There have been times in history when busybodies spread there mores beyond the necessary. Chairs? You have chairs?

The persons behind Divorzistan sent J’accuse this letter which they are describing as “the CounterPastoral of the Mullah”. Thanks to Divorzistan (among others), the weak Maltese thread of satire has found a new lease of life and in some instances a new form of expression well beyond the accepted frontiers that were the goalposts until now. In this final half-defence of his/her work the Mullah (whose identity we cannot uncover on pain of beheading) pulls a serious note out of his/her repertoire of tricks and slideshows. Here goes:
***

Il-KontroPastoral tal-Mullah

Ħbieb, wasal iż-żmien li ninżgħu ftit il-maskra. Ma jfissirx li ser jinkixef il-moħħ ta’ Divorzistan min hu, għax ċuċ sa barra m’inix.

Divorzistan bdiet bħala ċajta – il-bżonn irrefrenabbli li nidħak daħka bil-messaġġi apokalittiċi, paranojċi u beżgħana tal-moviment li jgħid ‘Le’. (Il-‘Le’ jinkludi Żwieġ Bla Divorzju, il-Knisja, il-Partit Nazzjonalista jew aħjar partijiet minnu, il-moviment ta’ dak l-eżaġitat li jħobb ixejjer il-Bibbja, il-“moviment” Le B’Rispett Lejn il-Ġejjieni, et cetera).

M’hawn ebda dubju li jien u dawk kollha li għafsu l-buttuna ‘Like’ fuq il-paġna tagħna huma favur id-divorzju. M’għandi ebda dubju lanqas li ħafna nies li raw il-billboards tagħna daħku daħka jew għallinqas, apprezzaw l-ispirtu li hemm warajhom. Daħħkuni wkoll il-kontribuzzjonijiet tan-nies – li inkludew lil Bin Laden moħbi wara l-billboard li hemm tas-Sliema (vittma ta’ xi miljun karikatura), lil Montesin, lil Lino Banfi, u mbagħad kellna Star Wars, lil Tonio Fenech vittma tiegħu stess, u ovvjament ħafna karattri mill-kamp tal-Le. Il-favoriti personali tiegħi ħa nsemmiehom fuq fuq: Beckham (suċċess mhux mistenni), il-famuż Jekk Jidħol id-Divorzju togħla l-Vitella, Angelik u Olio Cuore, u finalment it-teorija ta’ l-Evoluzzjoni ta’ l-argumenti tal-Le – billboard satiriku li ma tantx idaħħak, għax ħa kelma b’kelma dak li ntqal s’issa.

Issa wasal il-mument li nagħtu l-aħħar spinta, mhux il-mument li nibqa’ nitkellem fit-tielet persuna kif nagħmel is-soltu fil-manjiera ironika ta’ Divorzistan. Wasal il-mument tas-serjeta – u napprezza kemm hi diffiċli tkun serju wara li għal erbgħa ġimgħat sħaħ inbixt u tmellaħt b’dak kollu li ntqal f’din il-kampanja assurda u assurdista.

Kieku kienet elezzjoni ġenerali, ma kontx nagħmilha żgur; imma din id-darba l-għadu huwa kbir, b’saħħtu, wiesa’ bi spallejn daqs travu; iżda huwa ukoll arroganti, Stalinist u fuq kollox, ma jaħmilx lil min mhux bħalu. Jhedded u jfajjar bl-addoċċ, ikeċċi lin-nies minn fuq il-post tax-xogħol, jitfa’ il-ġebla u jaħbi idu; għandu mod uniku kif jiġġustifika kollox u jħobb iżeffen fin-nofs il-mistiku, lil dak Alla li ħafna minna jemmnu fih iżda li mid-dehra huwa propjeta’ esklussiva ta’ dan l-għadu tagħna.

Għadu li għandu poter fid-djar u fil-knejjes, fil-kaxxa tal-posta miżgħuda b’imbarazz differenti fosthom il-Bargain, għadu li minn fejn jagħmel tattika ta’ bumbardament kontinwu. Bumbardamenti, Pastorali, biża, Stukas, theddid. Il-video ta’ Hitler li għamilt ftit ġimgħat ilu llum narah bħala xi ħaġa ta’ dinja oħra, donnhom użaw it-tattika ta’ Goebbels biex ipattu għal naqra ironija dwar Pierre Cordina.

Divorzistan mexxa l-kampanja online, u donnha ħadmet. Spiċċajna saħansitra fit-Times avolja ma ndunawx li aħna. Imma rridu nagħrfu li dan l-għadu tagħna jisfrutta lil min, minħabba raġuni jew oħra, m’għandux mezz biex jara l-messaġġi tal-IVA online. Jidħol f’darhom permezz ta’ fuljetti u jtanbrilhom fuq ir-radju. Jheddidhom fl-omelija.

