Is eternal damnation on its way anyway?

By next Sunday the argy-bargy will be over, or will it? What exactly will the outcome of the divorce referendum on Saturday lead to? Will it lead to bedlam, as the anti brigade is predicting, and damnation that some within the Church are forewarning?

I say some, because the Church is being cagey and playing a very duplicitous game about the whole shebang. While some are putting up highly controversial billboards and promising exclusion for those who vote “for divorce”, others are being more diplomatic excluding themselves from criticism directed at the extremists while not openly distancing themselves from the fracas.

The line Archbishop Paul Cremona took last Sunday, at an event animated by anti-divorce campaigners DJ Pierre Cordina and his wife Mireille at Ta’ Qali celebrating World Family Day, was non confrontational, even romantic (as in imaginary) and very different to Gozo bishop, Mario Grech’s stance. He likened marriage to a “vocation” and that difficulties could be overcome and become “moments of joy and satisfaction” if the couple accepted to carry their “crosses”.

I will be very surprised if the “Yes to divorce” wins the day on Saturday. Because despite the Archbishops’ subtler message of accepting sufferance, there has been so much fire and brimstone bandied about that it is bound to affect the weak minded and the superstitious.

That is not to say that all who will vote “No” are weak minded. But one cannot dispute that there is still a large number of intellectually unsophisticated people around and that includes the ‘educated’ classes.

One only has to see what programmes on TV are the most watched to understand why the majority of the population’s thinking is stymied rather than being stimulated.

Listening to the arguments and name calling being presented from both sides I am either shocked, amused or simply astounded at some of the banalities presented as ‘evidence’, the latter mainly from the “No” camp.

The most outrageous being Dr Anna Vella’s “Marriage with divorce will stay valid until the woman’s size grows beyond 10”. A real own goal because it depicts marriage as shallow and based on the woman’s waistline rather than a union based on love and respect.

But it still might resonate with women who are scared their husbands will abandon them for slimmer women once divorce is introduced. As though those kind of men do not abandon them anyway, with or without divorce.

The “Yes” proponents have been at a disadvantage from the word go. They have had to contend with the opposition’s use of God and Jesus as a marketing tool.

Besides the billboards, flyers have been delivered to individual letterboxes saying, “Kristu Iva, Divorzu Le”, (Christ Yes, Divorce No) with among other messages about love stating “L-imhabba kollox tissaporti”(Love tolerates everything).

But surely if divorce is being considered it means that ‘love’ has flown out of the window.
The “Yes” lobby have also used “love” in their flyers - “Give love a second chance” - distributed door to door.
Despite both camps using “love” in their flyers we have seen too much of the opposite in this highly unsavoury debate, from which the large majority of politicians have been running scared.

Not to mention the threats and confusion emanating from various priests. Some saying “you will commit a sin if you vote ‘Yes’”, while others are saying that it is not.

I was handed yet another flyer, the other day, with the title “Tivvota ‘Iva’ Mhux Dnub?” (Is Voting ‘Yes’ Not a Sin?) It informs of a public meeting organised by “Kattolici ‘Iva’ Ghax Dritt” (Catholics ‘Yes’ because it is a human right) at the Msida local council offices in Msida at 6.45, on Monday at which former parish priest in Palermo and now the director of a Catholic journal Adista, Giovanni Avena is to be the main speaker,

Then we had Bishop Grech, adding to his previous apportioning of “guilt” as “divorce is intrinsically bad”, the claim that anyone voting for divorce could not receive Holy Communion. Although he is now saying he was misquoted on the latter. So was last Sunday’s Times report inaccurate?

Unfortunately, though the “For Divorce” lobby have retaliated by using alternative ‘shock’ promotion tactics. For example, the use of the word “bastards” in their billboard “We’re forced to cohabit: Are our children bastards?” was crass, insensitive and offensive and perpetuated name calling.

Of course the term is correct, but we don’t go around using words, which are distasteful or disparaging just because they are in the dictionary. I took exception to some of the comments online that tried to excuse the use of the word.

“Would the term born out of wedlock sound any sweeter to these nitpickers? We all know what message the billboard intended to pass on and it was not meant to be an insult,” said one.

My response to that comment is that it is offensive to publicise name-calling and anyone with a modicum of sensibility should realise that it would be seen as insulting.

Another opined “That this billboard offends is understandable, but sometimes the truth is brutal.”
Is brutality really a ploy people should be using to garner votes? I don’t think so.

And the most insensitive comment to my mind was the following: “Anyone can take as much offence as they may wish, but it is the legal definition of bastard”

We also had a pro divorce lobbyist, Marlene Mizzi who likened the anti divorce lobby to the Nazi Party and on the other side more recently, we had the Gozo bishop Mario Grech talking about “traitors who used every means to kill the flock”.

So much for love, lets all just offend and insult each other as much as possible as long as we get what we want in the end. Is this what we call debate?

And there is no room for neutrality, “We should show what we believe in by voting”, which of course he means “No to divorce”, Bishop Grech told a packed hall in the Fgura parish hall on Friday evening, previewing the bishop’s pastoral letter that was to be published yesterday.

But all these power struggles might have been a huge waste of time if Harold Camping, the founder of Family Radio a non-profit Christian radio network based in Oakland, California is right in his prophesy.

We are all going to perish soon anyway. He is claiming on billboards, which have popped up all over America, that a massive earthquake will mark the second Judgment Day on Saturday, May 21, yesterday, ushering in a five-month period of catastrophes before the world comes to a complete end in October. When the good will rise to heaven and the bad left to fester.

