora and Desserta canteen treats, life was relatively simple and at the smallest sign of trouble the “adult” would step in and solve the problem with an imperial edict carrying all the weight and respect of “he who knows best for everyone”. Playground rules came in the same package as the various snitches (“Miss, he’s standing on the monkey bars”), bullies (“Your lunch or a punch”) and disciplinarians (“Stand by the yellow door you naughty boy”). Far from the comforting nest of motherly love, scholastic authority gave a semblance of order to our miniscule world. Mother’s Way was imposed vicariously by proxy.

Then (supposedly) we grew up. Writing a guest post about the “Pogguti” poster on J’accuse, Mark Vella used an interesting phrase “jekk tghallimna nkunu nies, mhux bilfors li ahna” (if we learnt what it means to be adult (well behaved) it does not mean that we are). It struck directly at what I had been thinking over this last week: our “nanny state” mentality is finally out in full force. Since independence we have seen the process of “educating Malta” − we toyed with socialism and then switched to a supposed liberal-democrat framework infused with identifiable values. One thing seems to be stuck in time though − our collective understanding of our society’s rules, rights and how to use them. Many of us want our State to be the Playground all over again − and yearn for the adult voice of authority and protection based on the arbitrary rule of “he knows best for us”.

Prefects of Discipline

The divorce debate has entered the phase of the “dirty tricks” and one of the most common complaints on both sides refers to “fairness”. You could picture them queueing up to a fictitious teacher and bawling their complaints… A dribbling JPO cries foul on the fact that the PN media won’t print his adverts. A No to Divorce campaigner yells his frustration at being called a bully for having whipped out his Nan’s holy picture as proof of his authority. Meanwhile, as No to Divorce is incessantly associated with intolerance we shift to anything goes, so a nutty Evangelical preacher suddenly becomes a threat to society: “Shut him up Miss, I don’t like what he is saying”.

The language of exchanges is in the same vein as school diatribes − and we should seriously ask ourselves whether this is because for long we have been content with this kind of schoolyard rhetoric. Much of it results from our lack of understanding of the basic functions of the institutions and rules. It’s glaringly obvious that the mixture between the sacred and the profane, the lay and the religious is beyond repair at this point. One of the uglier portraits of Jesus of Nazareth has become an iconic symbol of messages supposedly aimed at the faithful… and the reaction has been massive.

Stepping in One’s Shoes

We could not have expected any other form of debate around the divorce issue. Yes, we are 43 years late (I’m using ’68 as my benchmark). What is worrying is that we have slipped comfortably into Don Camillo and Peppone rhetoric as though emancipated liberal society happened to other people. Laymen want to interfere with the Church’s way of things (and you can’t blame them entirely when the Church has slept comfortably with the State for so long). Churchmen want to save the soul of even the most reluctant atheist. And what is the solution? A blanket prohibition? One that prevents the option of divorce for EVERYONE.

I have a problem with every single argument being made (what’s new). The Church with its massive prophylactic concept − shield everyone from the possibility of divorce otherwise its weak-willed sons and daughters would sin at the first opportunity − is the first to be J’accused. The message is clear: “it’s wrong, because I said so (and I am quite sure that so did Jesus/Paul etc).” Then there is the illogical leap − if it’s wrong and dangerous for me then it is wrong for everyone else. Punto e basta. What bollocks.

What about our progressive forces of the earth? Joseph Muscat had a note on Facebook this week and this is how it ends “l-Partit Laburista kien, ghadu u se jibqa’ jhalli lil kulhadd jiehu decizjoni skont il-kuxjenza. Sostna li l-pozizzjoni tal-Partit Laburista hija ta’ tolleranza u ta’ kuxjenza.” The Labour Party position is one of “tolerance and conscience”. Do you want to know what this means? It means that if Muscat’s Labour were around in the times of abolition of slavery, in the times of the removal of racial intolerance, or in the times of the battle for equal pay, then it would be there with all the fence-sitting non-affiliated persons who watched history being made from the sidelines. Sure, our leader is against slavery but he’ll let his party members vote as their conscience wills. Sure we want women to get the same pay as men … but hey, we all have our conscience to see to. Sic transit gloria…

Mother’s Law

Much has already been written about the two Mrs’ (Gonzi and Muscat) and their incredible pre-Mother’s Day stint. Their efforts to conform to the narrative that best suits their husbands’ role reinforced the pathetic picture of our failure to understand what growing up is about. On Mother’s Day, of all days, you’d hope that many understand that when the social fabric of society is woven with the thread of broken families that are obliged to stay so till death do them part then it’s a poor fabric indeed.

