Pluraliżmu anke fil-valuri

Wieħed mill-argumenti qawwija li lewnu d-dibattitu dwar id-dħul ta’ Malta fl-Unjoni Ewropeja kien li Malta ħtieġilha tidħol fis-seklu għoxrin qabel ma taħseb biex tissieħeb fl-Unjoni. Kien argumentat li kien hemm il-ħtieġa ta’ progress fuq ħafna fronti qabel ma Malta setgħet tissieħeb fl-UE. In-naħa l-oħra tal-argument, ovvjament, dejjem kien li s-sħubija minnha innifisha setgħet tkun il-katalist għat-tibdil tant meħtieġ fis-soċjetá Maltija. Għax il-bidla tista’ ddum biex isseħħ, imma fl-aħħar mhux possibli li tkun evitata. Kif jgħidu, tardare sí, scappare no!

Malta ssieħbet fl-UE fl-2004. Il-bidla fis-soċjetá Maltija għadha għaddejja, kultant b’ritmu mgħaġġel ħafna. Ir-referendum dwar id-divorzju li sar f’Mejju 2011 ħoloq terrimot, li, nistgħu ngħidu illi għadu għaddej.

Il-liġi dwar l-ugwaljanza fiż-żwieġ li l-Parliament approva iktar kmieni din il-ġimgħa kienet pass ieħor f’din id-direzzjoni. Kienet deskritta bħala “immorali” (Edwin Vassallo), “Marxista” (Clyde Puli), “kommunista” (Herman Schiavone) kif ukoll “tal-Korea ta’ Fuq ” (Tonio Fenech).

Dawn it-tikketti juru kif jaħdem moħħ dawk li qed jirreżistu din il-bidla. Mid-dehra ħadd minn dawn il-kritiċi tal-leġislazzjoni dwar l-ugwaljanza fiż-żwieg ma fehem li dan il-pass kien ukoll il-konsegwenza loġika tal-emenda kostituzzjonali, approvata mill-Parlament fil-leġislatura l-oħra liema emenda kienet iċċarat li d-diskriminazzjoni minħabba l-ġeneru kienet ipprojibita ukoll. L-intolleranti fost l-Insara fostna jgħidu li dawk li jappoġġaw l-ugwaljanza fiż-żwieġ huma “bla valuri”. Dawn għadhom ma irrealizzawx li l-valuri tagħhom m’humiex l-unika valuri. Qed ngħixu f’soċjetá bi pluralitá ta’ valuri. Ħadd m’għandu monopolju, la dwar il-valuri u l-anqas dwar dak li hu tajjeb jew ħażin.

Uħud mill-kelliema ewlenin tal-Opposizzjoni, minkejja li ddikjaraw l-appoġġ għal-liġi taħt konsiderazzjoni, xorta dehrilhom li kellhom jużaw il-ħin ta’ diskorshom bi kliem dispreġġattiv dwar dak propost. Dan il-lingwaġġ mimli insulti użat fid-dibattitu parlamentari sfortunatament jirrifletti fuq l-Opposizzjoni Nazzjonalista kollha, anke fuq dawk li għamlu sforz ġenwin u qagħdu attenti li jużaw  lingwaġġ konċiljattiv biex jikkomunikaw ħsiebijiethom.

L-opposizzjoni konservattiva qegħda fir-rokna. Min-naħa l-waħda riedet tħabbar mal-erbat irjieħ tal-pajjiż li issa kkonvertiet u ser tkun fuq quddiem biex tiddefendi d-drittijiet tal-komunitá LGBTIQ. Min-naħa l-oħra iżda, l-Opposizzjoni ma setgħetx tinjora l-fatt li għad għandha dipendenza qawwija fuq appoġġ minn l-agħar elementi ta’ intolleranza reliġjuża fil-pajjiż, dawk jiġifieri li għadhom iqiesu d-drittijiet LGBTIQ bħal materja ta’ “immoralitá pubblika”.  Edwin Vassallo kien l-iktar wieħed ċar fi kliemu meta iddikjara li l-kuxjenza tiegħu ma tippermettilux li jivvota favur dak li huwa ddeskriva bħala proposta leġislattiva “immorali”.

Fi ftit sekondi Vassallo (u oħrajn) ħarbat dak li kien ilu jippjana Simon Busuttil sa minn meta kien elett Kap tal-PN.  Dan wassal lil uħud biex jispekulaw dwar jekk l-Insara intolleranti, id-demokristjani u l-liberali fil-PN jistgħux jibqgħu jikkoabitaw wisq iktar.