So is it really worth voting on Saturday. I suppose if you believe Camping you should not only vote, but also vote “No” or else it’s eternal damnation!

Read More

Mainly drivel in anti divorce debate

OMG we have another two weeks of having to put up with all the drivel about the forthcoming referendum on divorce. I do not posses a doctorate and did not go to university, but reading all the tosh being bandied about by people who have supposedly reached a high level of education and form part of our professional class I am thinking that there is lot to be said for the university of life.

“When you live abroad, like I did, you realise that divorce is contagious... If your sister divorces, you have a bigger chance for divorce...Studies abroad showed how many marriages would have been saved had there not been the divorce option,” Anna Vella a medical doctor (lawyers are also called doctors here) and president of the Cana Movement, reportedly said on a TVM debate.

Hopefully, such claptrap does not spill over in her medical advice. I also lived abroad (London) for over 25 years and I never came across divorce as a contagious disease. In contrast to the Cana Movements’ founder Mgr Charles Vella she is obviously terrified by divorce.

The “Yes” to Divorce has put an interview (that has apparently been banned from appearing on our local TV stations) with Mgr Vella on Norman Hamilton’s Bla Agenda on You Tube and it is doing the rounds on Facebook.

On it, the Monsignor says, “I am not scared by divorce. The fact that divorce is available does not mean the end of the Catholic marriage. I am saying this with my hands on my heart and a clear conscience...).

He carried on saying, “as the founder of the Cana Movement, I will fight to the death to save a marriage, but I cannot ignore the plight of the many separated and divorced couples who come to see me and who are suffering. They are still part of Christ’s Church and we have to look after them.”

I would surmise from this that he also does not agree that voting for divorce is a sin, which is yet another babaw tactic being promoted by other priests. As for the nonsense, “if your sister divorces you have a bigger chance for divorce”, which Dr Vella (not to be confused with the Mgr) spouted, expanding on her “contagious” theory, on the latest TV debate, that would mean that if your sister decides to end it all by jumping off the bastions you have a bigger chance to join the suicide ranks. What utter claptrap.

And this was supposed to be a serious debate on our national TV station. No wonder I have long given up watching it. And what about the “Studies abroad” that showed the “no divorce” option “saved marriages”? Which studies exactly? Is this how Dr Vella argues at a medical presentation?

Now in my limited line of ‘expertise’ if something needs saving it must be in trouble and whether divorce is available or not that ‘turbulence’ is not going to disappear.
Anyway, how exactly does the no to divorce option save a marriage? The no to divorce option is not a guarantee that a marriage that has hit the rocks will miraculously stay whole.

Deborah Schembri, appearing for the “Yes” lobby quite rightly accused Dr Vella for ridiculing the debate when the latter said her movement "believed in a lasting marriage, and not a state where people stay together until you are a size 10".
My first reaction to that quote, when I saw it on Alex Saliba’s FB post, shared by Josanne Cassar, was, “No wonder they are worried”, the anti divorce women that is, because let’s face it very few women stay a size 10 for long and a stroll down any major pedestrian walkway will tell you that many women have not only gone beyond a size10 but are verging on the obese.

But seriously, this is yet another tactic meant to scare the women who lack confidence and most of all brains. And what does it say about our men? That they will all leave their marriage if divorce is introduced as soon as the waistline starts to give? On their wives of course, cause theirs doesn’t matter!

And what about the men who married big women because they like their women that way? I suppose those could have a lasting marriage despite divorce.
And what about the rest? There was I thinking that a stable marriage was based on love and respect yet the anti-divorce brigade think it is all very shallow and is all about the woman’s waistline.

Family lawyer Bernard Grech also speaking for the anti-divorce movement made a telling comment. It was reported that he spoke out against the concept of no fault divorce, saying “spouses could walk out of a marriage without reason or control... rendering marriage a loose tie.”

Control is the operative and significant word here. So according to the anti-divorce lot, marriage is all about control and being restrained. But surely a stable marriage is all about two people enjoying each other’s company, not being forced to endure it. Married people are adults and should not need to be ‘controlled’ or ‘restrained’ by the state to stay in a marriage they want out of.

He also warned, according to the report, “that the law as proposed would impose divorce without reason and erode Malta's ‘heritage’ of long-term commitment in marriage.”

Impose Divorce? Does he mean if one partner wants a divorce and the other doesn’t? Why would one partner want to stay in a marriage that the other wants out of? To my mind that spells unhappiness and instability all round, including the children.

Ah yes, the children. In another debate, not on the telly this time, Arthur Galea Salamone, from “Marriage without divorce” , was the pot calling the kettle black. He criticised the “Yes” campaign for using children in their billboards, while urging those voting on the 28 May to keep children in mind when voting on the introduction of divorce. And his movement carries the slogan ” T o g e t h e r f o r o u r C h i l d r e n ” .

Then of course we had the Children's Commissioner, no less, making such a hash of her argument against divorce. Although she claimed she was not taking sides. Helen D'Amato proclaimed she did not believe divorce would solve problems for children from broken families.

Well it does rather depend on the problems doesn’t it? Echoing A n d r e C a m i l l e r i, she said studies had shown that the introduction of divorce led to a decline in marriages and rise in cohabitation and children born outside wedlock.

On the one hand she conceded, “the issue was complex and the reality was that children from broken marriages suffered and it did not make a difference whether the cause was separation, annulment or divorce.”