Meta JPO ilbieraħ semma “Terroriżmu Spiritwali” ħadli espressjoni li kont ser nestendi għal “Terroriżmu Emozzjonali” – il-famuża “Jekk jidħol id-Divorzju…”.

S’intendi għandhom ħafna flus x’jonfqu, hemm xi ‘benefattur’ li għandu għal qalbu ‘l-patrimonju tas-soċjeta Maltija’ li intom, ħbieb isseparati tiegħi, qed jgħidulkom biċ-ċar li ma jridukomx fih.

Dan kollu aħna ma nistgħux nagħmluh, u ma rridux nagħmluh lanqas – mhux sabiħ nbeżżgħu, mhux sabiħ inwerrċu lin-nies b’tgħawwiġ ta’ fatti u lingwa legali.

Madankollu dan ma jfissirx li ma nistgħux nirribattu, persuna ma’ persuna, dan l-attakk meskin tal-konservattivi u t-tattika tat-terrur.

Sempliċiment, irridu ngħinu sabiex joħorġu jivvutaw in-nies favur id-divorzju. L-apatija li taw is-surveys ser taħdem kontrina: irridu negħlbuha. Kull familja, kull qarib, kull kuġin, kull vot – huwa vot għal soċjeta fejn l-imħabba ma tibqax dominju tal-Knisja, iżda jkollha drittijiet ukoll mingħajr ma jkun hemm stigmatizzazzjoni tagħha.

Dil-kelma fid-dibattitu ħadd ma tkellem dwarha: l-imħabba. L-imħabba m’għandhiex ikollha ħitan jew konfini. L-imħabba li terġa’ tinbet hija dak li l-Moviment tal-Le ma jridx.

Ejjew naħdmu għal soċjeta li trid tħobb.

Related articles

• Dars, Pogguti u Bghula (akkuza.com)

Before reading this post scroll down to the video at the end and watch it. Done? Now if the video does not raise a thousand different questions in your head all culminating in one massive WHY then you can leave this post. You’re incurable. If you do have these questions see if any of them are like my own (questions and reflections) and feel free to comment.

1. The Gut (tee-hee Gatt/Gut) Reaction: Not carcades. Not again. The ultimate proof that whether we are dealing with the price of corned beef or whether we are voting on a civil right it all ends up in carcades, taunts and revelries. Min hu missierkom?

2. The Recoil Reaction: Why is this news? Your meninges start to cogitate quickly and you wonder whether you had not already known that Agostino Gatt is dead set against divorce. Is there anything new? Will his wife do a Kate and tell us that she too forewent pre-marital sex? Do we care?

3. The ONE TV Agenda Reaction: So the Labour organ deems it fit to stir some of the proverbial faeces Austin’s way by telling us that Austin will be punching the air in celebration should the NO vote carry the day. Better still. Which makes you wonder: what does LABOUR have to gain out of this? Well, Labour are telling us to tsk, tsk (titkaza – onomatopeia) the Minister for putting conscience before principle. They insist on reminding us that Austin will vote NYET even if the people vote a resounding YES. But then again so will Adrian Vassallo – and anyone entitled to a “frijvowt” granted magnanimously by the paladin of progressives. So again … what’s the news?

4. The His People Retake: You will have noticed the constant use of “Austin u n-nies tieghu” – his people. These are the chattel of the 21st century, political slaves at the beck and call of their masters. The term “nies tieghu” is not used disparagingly mind you. While the PL propagandists might be trying to claim that Austin’s clan has a mind of its own they are only reinforcing a truth that exists across the PLPN constellation. “Their people”, “his people” – they are in his thrall and will follow him as the mice and rats followed the piper. Another stark reality unveiled unwittingly by a PLPN station – because they don’t see much farther than their nose when it comes to gaining mileage.

5. The What Mileage? Conclusion What Mileage? indeed. Labour has no official position on divorce. By telling us that Austin Gatt and his immediate entourage of yes men and automatic vote club will be happy clapping their way into the night should the NO vote prevail they just chose a random picture that could very well apply to many other politicians in the field. Is this Labour’s attempt to continue to sell the lie that it is (as a party) on the side of the YES camp. Would it were so the YES camp would definitely recover some of the unfair advantage the NO camp has from the automatic votes of many mice and rats. Unfortunately it is not so. Muscat’s pussyfooting has sold the conscience frijvowt nicely to the masses. It’s Automatic for the People.