Dan kollu jikkuntrasta mal-mod kif ġiebu ruħhom il-konservattivi fil-Partit Laburista. Dawn, minħabba kalkuli politiċi, ippreferew li jew jibqgħu ħalqhom magħluq inkella qagħdu attenti ħafna dwar dak li qalu. Jidher li tgħallmu xi ħaġa mid-dibattitu dwar id-divorzju!

L-approvazzjoni mill-Parliament tal-liġi dwar l-ugwaljanza fiż-żwieġ huwa pass ieħor il-quddiem favur il-pluraliżmu tal-valuri. Il-Parlament aċċetta l-pluraliżmu tal-valuri u iddeċieda li kulħadd jixraqlu r-rispett. Għandna bżonn nifhmu, lkoll kemm aħna, li qed ngħixu f’soċjetá bi pluralitá ta’ valuri li lkoll jixirqilhom ir-rispett. Hu possibli li ma naqblux, imma li ninsulentaw lil xulxin minħabba li nħaddnu valuri differenti ma jagħmilx sens. Xejn m’hu ser jibdel il-fatt li ħadd ma għandu monoplju fuq il-valuri li f’numru ta’ każi jikkontrastaw.

Malta illum introduċiet l-ugwaljanza fiż-żwieġ. M’aħniex ser indumu biex nindunaw li dan ser jagħmel lis-soċjetá tagħna waħda aħjar, għal kulħadd.

ippubblikat fuq Illum : il-Ħadd 16 ta’ Lulju 2017

Value Pluralism

One of the arguments made during the debate prior to Malta joining the European Union was that before it did so, Malta should open its doors to the 21st century. It was argued that much progress needed to be made before Malta could join the EU. The flip side of this argument was that EU membership could be the right catalyst for change that Maltese society needed, because change can be obstructed and delayed but, in the long term, it cannot be stopped.

Malta did join the EU in 2004 and the opening of the doors (and windows) of change is currently work-in-progress. The divorce referendum held in May 2011 opened the floodgates to a recognition of the fact that Maltese society was in a state of rapid change, making up for lost time.

The Marriage Equality Reform legislation approved in Parliament earlier this week was another step. It was described as “immoral” (Edwin Vassallo), “Marxist” (Clyde Puli), “communist” (Herman Schiavone) or even “North Korean” (Tonio Fenech).

These labels identify the frame of mind of those resisting change. Apparently, none of these critics of marriage equality legislation has yet realised that this step is the direct legal consequence of the Constitutional amendment, approved by Parliament some years back, which spelled out in unequivocal terms the prohibition of discrimination based on gender.

The intolerant Christian right argues that legislation proposing marriage equality is the result of a society which has lost its values. They have not realised that their “values” are not the only ones around: we live in a society where a plurality of values is a fact. The Christian right has no monopoly: either on values or on what is right or wrong.

A number of leading Opposition spokespersons, notwithstanding their declaration of support for the proposed legislation, deemed it fit to hurl never-ending insults against the proposals being debated and all that these represented. This insulting language used during the parliamentary debate is a sad reflection on the whole of the PN Opposition, even on those who sought to apply the brakes and in fact used more conciliatory language to convey their thoughts.

The conservative opposition is in a tight corner. On the one hand it wanted to announce in unequivocal terms its recent “conversion” to championing LGBTIQ rights. At the same time the Opposition could not ignore the fact that it is still chained to an intolerant Christian right which labels LGBTIQ rights as morally reprehensible. Edwin Vassallo was the most unequivocal when he declared that his conscience would not permit him to vote in favour of what he described as an “immoral” legislative proposal.

In a couple of seconds, Vassallo and others blew up what had been carefully constructed by Simon Busuttil since assuming the PN leadership, causing some to speculate whether the cohabitation of the conservative Christian right, Christian Democrats and liberals in the PN can last much longer.

In contrast, even if for political expediency, the conservatives in the Labour Party parliamentary group have either kept their mouth shut or else watched their language. It seems that they have learnt some lessons from the divorce referendum debate.

Parliament’s approval last Wednesday of the Marriage Equality Legislation is another step in entrenching the acceptance of value pluralism. Parliament has accepted value pluralism and decided that it was time to respect everyone.