On the other, she quoted excerpts from a study, which showed that 10 per cent of children, from families who were together, were at risk of having mental health problems but the number increased to 25 per cent for children from divorced families.

So does it make a difference or not? “Beware of divorce, it can drive your kids crazy”, is the implication of her statement on the study. She has been criticised for not giving the conclusions of the study and misrepresenting it by one of the study’s authors.

Ms D’Amato kept stating the obvious, i.e. that children are best off in a stable family, (Do we need a Children’s Commissioner to tell us that?) but amused me when she said she was annoyed by the two extreme views that gave the impression divorce would either save or destroy all children, when she herself had given a dire predicament for children if divorce was made available.

Read More

Making classical music popular

Tuesday will see the start of the fifth International Spring Orchestra Festival in Malta. I met up with its artistic director, 31- year-old, Paris-based composer, KARL FIORINI and found that though diffident in his manner, he certainly does not lack confidence in his music 

I first came across Karl’s work when I heard his arrangement of Gershwin’s Summertime, played by Equinox at the American Embassy. I had not yet met him, but when I heard that he was back to prepare for the festival, I thought that people would be interested to know about the young man who is not only behind the festival, but is making a name for himself in the classical music world.

In September 2004 he won first prize, in an international, composition competition at Boston University in the US, with Alea 111. Then in December of that year, he won another competition in Barcelona with his Trio Lamina for violin, clarinet and piano, the last work he wrote before leaving Malta for London, where he lived for a few years.

Karl believes that “the perception of beauty is in your surroundings” and says his music is influenced by his environment. He graduated in Music in 2002 from the University of Malta at age 22 and started studying for an MA at the Guildhall School of Music and Drama in London two years later.

A chance meeting on the London underground with a fellow musician led to him being asked to compose a four-minute piece for the Bournemouth symphony orchestra in March 2005. “I had to start from scratch and produce the piece in three days. I had told the director that I already had a piece ready to secure the commission.

“Since it had been made very clear to me that unless my piece was good enough it would not be played, I worked most nights to get it right and my sleepless nights paid off, because my composition was chosen and was received very well.

“That was also the year I started experimenting. I had been experiencing stagnation due to getting ensconced in a comfort zone. I needed to start taking some risks with my music. That was when I developed a march, I had written at 13, City of Lost Chances into a piece for clarinet and piano.

“This was the time I was being influenced by jazz and it is audible in this piece. In fact, I am still trying to get away from the stereotypical ‘classical’ genre.” It is Karl’s belief that classical musicians do not use improvisation. He wants to break that mold.

“My instrument is the piano, but I felt I could not reach the level of experimentation I wanted to achieve. That was why I opted for orchestral work,” he told me.

However, despite his achievements, 2005 was a very sad year for Karl, his mother died of cancer amid other domestic problems he was experiencing. He had just finished his Master’s degree in the UK and came to Malta to be with his family.

“I was extremely depressed at the time, but at the end of that year a friend suggested I create a spring festival. I liked the idea and it got me out of the rut, I started working on it and the two years later we had the first festival in April 2007.

“We had string players from all over the world playing five to six performances in a glorious week of music making and the festival has happened each year since then”, he told me.

In 2008, he was commissioned by the European Union to compose a piece for its chamber orchestra. Called Harmonies étendues, it was performed in Granada. He later started thinking again about composing just for piano and that is ongoing.

Although music became Karl’s world at an early age, his first reaction to music lessons when he was seven years old was that he wanted nothing to do with them. His parents were keen that their children would learn a musical instrument, but Karl made the mistaken connection with the after school dutrina classes, which he dreaded, and he was sure he would hate yet another after school activity.

But about four years later his sister Karina started taking piano lessons and his curiosity was aroused, “I sat at the piano and hit the keys for the first time and something happened. I started to see colours. I experienced synaesthesia,” he told me.

He was hooked, so he told his parents that he would start guitar lessons. However, those classes were full so he joined Karina and started taking piano lessons. His first lesson made such an impression that he still remembers not only the month and year but also the day of the week of the event that was to steer his life.

One could say he was a precocious musician because he soon wanted to write his own score. He made up his own notation and wrote his first piece at 11, which he still has, after his first few lessons.

“Mozart was the first composer to fascinate and influence me. It wasn’t just his music but the man enthralled me,” he said.

When Karl gave his first performance at 12 he was so excited that he froze and that recital did not go at all well, he recalls. His teacher had misunderstood his agitation, put it down to nervous anxiety through lack of confidence, and asked him whether he wanted to give it up. “My response was ‘no way’, I had already decided that I wanted to be a composer”, he told me.

“I justified my stance by giving a successful rendition of Mozart’s Al la Turca sonata in A major K331 at the concert the year after. That was when I moved on to the Litz phase and when my obsession with Paris took hold.

“At 15, I took the music option at the Junior College. There as well as at university later, well-meaning advisors asked me what choices of career music would give me? Indicating that a career in music was not very promising with regard to sustaining oneself financially. But life is not all about stability and security, I knew that what I wanted to do was make music,” he said.

Karl eventually moved to Paris in 2008. “When I first arrived in Paris I had no job, in fact I still don’t. I live on commissions. So my advisors, at college and university, might have had a point with regard to stability and security. I had written to all the music conservatories and dance schools. My bread and butter earnings come from accompanying dancers at academies.

“While in London I had worked with the London School of Contemporary Dance and had composed a piece to choreography by one of the dancers. That helped when I was looking for similar work in Paris,” he told me.

