Author: Jacques René Zammit

Categories
Articles

Mother's Way

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

Categories
Divorce Politics

Un Blasfemo (no comment)

Mai più mi chinai e nemmeno su un fiore,
più non arrossii nel rubare l’amore
dal momento che Inverno mi convinse che Dio
non sarebbe arrossito rubandomi il mio.

Mi arrestarono un giorno per le donne ed il vino,
non avevano leggi per punire un blasfemo,
non mi uccise la morte, ma due guardie bigotte,
mi cercarono l’anima a forza di botte.

Perché dissi che Dio imbrogliò il primo uomo,
lo costrinse a viaggiare una vita da scemo,
nel giardino incantato lo costrinse a sognare,
a ignorare che al mondo c’e’ il bene e c’è il male.

Quando vide che l’uomo allungava le dita
a rubargli il mistero di una mela proibita
per paura che ormai non avesse padroni
lo fermò con la morte, inventò le stagioni.

… mi cercarono l’anima a forza di botte…

E se furon due guardie a fermarmi la vita,
è proprio qui sulla terra la mela proibita,
e non Dio, ma qualcuno che per noi l’ha inventato,
ci costringe a sognare in un giardino incantato,
ci costringe a sognare in un giardino incantato
ci costringe a sognare in un giardino incantato.

Categories
Divorce Politics

Gmiel (Kemal)

 

I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government; it is as if he would catch his people in a trap. My people are going to learn the principles of democracy, the dictates of truth and the teachings of science. Superstition must go. Let them worship as they will; every man can follow his own conscience, provided it does not interfere with sane reason or bid him against the liberty of his fellow-men. – Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

Religion is an important institution. A nation without religion cannot survive. Yet it is also very important to note that religion is a link between Allah and the individual believer. The brokerage of the pious cannot be permitted. Those who use religion for their own benefit are detestable. We are against such a situation and will not allow it. Those who use religion in such a manner have fooled our people; it is against just such people that we have fought and will continue to fight. Know that whatever conforms to reason, logic, and the advantages and needs of our people conforms equally to Islam. If our religion did not conform to reason and logic, it would not be the perfect religion, the final religion. – Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

The nation has placed its faith in the precept that all laws should be inspired by actual needs here on earth as a basic fact of national life. – Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

Categories
Divorce

Tutto il monno è paese

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

Categories
Divorce Politics Zolabytes

Dars, Pogguti u Bghula

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.
***

Categories
Divorce Politics

This is my Church

This is where I heal my hurts. Today is referendum day. Not in Malta of course – that one is still a couple of weeks away – but in Britain. The UK votes in its first referendum in 36 years and chooses whether or not to change its voting system. The No vote seems to be miles ahead in the polls but what seems to matter most is not the result itself but the aftermath of the referendum campaign as the forces of different parties return to home base.

The UK coalition government is facing a bleak future following the “mud slinging and bad blood” of the campaign. As LibDems and Tories return to the governmental fold they will be sharing the space with people who were on opposite sides of the referendum battlefield and this does not bode well.

We are so caught up in the run-up to the referendum in Malta that we have not even considered this eventuality that seems to be inevitable. After all once push comes to shove and once referendum and parliamentary vote are over, the likes of Evarist Bartolo, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando et al will return to their parliamentary grouping and sit next to other MPs who were on the other side of the divorce divide. Will this have an effect on the running of the parties? Will the wounds in what has already been described as a “dirty campaign” run deep enough to create (more) fissures in the PLPN set up?

Another participant in the divorce battleground that will be nursing unexpected wounds is the local version of the Catholic Church. It has long dumped any semblance of the non-crusade stance and is now facing a few unpleasant realities that had long lain under the carpet of history. These are but a few glaring examples:

  • the Church-State agreement is under review: Thanks to the whole situation in the Rota vs Civil Courts issue, the anomalous status quo with regard to the workings of our laws has been brought to the fore of public debate. The Church can no longer hide the fact that its courts are also liable to the scrutiny of the rule of law so long as their decisions are intricately bound with the rule of the land. The first arrow in the heart of the church state agreement remains the right to a lawyer of choice and to a fair trial. Expect a test case moving on to the Constitutional Courts any time now. Does the local Catholic Church really want to have Rota decisions reviewed by Ceasar’s court? Is it aware of the possibility?
  • the local Church is an anomaly: the workings of the local Church, (comforted by the entrenchment of the Church-State agreement) have been exposed as being different from the workings of the church worldwide. In a bout of investigative journalism prompted by a priest’s comments MaltaToday exposed the fact that elsewhere in this world it is the Church that waits for (or expects) a civil divorce decree before proceeding with annulment. Again this kind of information begins to highlight how the Church-State agreement is turning out to be a very bad idea indeed. Time for some brainstorming on the church front – for the church’s sake.
  • the weakness of spirit: It is ironic that, of all churches, the one of the island of St Paul is failing its members drastically. All the actions of the church in this divorce campaign have uncovered an uncomfortable truth about its faithful: they are weak and need protection. For were our local version of the church confident in the lessons it has partaken with its flock then it would not fear the availability of the civil right to divorce. The church’s teachings are being misdirected and abused. The fact that God does not want divorce (whatever divorce that may have meant 13 centuries before Christ) has little to do with the availability of divorce in society but much to do with the strength of christian character in believing that assertion and following the scripture. I am sure John Zammit, the infamous John Zammit, would not divorce even if it were possible… but would all those who are being exhorted to vote No and deprive their neighbours in society of a civil right be of such a strong character? The Church of Malta and its messengers does not seem to think so. A massive Christian Fail.

So whatever the result of this referendum a number of “churches” are bound to end up  wounded and maimed. The political party “churches” have been exposed as vehicles of opportunistic rhetoric unable to promote their respective values due to their fear of compromising their voting base. The spiritual church has given clear signs of its failure to teach and pass on its interpretation of the Holy Texts. It has misinterpreted its duty to guide the flock and instead is shielding it completely from the greatest gift that God hath given man short of His own Son… free will.

No matter what the referendum result we already have one new truth to face about our society. Our Churches are a-crumbling.

Enhanced by Zemanta