We need to realise that we form part of a society with a plurality of values, all of which deserve the utmost respect. It is possible to disagree, but insulting people because they have different values than one’s own is not on. A society with a plurality of values is a fact and nobody will or can change that.

Malta has now introduced marriage equality. As a result, our society will show a marked improvement that will have a positive impact on all of us.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday – 16 July 2017

Terrimot fil-Partit Laburista

 

Infqajt nidħaq nisma’ lil Aaron Farrugia, Chairman tal-Fondazzjoni Ideat tal-Partit Laburista ta’ Malta, jipprova jispjega waqt l-aħbarijiet fuq Super One (is-Sibt fil-għaxija) għaliex ġie elett Jeremy Corbyn bħala l-mexxej il-ġdid tal-Partit Laburista Ingliż.

Semma kull raġuni possibli, minnbarra r-raġuni rejali: li Jeremy Corbyn ma jagħmilx kompromessi ma dak li jemmen fih. Kienet l-awtentiċità ta’ Corbyn il-kawża ewlenija tat-terrimot li l-effetti tiegħu għadhom jibdew. Corbyn kien l-unika wieħed mill-kandidati li kien soċjalista u ma jistħix jgħid li hu hekk. Naħseb li Aaron ħassu ħafna imbarazzat li jgħid li osserva dan, ħaga li probabbilment ilu ħafna jinnota ukoll fil-Headquarters tal-Ħamrun.

Fil-bidu tal-kampanja għat-tmexxija tal-Partit Laburista Ingliż fil-Parlament, għall-ħabta ta’ nofs Lulju, il-Gvern Ingliż ressaq abbozz ta’ liġi biex inaqqas il-benefiċċji soċjali. Tlieta mill-kandidati għat-tmexxija Laburista, dakinnhar astjenew fil-votazzjoni. Kien Jeremy Corbyn l-uniku wieħed mill-erba’ kandidati li ivvota kontra dan l-abbozz ta’ liġi.

Rebħa bi kważi 60% tal-voti ma l-ewwel għadd m’hiex ċajta. Id-distakk bejn Jeremy Corbyn u Andy Burnham kienet ta’ tlett darbiet (Burnham ma qabiżx l-20%). L-oħrajn ġiebu inqas!

Il-kampanja għat-tmexxija tal-Partit Laburista Ingliż uriet li hemm distakk kbira bejn dak li jaħsbu l-membri tal-partit u dak li jaħsbu l-Membri Parlamentari tal-istess partit. Bħala riżultat tal-elezzjoni ta’ Jeremy Corbyn diversi membri ewlenin tal-grupp parlamentari ippreferew li jwarrbu jew ma jaċċettawx posizzjoni fis-Shadow Cabinet. Dan ingħata prominenza fil-gazzetti Ingliż matul il-jum tal-bieraħ. Fatt li jista’ joħloq diffikultajiet għal Corbyn mhux biss ta’ natura temporanja.

M’huwiex faċli tgħid kif ser jiżviluppaw l-affarijiet. L-ikbar ostaklu għal Corbyn m’huwiex il-Gvern konservattiv, iżda “sħabu” fil-grupp Parlamenti.

Fil-ġimgħat li ġejjin hemm ippjanati sfidi kbar. Fosthom liġi li tikontrolla lit-Trade Unions u li tfittex ukoll li tnaqqas sostanzjalment il-finanzjament tal-Partit Laburista Ingliż mill-istess Trade Unions. Hi imminenti ukoll deċiżjoni mill-House of Commons dwar l-armamenti nuklejari Inġliżi.

Ser ikunu ġimgħat li fihom nosservaw kemm hu possibli li f’partit politku jikkoeżistu veduti radikalment differenti fuq ħafna affarijiet : fuq l-Unjoni Ewropeja, fuq in-NATO, fuq l-armamenti nuklejari, fuq l-awsterita, fuq l-użu tal-forza militari bħala għodda għall-politika barranija ……………. Kollha materji li dwarhom ftit kien hemm x’tagħżel fil-passat riċenti bejn in-New Labour u l-Konservattivi.