“But what about the Spring Festival now in its fifth year. What inspires you to make it happen?” I asked him. “Classical music should be enjoyed by everyone, but many might still have the impression that classical music is elitist and is only enjoyed by the bourgeoisie.

“I want to dispel that myth. I would like sceptics to take the first step. I want to arouse their curiosity. The first concert will be held on Tuesday at Piazza Tignè at 6p.m. The orchestra conducted by Roberto Beltran-Zavala (who has been here before) will present an exciting and enticing programme that includes a performance of Haydn’s 70th Symphony by the Rotterdam Ensemble, Bartok’s Divertimento for strings and Shostakovich’s Piano concerto No1.

“Since the venue is frequented by shoppers and sightseers and the concert is free, I am hoping to whet their appetite for classical music and attend even more concerts at the festival and beyond,” Karl said.

Another concert is being held in collaboration with the Ministry of Resources and Rural affairs at the St Antnin Waste Plant in Marsaskala aimed at the local community on Thursday 28th at 8p.m.

The next day, on Friday the 29th, two concerts are taking place at the Manoel Theatre. Aimed at children the first is at 1p.m. and the second at1.45p.m.

In addition to these grass roots oriented programmes the International Spring Festival Orchestra is also launching a Classical Music Marathon, aimed at young debutantes, at the Sala Isouard, Teatru Manoel, on the final day of the event.

The marathon will start at 10a.m. and will include 10 one-hour-long solo and chamber concerts. Ten established local musicians will also be performing with the debs. The event will end with an orchestral concert at 8p.m. at the Manoel Theatre.

Dates and venues:

Tuesday 26 April, Orchestral concerts, Piazza Tignè at 6p.m., Teatru Manoel, 8p.m.

Wednesday 27, Chamber concert, Sala Isouard Teatru Manoel, 12.30p.m.

Wednesday 27, Pallas Piano Quartet, Sala Isouard Teatru Manoel, 8p.m.

Thursday 28, Orchestral Concert, St Antnin Waste Plant Marsaskala, 8p.m.

Friday 29 Children’s concerts, Teatru Manoel, 1p.m. and 1.45 p.m.

Friday 29 Equinox Trio, Sala Isouard Teatru Manoel, 8p.m.

Saturday 30 Classical Music Marathon, Sala Isouard Teatru Manoel, 10a.m.-8p.m.

Closing Orchestral Concert Teatru Manoel, 8p.m.

Tickets are free of charge but events at the Manoel need to be reserved from the theatre’s booking office on 2124 6389. A non-nominative contribution applies at the Manoel.

pamelapacehansen@gmail.com

 

Read More

MIND THE GAP

VALLETTA'S bridge is falling down, falling down, my fair lady. But unlike London Bridge, from where the rhyme originates, our bridge will not be rebuilt as a bridge. Where we now have a road we shall have a gap (or is it two) instead.

We had it from the horse’s mouth on Friday morning, “Pope Pius V Road, one of the main entry points into Valletta will cease to exist”, Transport Malta's (TM) David Sutton told a news conference.

London Bridge was always rebuilt for what it was intended - to provide access, despite it being destroyed and rebuilt quite a few times, since it started as a pontoon bridge in Roman times. A tornado, fires and time all took their toll through the ages and the last but one was sold to an American entrepreneur and ended up in Arkansas.

Unfortunately, details on City Gate’s history proved hard to find online. But I do know that a Baroque Gate with narrow access was what was there before it was replaced by the current architectural aberration.

It was built with such a large and high opening; reputedly, to let carnival floats through at a time of radical social changes. I think that few regret seeing the current gate demolished. But many do not favour the intended gap.

City Gate acts as an essential bridge, although it does not cross water it is a major artery into the town centre. The road roofing the Gate links Castille to the centre of the town. When that is destroyed access to the top part of town will be incredibly and unnecessarily convoluted. As though it is not already complicated enough to manoeuvre around Valletta now.

Mr Sutton said that about 600 cars drive through Pope Pius V Road (the road to disappear) between 8.15 and 9.15 a.m. daily. Well what about the rest of the day, evening and night? How are residents who live around Hastings Gardens going to get home?

And what about the poor residents who will have to put up with all the increased traffic going through their streets? And it will not just be the 600 going through between eight and nine a.m., but the rest going through the rest of the day not to mention the large influx of traffic when there are no CVA charges in the evenings, weekends and feast days, not to mention the various ‘Nottes’ and other events.

“As a resident, let's hope that car hooting is strictly prohibited inside the city, otherwise when there is a traffic jam, which is to be expected, we will all go mad! Local Council and Police please take note,” commented Ms Elizabeth Aquilina, online.

And it is not just noise, what about the fumes? Anyway, car hooting and amplified moving discos should be banned everywhere. But back to Valletta,
“Traffic from the area near Hastings, which accommodates several residences and offices, will go through St Mark's Street, down a short part of Old Bakery, cross through St John Street, up Strait Street cutting cut across through Melita Street to reach the Biaggo area,” said David Sutton. Since Biaggo are actually steps, I take it he meant driving up St Andrew’s Street to South Street. And you see what I mean about convoluted.

At this point I should say that the Hastings area is where I was born, grew up and where my elderly mother still resides at the bottom of South Street and the top of St Andrew’s.
Why the latter street was turned from one way down to a one way up street not that very long ago does not make any sense since all the cars leaving the much-used car park would exit much easier going down away from South Street and it would also lessen the environmental impact of noise and fumes.

To say that it has become increasingly stressful to visit and help with shopping etc, is putting it mildly. But enough about me. How are people going to get to Windmill Street, which is one way, as is Sapper’s Street and all the side streets in the area?

