Well, the babaw tactics did not work and I was as surprised as many other people, especially since the result of last weekend’s referendum goes beyond divorce. It was a clear message to the Church and politicians that the Maltese are no longer cowed by threats and were not impressed or influenced by senior Government or Opposition members.
And what a relief that is. No wonder that Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi has expressed concern about tension in the country. Although he stressed “especially” tension with regard to the Church, there is no doubt that his apprehension is due to what the referendum result spelt for his party’s influence.
In a country where, up until now, many still voted on partisan lines regardless of the issues, with the possible exception of joining the EU, we saw the emergence of a crucial factor - that of people no longer accepting partisan dictat.
Opposition leader, Joseph Muscat read the signs correctly when he said “the vote signifies the birth of an era where political parties can no longer expect to tell the people what to do.”
He could have also scored points when he stated, “the divorce issue went beyond whether voters were Labourites or Nationalists and it would be cheap to try and score political points from the referendum result”, had he not then chosen to go down the “cheap” route after all and said, “People have a choice between a confessional party that expected to dictate matters to the people and the Labour Party that listened to everyone without dictating. The Labour Party is the home of liberal-minded people.”
Although he did have a point about the Nationalist Party using undue influence to ensure the Divorce referendum loses, he can’t have his cake and eat it, by first playing honest Joe saying it would be “cheap to try to score political points” on the issue then barging in shooting to score.
It is also of course nonsense to say that the Labour Party is the home of liberal-minded people. Although the LP does have some liberal-minded people, it also has its fair share of reactionaries, not all as overt as Adrian Vassallo.
He made it even worse by adding “The Labour Party was the natural home for everyone.” What an inane comment. Shame, I was beginning to change my mind about him, he then went and put his foot in it with this and the contradictory comments on scoring political points.
And how does him saying that Labour MP’s would not hinder “the people’s will” on divorce tie in with his party’s position of allowing MPs to vote according to their conscience?
Which raises a vital question should MPs vote according to what they believe in, or what their constituents want and believe in?
Anyway, how can Joseph Muscat be confident that the Labour parliamentary group will respect the mandate given to them by the people? When he has people like Adrian Vassallo who had declared that he would only vote in favour of divorce if Jesus Christ came back on earth and told him to do so.
Since it is unlikely that Jesus is going to pay him a personal visit he will vote against the Bill irrespective of the referendum result. He has now reiterated his stand and said on Thursday “If the party wants to kick me out... I really don't care”.
Let’s face it both parties’ MPs are under pressure to vote according to their party’s leaders beliefs. Marie-Louise Coleiro, shadow minister for health, who joined the “No to divorce” lobby said on Wednesday that she will abstain “after assuring herself that the Divorce Bill will be approved in Parliament”.
How can she be “assured” that it will be approved before the vote? Since there seems to be secrecy and confusion on how the Nationalist members will vote and we don’t really know how the rest of the Labour camp will vote except for a few.
Now these two MPs (Vassallo and Coliero) are in parliament representing their constituents (as are all MPs), so if their constituents have made it clear to them that they do not want divorce then Marie-Louise Coliero should not be abstaining and Adrian Vassallo need not wait for Jesus to give him a call either.
I am intrigued as to why Ms Coliero made her announcement about abstaining on Wednesday, saying that Joseph Muscat had appointed her to a small group of MPs that will be working towards “tweaking the Bill” so that divorce would cause the least possible harm, if she had already told JM that she would not be standing at the next general election the day before?
The announcement that she would not be standing was made to the press on Thursday. Now this is not a minor backbencher backing off, but a shadow cabinet member, a former Labour Party leadership candidate and a former PL general secretary for many years. So all within the PL is not honky dory.
The dark side of the whole divorce issue was the name-calling and worse on both sides of the highly controversial public debate and it is appalling that Marie-Louise Coleiro had been threatened and slandered and her family had been intimidated because of her stand against divorce.