Minn tmiem il-ġimgħa in-New Labour fir-Renju Unit spiċċa. Dawk li sa ftit ġranet ilu kienu meqjusa bħala r-ribelli issa qegħdin fit-tmexxija, u dawk li kienu qed jinsistu fuq il-lealtà lejn it-tmexxija issa qegħdin minn taħt. Id-demokratizzazzjoni tal-partit ser tkun iċ-ċavetta biex il-Partit Laburista Ingliż ma jibqax jistħi jgħid li hu soċjalista. Kollox jiddependi minn kemm l-entużjażmu li nisslet il-kandidatura ta’ Corbyn jibqa’ ħaj fl-egħruq tal-partit. Jekk dan jibqa’, Corbyn ikompli biex jittrasforma l-Partit Laburista Ingliż in konformità mat-twemmin tiegħu. Jekk le, il-partit jerġa’ lura biex ikun kopja tal-konservattivi.

 

The PN (now) needs you

Some, myself included, have received an SOS from the PN. The PN needs “our” input. It implores those receiving its SOS that it urgently requires the inputs of well-intentioned volunteers. Today’s PN leadership wishes to rebuild the party. That is, it wants to reconstruct what its predecessors have demolished.

Now such an exercise requires first and foremost an accurate appreciation of how and why the PN is in its present state.

When one reads through the report analysing the circumstances which led to the PN’s routing, which report was coordinated by current PN Executive Committee President Ann Fenech one can get an inkling as to why the PN is in a state of shambles. This comes through not just by reading the actual report (at least that part of it which is public) but through the line of thought which links each of the 38 pages of what is described as an Executive Summary of the actual report.

Apparently, according to the Ann Fenech report, everyone is at fault, except the PN. The PN was misunderstood and misinterpreted.

Ann Fenech’s report speaks of authorities and civil servants who “sabotaged” the PN-led government. Unfortunately Ann Fenech fails to bring this argument to its logical conclusion: that the PN Ministers and their private secretariats were an incompetent bunch if they did not notice this “sabotage” and take the appropriate action. They were even assisted by Boards, and Committees leading Authorities, sometimes at an exorbitant rate of pay, who at times were more of a rubber stamp than an Authority.

If this reasoning is not analysed and acted upon the reconstruction exercise will be futile as the foundations are the result of a  very weak reconstruction philosophy.

The PN has still not apologised for defying the divorce referendum result in Parliament. Nor has it sought absolution from the cultural community for defying reason in its persistence on the roofless theatre at the Royal Opera House site in Valletta. The PN’s stance on the roofless theatre was one which left no doubt that in the PN’s view everybody was in the wrong, except the PN.

The PN’s arrogance and its lack of social conscience personified in former Minister Austin Gatt and his entourage directing the “reform” of the Malta Drydocks as well as the Public Transport Reform seems to be a non-issue in Ann Fenech’s report.

Also surprisingly absent in Ann Fenech’s analysis is the PN’s shift away from the political centre under Lawrence Gonzi’s stewardship. Lawrence Gonzi inherited a left-of centre PN but when he left the leadership handed over a conservative party to Simon Busuttil. Ann Fenech’s report (as published) is silent on the matter. Most probably Dr. Ann Fenech and fellow co-authors Prof. Mary Anne Lauri, Dr Simon Mercieca, Ms Rosette Thake and Mr Malcolm Custó do not have an inkling as to the actual consequences of the PN in government during the period 2004-2013 moving along a conservative path.

Finally there are those who consider that those who did not support the PN in the March 2013 general elections had no valid reason to do so. In their view they did so as a result of an incorrect appreciation of the situation.

Some have supported and even voted in favour of specific measures adopted by the Lawrence Gonzi led government. These same persons are in the forefront now in 2014 supporting residents who are protesting against these same measures originally adopted by the PN led-government.   How is it possible for the PN and its leadership to be credible when some of its MPs act in this manner?

Crocodile tears will not lead to a reconstruction of the PN.

Published in The Independent Saturday August 16, 2014

Labour : ensuring a smooth transition

Franco Debono has made many a statement during the past 12 months. He abstained when a vote of no confidence was submitted against Minister Austin Gatt. He explained that he did so as he wanted to give the man and his party another chance!

He has been stating for days now, that he will not vote in favour of the budget  because he considers that Austin Gatt should have resigned months ago due to his political failures. Whether  Franco Debono will keep his word is anybody’s guess. But if he does the budget will not be approved. We will have to keep guessing what comes next for some more days.

With this in mind the budget’s relevance is limited.

But we need not panic as Labour will come to the rescue. Labour, we are told, will deliver.

Progressive Labour will deliver income tax revised rates which will ignore low wage earners and reduce tax payable to those who are already reasonably well off. No tax deductions can be guaranteed for low wage earners by Labour.