There may be some good news in all this. The extremities to which we are being exposed in this divorce debate might finally have led to pushing a very reluctant movement out of the closet. Malta’s budding “liberal community” has always fallen victim at the last hurdle − being quickly absorbed by one of the two parties at the moment of truth. This time round the invasion of privacy and the nanny state mentality might actually prove to be the gel that gets the liberals moving. That’s why I “liked” the setting up of the “Moviment Tindahalx” on Facebook. I sincerely hope that its message will be a more lasting one than the frivolous pages of the ether and that something positive might result from the otherwise relatively inconsequential exercise on 28 May

The Flowers of May

I’d like to gather all the blooming flowers of the world and offer them to every caring and doting mother on the island. That goes for you too mum… and a happy belated birthday too!

www.akkuza.com “ the 21 days of blogging the divorce debate kicked off on Saturday 7 May (yesterday). Check out the full blogroll at themaltachronicle.wordpress.com

Cangiò canale. C’era un cardinale che parlava della sacralità della famiglia. Ad ascutarlo, in prima fila c’erano ‘na poco d’òmini politici dei quali dù divorziati, uno convivente con una minorenne doppo aviri lassato la mogliere e tri figli, un quarto che mantiniva ‘na famiglia ufficiale e dù famiglie ufficiose, un quinto che non si era mai maritato pirchì era cosa cognita che le fìmmine non gli piacivano. Tutti assentivano gravemente alle parole del cardinale. Cangio canale.

- Andrea Camilleri, Il campo del vasaio

Mark Vella (formerly of Xifer… il-blogg mit-truf) was provoked into writing this post in reaction to the “Pogguti” billboard:

Jacques talabni nikteb, imma għidtlu li mhux interessat u li kull ma rrid nitfa’ l-vot u nitħalla bil-kwiet. Forsi dan kull ma jrid min biħsiebu jivvota IVA, wara kollox: jitħalla jgħix ħajtu kif irid hu, fil-limiti tar-responsabbiltà adulta u l-legalità.

Imma l-kartellun tal-bgħula u l-poġġuti laqatni wisq. L-ewwelnett, lingwistikament. Hija kampanja kuraġġuża, forsi anki inġenwa, dik li toħroġ għonqha bi kliem iebes bħal dak. Lili darrsitni, ikolli ngħid, għax mill-ewwel laqtitni bħala kontroproduċenti, u eku ta’ dan ġa qrajnih f’diversi interventi ta’ Daphne Caruana Galizia. Ħsibt ukoll li l-kampanja forsi clever wisq għax-xena politika Maltija, bil-ħbit tal-LE u l-IVA fl-istess stampa, u fil-kuntest ta’ pubbliku elettorali li ftit jew wisq iħobb kampanji pożittivi b’kartelluni ta’ tfal u familji hienja jiġru fuq il-ħaxix tar-rebbiegħa.

Argumentajt ukoll ma’ sħabi li l-kliem goffi għaliex m’għadhomx jintużaw, u dan kien ukoll argument tal-kamp tal-LE. Xi ħadd qalli, iżda, li jista’ jkun is-soltu preġudizzju lingwistiku u n-nuqqas ta’ kunfidenza f’ilsienna u fil-mod kif nesprimu rwieħna, għax tgħid ma jkunx effettiv kartellun Londra b’mara msawta fuqha u bil-kliem ‘She is not your bitch’, nagħtu każ? Minnu, imma għalija poġġuti u bgħula jibgħatuni lura għal dinja agħar, dinja ta’ kattiverja u preġudizzji li bdejna noħorġu minna milux. Illum, kważi kważi, il-kunċett ta’ poġġut bilkemm jiftiehem, u ftit jafu li oriġinarjament kien aktar jintuża għan-nisa appoġġati jew mantnuti mill-maħbub tagħhom, speċi ta’ sugar daddy. Anki bgħula ħadd m’għadu jgħidha, ħlief fid-dagħdigħat privati ta’ xi familji meta jinqala’ għawġ bħal dan. Trabbejna slavaġ, imma mxejna ‘l quddiem, u għalhekk dawn iż-żewġ kelmiet idarrsu u jissugraw, forsi mhux itellfu l-voti, imma jdallmu xi ftit il-kredibbiltà ta’ moviment progressiv u magħmul minn nies ta’ rieda tajba.