Access into Valletta will only be possible through St Paul’s Street taking you down to the bottom of the city; S t M a r k S t r e e t in Marsamxett, via the side of the Phoenicia Hotel, at the north west bottom end and through the Grand Harbour entrance past the Mediterranean Conference Centre at the South bottom end. Why do I get the feeling that we are being steered away from the top and herded to the bottom?

Mr Sutton said the routes were decided after various scenarios were studied and environmental considerations (obviously not noise and fumes) were taken into account. Apparently, though not taking one blind bit of notice of at least one Valletta councillor.

“As a council member I would have expected that the relevant ministry and Transport Malta would have met with us councillors to share opinions.

“My concern is that many residents are already having a hard time and the destruction of City Gate will only make their lives even worse.

“I have had many complaints, which I presented at Council meetings, but apparently they fell on deaf ears. Nobody has deigned to listen to these complaints, not even the minister concerned.

“I believe that since the government is always trumpeting consultation, consulting the residents should have been the least it could have done. But obviously there is a great chasm between words and action and we (as Valletta councillors) have never ever been consulted on this issue, or indeed the whole project,” Ray Azzopardi commented online.

The mayor, however, has been remarkably silent. It will probably be great for the people living in the apartments overlooking the proposed new gate. No noise and fumes. That’s a bit of social justice balance redressing, seeing as I believe they are government owned flats. I suppose the Government cannot demolish those flats and build new flash ones to compliment its new palace, or can it? As was done to the Tignè government owned residences.

Is it not also ironic (or rather, as Anne Robinson would say on the Weakest Link “stupid not ironic”) that as we tear one bridge down, leaving a gap in the Valletta bastions, we are building another and bridging a gap in the Vittoriosa bastions?

Knock a major one down and build another away from the madding crowd. Not that Vittoriosa is quiet and rural, but it is away from the hub. We improve access there and restrict it here and round and round we go wondering what next.

Paul Micallef commenting online had this to say:
“Some years ago a hole was made in the Cottonera bastions to make way for a new road. The present Government is now bridging this hole so that the two sides are joined together again.

“In Valletta the Government is going to create another hole between the Putirjal bastions. Who knows, maybe in 30 years time someone will come up with the idea of bridging the gap again.”

In the meantime, apathy seems to reign. I tried to generate some interest on Facebook with the following message: “Can we all in Malta on Facebook do something to stop the destruction of the major access point to the centre of Valletta. The residents', especially the elderly's, needs in Valletta have been completely ignored. It is already unacceptable that when a function is on in Valletta there are no emergency access or exit points.”

Few responded, among them thankfully, Flimkien ghal Ambjent Ahjar, who has shown an interest in pursuing the matter. Admittedly, I do not have that many contacts, I am ambiguous about the whole shebang but to my mind this kind of lobbying is precisely how the network should be utilised.

As someone who is supposedly cautious and only accepts people I really know on Facebook, I have just unwittingly invited an incredible number of people to join me on Linkedin!

While half asleep, I thought I was inviting half a dozen people and was stunned to read that I had just invited over 800 people, while also being told “Only invite people you know well and who know you!”

I am only finding out who I sent the invites to by the responses. While I got some pleasant surprises from friends I had lost touch with, I am sure that many,
who recieved one, wondered why? Well if you are one of them, you now know.

Read More

Solidarity, or every EU Member State for itself?

Passing the buck on the humanitarian tragedy of mass migration has to stop. And it is not just those blaming each other but also those who are refusing to be part of the solution. Why don’t we in the EU learn some lessons from the Japanese?

Their solidarity in the wake of the catastrophically tragic events should be an example to us all. OK, Japan is one nation, but is not the EU meant to unite Europeans as one entity? Is not solidarity meant to be one of the Union’s pillars?

So far EU solidarity seems to only be activated on fiscal issues. But when it comes to humanitarian issues all we get is rhetoric. We are all directly or indirectly responsible, not just the EU, for the reasons why people flee from war, starvation and torture for wanting to have the freedoms we take for granted.

For once I agree with Gozo’s bishop Mario Grech. He has shown concern about the tragedies surrounding migrants taking place in the Mediterranean. “Most of the people were remaining silent, indifferent, or were trying to avoid the truth”, he said.

He rightly commented that more fuss is made about bird shooting than the loss of migrants at sea, adding that those making financial gain from the plight of these people would be answerable to God, as well as society.

Well, I am not sure that the people making substantial financial gains put our God before Mammon and as for society, it does not seem to care much either, as his bird shooting comment demonstrated.

These are examples of our society’s response online: “Wouldn't it be obvious that if you overload a sea-going vessel you are imposing the risk on all the passengers? I mean they bring it on themselves,” said one.

“The birds don't have a voice or a choice. Illegal immigrants do - they can stand up and fight and try build the country they are fleeing leaving other people to try to mop up the mess,” said another.

For the people who got all defensive about birds: It is not that birds should not be protected, of course they should. The issue is about ignoring fellow human beings while making a big fuss about birds.

Besides many were expressing the view that because the tragedies hit the headlines it shows that we care, which of course if one reads the accompanying comments demonstrates no such thing.

There were no comments about the people ferrying migrants in overcrowded, ramshackle boats, while exploiting them financially. How many boat owners and crew has Frontex apprehended? How come these people seem to slip through the net and are still operating?

The latter of course is beyond what the locals could achieve. The only thing we can do is exert pressure on the other EU States to add to that being wielded by our government and MEPs.