But it is also inexcusable that outrageous comments like: “No person, no MP can vote for it (divorce) without sinning seriously against God! Divorce is intrinsic evil and as such it admits of NO exception! Divorce is always a grave sin that separates the sinner from God and puts them on the path to hell & and to hell for ever!”And “God will award the good and punish those who choose evil, like divorce, and this punishment will be in hell for ever if they don't repent before”, are still being posted on The Times online.
Labour MP Carmelo Abela who had joined Ms Coleiro in the against lobby, obviously is not intimidated by such threats of eternal damnation and has said that he would vote in favour, respecting the will of the people.
Now, apparently, Ms Coleiro is not the only one going to abstain on both sides of the House. The Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi has said he would not exclude voting against or abstaining, while stressing that the will of the majority must prevail.
Now how is that going to happen with most MPs keeping their cards close to their chest and the Nationalist members confused and very wary about going against the PN hierarchy, who are mostly, if not all, against divorce?
On Tuesday Finance Minister Tonio Fenech, who had made it very clear that he was against divorce, told The Times “People voted for divorce, and it is parliament’s duty to have the law the people want. I will not be there to obstruct it,” adding “It’s important the law passes.”
So here is the PN’s quandary they know that they are in parliament to legislate according to the people wishes, which are in opposition to their own desires. Although there are some within the PN who might want to vote for the Bill to go through.
However, like the PM and other ministers Tonio Fenech did not say how he would be voting. While the PM reiterated that Nationalist MPs were being given a free vote, the undercurrent is murky and rumour has it that most do not want to be seen as being “disloyal to the Party’s stand”.
Transport Minister Austin Gatt, who had made it clear that he was against introducing divorce, on the other hand is not shilly-shallying and came straight out in a letter to the Times on Friday saying that he will vote against the Divorce Bill in Parliament.
"I have full respect for any other opposite and contradictory position but I cannot see how you can say that in conscience you are against divorce and then vote yes in Parliament!" Which, yet again, begs the question: Should MPs vote according to what they believe in, or what their constituents want and believe in?
I would have thought that the people who voted an MP in to represent them in parliament would want to see them do just that and not impose their personal beliefs.
Now for the Church, what is very clear is that confusion reigns within that powerful institution. The divorce debate has shown that while attempting to mystify the faithful it has only managed to confuse itself and is fast losing its grip.
It has demonstrated even more clearly that the Bishop of Gozo really wants to outdo Archbishop Cremona, who in turn seems to let the Pro-Vicar Mgr Anton Gouder be seen as the ‘bad guy’ while he appears benign.
Bishop Grech’s and the Pro-Vicar’s fire and brimstone threats of sin and exclusion, plus the maverick parish priest of Zebbug with his highly controversial billboards, not to mention the many leaflets with “Jesus Yes, Divorce No” posted in letter boxes combined with the Archbishops’ subtler message of accepting sufferance have been instrumental in bewildering the nation.
And the confused not knowing whether it was still a sin if one voted yes “according to one’s concious” abstained. Now we know why many of our MPs (mostly PN) will be abstaining. The PL can see a vote catcher in this one, so can the PN hence their current dilemma.
Others of course abstained because they were simply put off by the tactics of both sides of the debate. I could not work out whether the Curia’s apology, embargoed for last Sunday but released on Saturday, was issued because the Church was sure it was going to win and did not want to lose the people who voted “Yes”, or that it was beginning to fear that it was going to lose.
Can you imagine the wrangling that must have gone on between Archbishop Cremona and Gozo bishop Grech over their joint apology? As for the “No crusade” statement by Archbishop Cremona, it obviously has not sunk in deep enough that people are becoming more sophisticated.
While conceding, “although 30 to 40 years ago the Church was protected by culture, things have now changed”, he still thinks that people still believe a crusade is conducted with swords. “Swords were used to spread the gospel during the crusades in the Middle Ages,” he said on RTK also saying “to crusade meant to attack”.
0 comments:
Post a Comment