Imma ġieni f’moħħi wkoll li dan il-messaġġ qawwi huwa s-sintomu ta’ kemm din il-ġlieda saret waħda emozzjonali, u kemm xi elementi tal-Knisja u tal-kamp tal-LE ppreċipitaw din is-sitwazzjoni, mhux bil-fehma leġittima tagħhom imma bl-istrataġemmi offensivi li jużaw u billi jżeffnu, fl-istil tal-interdettijiet, lil Alla fi ħwejjeġ Ċesri. Din saret ġlieda storika daqs il-kwistjoni politiko-reliġjuża tas-Sittinijiet, u għal daż-żmien essenzjalment ġlieda mhux partitika imma bejn il-konservattiżmu fanatiku u progressiżmu li jrid joqgħod attent milli jittappan u jitlef triqtu.

Ġieni wkoll f’moħħi li wara kollox, u wara kemm wieħed jipprova jistħarreġ u jirraġuna, forsi l-IVA kellhom raġun jagħtu xokk bħal dan. Għax l-ipokrezija li rajna mill-kamp tal-LE wieħed jista’ jaraha wkoll fit-tessut tas-soċjetà Maltija, għaliex anki jekk tgħallimna nkunu nies, mhux bilfors li aħna. Ma nafx jekk hux każ ta’ ħmar il-magħkus li jdur għalih id-dubbien, iżda bħal xi ħadd li għadda minn żwieġ li falla, kien hemm waqtiet fejn qlajt kummenti bla ħniena, għax hemm il-fatt li mhux biss hemm min ma jridx id-divorzju, imma hemm min jitkaża wkoll b’min tkissirlu ż-żwieġ. Ma tirbaħ qatt. Snin wara u ħajja ġdida, kien hemm ukoll min sejjaħli poġġut. Wieħed biex jitkessaħ, u qala’ xebgħa lsien bi kliem wisq eħrex minn tal-kartellun. Ieħor ħafna akbar minni, imrawwem professjonalment fil-PN (seta’ kien partit ieħor: dan biss bħal sfond), Kattoliku devot, omofobu u konservattiv tradizzjonalist. Għal darb’ oħra, deskrizzjoni ta’ sfond għax kulħadd ifassal lilu nnifsu kif irid. Madankollu, bejn b’nofs ċajta jew forsi għax beżaqhielu l-inkonxju, qalli poġġut, għax waqt li qed niċċajtaw dwar it-tfajliet sbieħ u ħelwin, għidltu li issa ma tantx nista’ nħares għax m’għadnix single. U billi għadni fil-limbu tar-relazzjonijiet skont kif jarahom hu, waħħalli t-tikketta.

X’tagħmel? Tieħu għalik? Le. Anki jien, ta’ sensittiv u bużżieqa li jien, ma tantx tatni ġewwa. Anzi, rikbitni mewġa ta’ maħfra Nisranija għax ma kienx jaf x’inhu jagħmel, u anki ta’ ħasra għal moħħ li baqa’ ċkejken. U kull m’għidtlu ‘iva, u wliedi bgħula. Rajtha qalbek’, u ħallejtu jiħmar u jistħi u jigdem ilsien li kien ħallih jaħrablu.

Mela fors l-IVA kellhom raġun, sew għax nies li ġarrbu u sew għax nies li jifhmu s-sitwazzjoni. Forsi huma wkoll, bħali, raw tassew qalb in-nies li qed jikkumbattu kontrihom. U għalhekk raw li għal kull min jippuntalek sejf, sejf daqstant jaqta’ jrid ikun biex joqtlu.

*****
Zolabytes is a rubrique on J’accuse – the name is a nod to the original J’accuser (Emile Zola) and a building block of the digital age (byte). Zolabytes is intended to be a collection of guest contributions in the spirit of discussion that has been promoted by J’accuse on the online Maltese political scene for 5 years.
Opinions expressed in zolabyte contributions are those of the author in question. Opinions appearing on zolabytes do not necessarily reflect the editorial line of J’accuse the blog.
***