As to responsibility, for the reasons leading to the mass migrations, a number of EU countries, the US and others have supplied arms to the countries in conflict and the least they can do is share the burden of people fleeing from the butchery.

The countries who have not supplied arms have still cosied up with authoritarian regimes for other commercial reasons and most of us have all ignored the human rights abuses and plight of the exploited – out of sight out of mind. Of course we all woke up seeing the Middle East uprisings on our TV screens every day.

As to the migratory issue, here in Malta we have had the problem of people fleeing, to what they hoped would be survival at least and perhaps a better life, brought home to us since before we joined the EU.

I remember getting a non-committal response from Günter Verheugen the European Commissioner for Enlargement, just before we joined, when I had asked him what help we could expect on that specific issue from Member States once we were full members.

Quite a few years later in 2007, the European Commission had recognized the "special difficulty" of a crowded island just 200 kilometres from Libya. If we had a special difficulty then what should our position be seen as now.

Although we were told on Thursday that Home Affairs Commissioner Cecilia Malmström “was considering” making a formal proposal to member states to activate the emergency solidarity mechanism, by Friday Malmström was once again arguing that “the numbers are not yet huge” to merit the activation of the temporary protection directive.

Our difficulties are obviously not special enough. The mechanism, under the Temporary Protection Directive, would provide immediate protection and reception in the territory of EU member states and give a ‘breathing space’ for the national asylum systems and promote ‘voluntary’ solidarity measures between member states.

However, the directive cannot be approved unless a majority of the member states vote for it. So far this majority does not yet exist, even though the solidarity measures are voluntary.

“There are perhaps over 2000 refugees from Libya, 800 in Malta - which is a lot for a tiny island, but not enough to trigger this mechanism,” she said. She claimed that there are other ways member states can show their solidarity with Malta. For instance, contributing in the resettlement programme. She was referring to the pilot project in Malta initiated in 2008, which she said “worked well”.

The EC project’s objective was for EU member states would resettle, on a voluntary basis, refugees from Malta. Less than 300 were resettled by the other 26 member states in three years.

It was interesting to note that Malmström also is calling for the “blame game” to stop, but as for her “too emotional” quote, referring to Italy and Malta, one wonders how emotional she would get if all those migrants were landing in Brussels.

And it is not only Malta and Italy that are ping-ponging migrants and getting ‘emotional’ over the issue. The Italian and French interior ministers are also locking horns. They met on Friday after Italy granted temporary permits to some 20,000 Tunisian migrants, which they said would allow them to travel to France.

Things got pretty hot with France warning that it is preparing to close the border with Italy if Rome continues to give temporary permits to the illegal immigrants to cross over to France.

France, that let us not forget had colonised Tunisia, (as the Italians had colonised Libya) said it does not want all those Tunisian migrants and will send those holding the Italian residence permits back unless they also have valid identity papers and sufficient funds to support themselves in France.

The Italians are claiming that France was violating the rules of the EU’s Schengen visa-free zone. But France is not budging “France has every right to send them back to Italy... That is what we will do, ” French Interior Minister Claude Gueant.

However, they have agreed to carry out joint patrols off Tunisia's coast to block migrants headed for Europe, with the French interior minister saying there was no duty to take in boat people. So it is not just migrants from Tunisia that are to be blocked but all boat people. What about those escaping from the civil wars in Libya and the Ivory Coast?
Very humanitarian gestures indeed. Instead of sharing the burden send them back.

Meanwhile, The UN High Commission for Refugees, on Friday, called on the European Union to urgently put into place more reliable and effective mechanisms for rescue-at-sea following the large loss of life in the Mediterranean this week.

More than 220 Somali, Eritrean and Ivorian refugees drowned early on Wednesday morning when their boat capsized some 39 nautical miles south of the Italian island of Lampedusa.

“A longstanding tradition of saving lives at sea may be at risk if it becomes an issue of contention between states as to who rescues whom. That is why we urgently need a more operational and better functioning search and rescue mechanism,” said UNHCR Assistant High Commissioner for Protection Erika Feller.

UNHCR also added its voice to the call for active consideration of concrete responsibility and burden sharing measures particularly among EU member countries. Such measures could include technical and financial support, and the use of the EU Temporary Protection Directive, which aims to harmonise temporary protection for displaced people in cases of “mass influx” on the basis of solidarity between member states.

“Although the temporary protection mechanism established by the directive has not been used yet, it is important for EU countries, namely Italy and Malta in this case, to be reassured that such support and solidarity would be forthcoming should the circumstances so demand” said Feller.

Well the circumstances are certainly demanding support and solidarity. Yet the EU is still dragging its feet and few are coming forward to share the burden. Germany has so far said it was prepared to take a100 migrants from Malta. It also took another 100 migrants from Malta last year. All in all less than 300 migrants were resettled by the other 26 member states in three years.

Unfortunately, the “team spirit” and “co-responsibility", which are meant to be embodied in EU solidarity are becoming more and more intangible.

Read More

That dreaded guilt trip

That awful ‘guilt’ of being bad, we Catholics have all been brought up with, rears its nasty head all over again. With the referendum D Day set at May 28, Gozo Bishop Mario Grech is at it once more, “When the personal judgment of a Catholic disagreed with the teachings of Christ as delivered by the Church, that Catholic would not be free of guilt”, he said at the Xewkija parish church last Sunday.