So there’s nothing wrong with Austin and his Faithful Rats to clap and cheer if their position wins the day on Saturday. It’s part of the Game as we are used to playing it. What ONE has done is serve us a picture of the usual PLPN divide reasonings bang in the middle of a campaign that should have been anything but.

Carcade anyone?

Mark Anthony Falzon, a columnist, lecturer and friend sent me the following document together with a request to disseminate the content. I gladly oblige for two reasons. The first is out of friendship towards Mark and out of the great respect to his manner of reasoning – I find that even when I do not agree with his statements there is always a way to reason things out. The second is that in this case I couldn’t agree more – hence the absence of the usual Zolabyte disclaimer.

***
WHY I WILL BE VOTING YES ON SATURDAY

Dr. Mark-Anthony Falzon is a social anthropologist, Head of Department of Sociology at the University of Malta, and “Sunday Times” columnist.

The reasons that follow are based on and take into account the following premises:

1. It is true that society needs to regulate for long-term kinship. This is primarily because of three things. First, kinship is associated with strong emotional bonds of attachment and commitment; second, children’s interests are best served by structures of kinship that are as transparent, stable, and long-lived as possible; and third, because of issues of property and reproduction of the domestic unit;

2. like all generalisations, the ‘common good’ argument has its risks. It is however mostly useful. It is true that voters should take into account the long-term consequences, for ‘society’ generally and not just for themselves, of their decisions;

3. a ‘realist’ approach. By which I mean not resignation or passive acceptance of undesirable things, but rather the balanced assessment of facts and the discarding of rhetoric;

4. whether or not one agrees that this issue should have escalated into a referendum, and irrespective of one’s thoughts about the obsoleteness of the question, it is one’s responsibility to vote. Politics is not about what could/should be but rather about what is. Come Saturday, the real and current question will be whether or not one thinks that Malta should legislate for divorce;

5. a belief that a fair and forward-looking society should be based on laws and structures that seek as far as possible to include rather than exclude. Social inclusion produces emotional, economic, and many other dividends.

In view of these premises I will be voting Yes on Saturday:

1. because couples whose relationships are over will split anyway, it makes sense to have strong legal systems and other structures by which these splits are properly regulated;

2. because the ‘common good’ dictates that (1) above is especially relevant when there are children, ie. that it is in the long-term interest of children whose parents’ marriages are over that their parents should split in a responsible and regulated way;

3. because a realist approach tells me that some couples will be happy for the rest of their lives and others won’t. The idea that marital bliss can be extended to everyone, and that it is possible in principle for all marriages to work, is rhetorical nonsense;

4. because I know that all the rhetoric and vague promises of ‘strengthening families’ that we have heard in these past months will be all but forgotten by Monday morning, and that couples whose marital lives are over will be left to struggle to pick up the pieces in the absence of structures and legal frameworks, as they have been condemned to do so far;

5. because I believe that it is in the interests of society that people should not be forced to go through annulment proceedings using far-flung excuses and shifty arguments, as they have done so far. This humiliates the individual and makes a mockery of justice and institutions. Such institutionalised hypocrisy and cynicism invariably spill over into the social order broadly defined;

6. because it is patent nonsense that divorce has ruined societies ‘everywhere’. The family is still very highly prized in countries where divorce is legal, and people go to enormous lengths and expense to sustain it. The notion of ‘ruined societies’ is simply another form of the little islander’s fear and incomprehension of the outside world;

7. because the ‘stable traditional families of old’ are a myth. In fact there have always been couples, significant numbers of them, who did not fit the model. It was simply a case of ignoring or labelling them as deviants and misfits, and creating poverty and social exclusion as a direct consequence. It is absolutely essential to understand that we will not be voting to regulate for a ‘new reality’. Rather, it’s a case of a fairer approach to the age-old reality of marriage breakdown;

8. because a truly pluralist society is not about privileging one model and letting everyone else do as they please, but rather about legislating sensitively to incorporate as many realities as possible. This, and not greener roundabouts and nicer roads, is the EU I and thousands of others voted for in 2003;

9. because the notion of family and kinship should be based on responsibility and integrity. There is much more of these in owning up to a marital breakup and taking long-term responsibility for one’s failings. This is especially true when children are involved;

10. because all around me I see people who, despite a failed marriage, go to enormous lengths to sustain and love their children. I also see ex-spouses who somehow find it in their hearts to accept new situations. These people, thousands of them, do not deserve a slap in the face but rather encouragement and the proper structures to sustain kinship and respect well beyond the duration of their failed marriage.