He was of course talking about divorce. I am not sure how many in Xewkija are mulling over the option, but really the message was intended for a much wider audience. Guilt is something the Church uses to cower the faithful and has nothing to do with Christ’s teachings. It has a lot to do with some of the neuroses Catholics, as well as, perhaps even more, Jews (I am thinking of Philip Roth’s Portnoy’s complaint and Woody Allen’s films) suffer from.

The latest guilt trip is being laid on anyone in Malta who might consider that divorce is not such a bad thing per se and might be what some people will actually benefit from. “Divorce and any legal measures that break down a marriage are intrinsically bad since they go against God’s will”, said Bishop Grech. Hang on a minute though; does not a Church annulment give the green light to ‘break down a marriage’? So is that intrinsically bad too?

What really baffles me is how the anti divorce brigade do not see that Church annulments also sanction the break up of families. I had previously referred to an interesting online comment from Mgr.Victor Zammit McKeon quoting from the Compendium of the Catholic Church, which shows that when comparing state divorce to a Church annulment the result is the same. A married couple is allowed to remarry another partner.

“The Church permits the physical separation of spouses when for serious reasons their living together becomes practically impossible, even though there may be hope for their reconciliation.
“As long as one’s spouse lives, however, one is not free to contract a new union, (and here comes the interesting bit) except if the marriage be null and be declared so by ecclesiastical authority.”

So married couples are allowed to remarry but only when sanctioned by the Church. But surely if divorce breaks up families so do annulments. Yet, last October, during Mass marking the start of the forensic year, Judicial Vicar Mgr Arthur Said Pullicino, the head of the Church tribunals, which examine petitions for marriage annulments, told those attending “those who cooperate in the introduction of divorce, including judges who apply the law, would be “committing a grave sin”.

His message was a bit confused, however, on the one hand he called on members of the judiciary and lawyers to desist from taking part in divorce proceedings and be conscientious objectors, while on the other he said, “The lawyer who takes up the case of the innocent party is doing nothing wrong”. But surely the latter would still be part of divorce proceedings.

Describing the “grave sin” threat as “a medieval imposition”, retired judge Philip Sciberras said “I am a practising Catholic but I believe the state is obliged to regulate such situations by introducing laws. Members of the judiciary should not object to hear divorce cases because of some medieval imposition.”

He was not the only critic other former judges and lawyers condemned the threat. Former European Court of Human Rights judge Giovanni Bonello drew a clear distinction between the civil aspect of marriage and its sacramental dimension.

“Mgr Said Pullicino has every right to say a judge of the civil courts has no jurisdiction on the sacrament of marriage but in our country marriage is also a civil contract. A judge in the civil courts deciding on the dissolution of marriage as a civil contract is in no way entering into religious matters. This distinction has to be made,” Judge Bonello told The Times at the time.

Fr Charlo’ Camilleri, a university lecturer in theology, was another of Mgr Said Pullicino’s critics, “In the context of the pastoral note of the bishops on the divorce debate, I personally find it very imprudent, to say the least, for such comments to be made by a high ranking official of the Church, since on this issue, the bishops never threatened anyone – let alone the judiciary, whose independence is a requisite of the Rule of Law – with sin,” he said.

But, we have had threats from Bishop Grech before, no specifically mentioning “sin” but strong stuff nonetheless. In February last year he linked abortion to divorce “Where the family is united, pregnancy is likely to be accepted and celebrated, but where the family is broken, such as in the case of divorced parents, there is a higher probability that life is refused and threatened.” And although he did not mention sin in his last homily his threat was pretty clear.

“The official stand of the Church is only a prerogative of the local bishops,” Fr Camilleri said, pointing out that the bishops had been stressing dialogue and the formation of conscience over “a divisive crusader mentality”. That was in reference to the Zebbug Parish priest who started his own crusade with a huge poster on his church’s parvis - “Divorce: God doesn’t want it” in July.

In August, the Curia’s Pro-Vicar, Mgr Anton Gouder said on RTK that convinced Catholics who voted in favour of divorce would be going against Christ’s teachings and “this was a sin”, while adding “it did not mean people would be excommunicated from the Church”.

What that means is that the Church does not want to lose followers, but wants them to feel bad if they don’t follow its dictate. The Church has been giving mixed messages over the issue all along. On the one hand it endorsed a position paper on divorce, drawn up by seven of its most prominent priests, which while stating that divorce was wrong, said Catholics could vote for divorce so long as they did this on the basis of a “formed and informed conscience”.

But last Sunday the Gozo bishop made it very clear
“When a Catholic formed a judgment of conscience about marriage and all that was connected to it, he had as guidance the Commandments and Christ’s words. These asserted that any legal measures that break down marriage, such as divorce, as well as adultery were intrinsically bad as they were directly opposing God’s will”, he said.

I loved Ramon Casha’s comment online: “Church: You should vote according to your conscience.
Bishop Grech: Yes, but if your conscience disagrees with me you're gonna burn in hell for all eternity. So, no pressure.”

First of all divorce and adultery are two separate entities and different in that many marriages have survived adultery and it is not always the reason for seeking a divorce. Bishop Grech is hell bent on promoting the fear of God; he said “if one consciously breached moral law, he also breached his relationship with God”.

But whose moral law exactly? Has the bishop got a direct line to God like the parish priest of Zebbug? As far as I know the last time God reputedly had a conversation with a mortal was way back at Mount Sinai with Moses, after he led the people of Israel out of Egypt, when the 10 Commandments were delivered.

Divorce was not mentioned. The 7th Commandment told us “You shall not commit adultery” and part of the 10th “You shall not covet your neighbour’s wife.” That of course should include not coveting your neighbour’s husband as well. Anyway, neither of them requires a divorce to commit and have been going on ever since with or without divorce.

We have had sin, guilt and being intrinsically bad, thrown at us, not to mention the linking of divorce with abortion, same-sex marriage and euthanasia.
A Times letter writer told us on April fools’ day: “Wherever I have travelled, to countries that have legalised divorce and abortion, those working to reverse pro-abortion laws all identify that pivotal moment in their history when they irrevocably weakened the family by legalising divorce.

“They recognise that important event as being the beginning of the downward trend that led to legalised abortion and in some cases euthanasia.
The link between the divorce way of thinking and abortion is there for all who bother to look; it remains an inconvenient link for some but it is there.”

Why does The Times publish such balderdash, or was the date of publication deliberate?

Read More

Mother Nature rages while a ‘father’s’ wrath carries on unabated

The world is in turmoil and Mother Nature is certainly raging. Hot on the heels of the earthquake in Christchurch New Zealand, which followed one in Haiti and in Chili and the floods and fires in Australia, the latest 8.9-magnitude earthquake and tsunami in Japan has shocked the world, including the Japanese themselves who normally take earth tremors in their stride.

But the quake on Friday was not the usual quivering and vibration the Japanese usually ignore as they go about their business. The quake that hit the north east coast followed by the tsunami took over all the news channels.

One was reminded of the New York 11/9/2001 images we saw on our TV scenes, in that they looked more like a clip from a disaster Hollywood movie than real life.
Thankfully, the Japanese build structures that withstand earthquakes and the toll would be much higher had the skyscrapers we saw trembling collapsed.

However, nothing could have been done to stop the gigantic size of the wave and speed of the waters that shattered everything in its wake. The current fear is the damage done to the nuclear plants by the quake and a state of emergency has been declared.

While we get alarmist news from broadcasters with talk of a potential ‘meltdown’, experts play the risk down, while stressing that Japan is the most technologically advanced country to cope with such a situation.

The Reports from the National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology in Italy estimated the 8.9-magnitude quake shifted the planet on its axis by nearly 10 centimetres.

It was inevitable, considering the scale of the devastation by the tsunami and disruption to the Japanese infrastructure by the quake, not to mention the videos, that that news would overshadow the situation in the Middle East, particularly Libya.

The no fly zone is still being bandied about while the EU is still "examining all necessary options" to protect civilians. It is, however, complicated, while we see Libyan protestors asking for a no fly zone, there are also signs, as recognised by the US, that NATO intervention would not be welcome. And the UK SAS bungle did not help.

The Arab League was due to hold an emergency meeting in Cairo yesterday, where Gadaffi’s representative was barred from attending, to discuss supporting the imposition of a no-fly zone. I hope a decision will have been reached by the time you read this. A no fly zone called for by the Arab League is what might alleviate the plight of those being brutalised in Libya.

Meanwhile journalists are being further harassed, in China as well, where human rights are also ignored by Western leaders. But back to Libya, On Friday, CNN Senior International Correspondent Nic Robertson and his crew were detained and terrorised in Tajura, east of Tripoli by forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gadaffi. “For a few moments today, for us personally, Libya’s lies and deceit were swept aside and the real deal was brutally exposed.

“We are free to go anywhere, any time, talk to who we want, when we want. That's what Moammar Gadaffi’s son told me, that's what Libya told the UN. We already knew it was all lies – look at any number of our colleagues, arrested, detained, in some cases, beaten – but today it came home to us personally”, he reported.

I must admit I was getting a bit concerned when I read that a Gaddafi representative had arrived and met with our Prime Minister on Wednesday, especially since we were not being told exactly what had been discussed, or any outcome.

But after Lawrence Gonzi met European Commission José Manuel Barroso in Brussels on Thursday night we heard, “We told the Libyans straight and plain that, at this stage, there is no mediation to be done. The Libyan authorities have to listen to the wishes of its people,” adding that he thought that the end of the Gaddafi regime was inevitable.

While it seems that everyone (well almost everyone) now hates Gadaffi (about time), other ‘benign’ dictators in the Middle East are not getting the same coverage. It is not just the cash, however, that is sparing the rulers in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia from overt negative press although protesters are being fired on.

Showing the money certainly helps.
Foreign secretary William Hague (am I the only one to find his voice irksome) had a £1,115 stay in a hotel in Bahrain paid for by the al-Khalifa regime in January, according to the UK’s Private Eye and he is undoubtedly not the only western politician to have benefited from such ‘perks’.

France saw the recent firing of its foreign minister for accepting such perks from the Tunisian regime before the uprising and there is a lot more one can report with a little digging, especially with regard to trade agreements.

The US and other Western leaders also amuse me when they heap praise on the Middle East royal families. They had also made similar remarks and spoken about their close ties with Mubarak (before it was clear he was finished) and gave importance to his role in “security” but not democracy, as though the two are not linked, as they should have learnt by now.

Political parties are banned in Bahrain and protestors where fired on when they took to the streets. Yet, Foreign Office minister Lord Howell, was quoted as saying that Bahrain “was one of the Gulf states that are making most progress on democratic and parliamentary reform”.

However, it has to be said it is not only the chequebook that holds sway for the Middle East royals. They are more sophisticated than the Gadaffis and it is obvious that a western education has not done much for Saif. While playing with the rest of the world’s rich boys he failed to pick up an essential ingredient to their survival – knowing when to shut up.

Read More