Progressive Labour, like conservative PN, does not agree with the need to revise the minimum wage. It is not in the interest of employers to do so. And it is their vote which progressive Labour is after.  The employers’ vote, that is!

Why should progressive Labour accept the GWU’s proposal to have the cost of living adjustment paid in two installments?  There is consensus between the PN and Labour that the GWU’s proposals should be ignored. It is only Alternattiva Demokratika which has offered support for a progressive incomes policy as proposed by the GWU.

Labour, the progressive party, has opted for a conservative approach: the PN’s approach. It is the only way forward as in this way it ensures a smooth transition,  continuity and stability!

…………… and they looked from pig to man and from man to pig again and could not tell which was which.  The more things change, the more they remain the same.

published at di-ve.com  on Friday 30 November 2012

The Politics of Divorce

 

Legislation in favour of divorce already exists in Malta. No one has complained about it throughout the 36 years of its existence. A yes vote on May 28 will be a vote in favour of extending its applicability.

The 1975 Marriage Act had introduced divorce in Malta through the back door by recognising divorce decrees granted in foreign jurisdictions.

Since then, 785 persons (presumably Maltese), have made use of this right, having their marriage dissolved in various foreign countries.

This was subsequently recognised in Malta through the registration of their divorce in the Public Registry.

Of these divorce decrees, 422 were issued in the UK and 112 were issued in Australia as was indicated in a recent reply to a parliamentary question.

Divorce is a civil right that is not yet fully recognised in Malta. It is only partially recognised. Only those who have been domiciled abroad or those who have access to foreign jurisdictions (while resident in Malta) have access to this civil right.

It is as yet forbidden territory to the rest. A yes vote on May 28 will render divorce a civil right accessible to all Maltese and not just to a select few.

Divorce is an issue of political controversy even though it has been avoided by the parliamentary parties. They avoided it until such time that they could not ignore the Private Member’s Bill presented by Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and Labour MP Evarist Bartolo. These MPs took a leaf out of the Greens’ electoral manifesto which, since 1989 (when Alternattiva Demokratika was founded), has identified divorce as an attainable political objective.

In Malta, those insisting that divorce is not a political issue do so to justify the position adopted by either of the two parliamentary parties. Both the PN and the PL want to distance themselves from the divorce referendum in order to be able to immunise themselves from the political fallout of the referendum result. Both fear the impact of the result (and the campaign leading to it) on the cohesion of their political base, irrespective of whether the yes or the no wins.

It is time to stand up and be counted.

One cannot run with the hares and simultaneously hunt with the hounds. The PN is aware its no stance makes it difficult to retain the support of those among its ranks who favour divorce. Likewise, Labour is aware that some of its supporters still seek the guidance of the parish priest in resolving their dilemmas. References to fire and brimstone and eternal damnation could obviously be intended to help the PL and its supporters make up their mind!

These are considerations which are factored into the mathematics of divorce politics. This leads to the reason for shifting the decision on divorce away from its appropriate forum in Parliament onto the electorate’s lap. None of the parliamentary parties wants to be lumped with political responsibility for introducing divorce as both fear electoral retribution, which, even if marginal, could be a determining factor in the forthcoming polls.

The PN and the PL have successfully avoided mentioning divorce in all their electoral manifestos but then they proceeded to use this same avoidance in order to justify Parliament’s inability to act. While this is a disservice to the community, obviously, Malta has the MPs it deserves.

After 22 years AD is still the only political party in Malta which supports divorce legislation. The PN, true to its conservative pedigree, is unsurprisingly against while “progressive” Labour has no official position although, as a consolation prize, we have been informed its leader is “personally” in favour.

The parliamentary debate on the referendum has also spotlighted another interesting matter.

The utterances of a number of MPs are in stark contrast to the manner they speak and act in private. Well, they are very careful in order not to prejudice what’s left of their political career. It is clear that consistency is a value that is not appreciated in the House.

As matters stand, the state in Malta decided way back in 1975 that divorce is to be available only to those who have access to foreign jurisdictions. In respect of all others, the Maltese state decided there should be no access to divorce. A yes vote on May 28 will remove the Maltese state from the equation and will grant the opportunity to each and every individual to take his/her own decisions in the light of his/her beliefs and values.

The position of those who do not accept divorce is protected as no one will ram divorce down their throats. But they will also be in such a position that they will no longer be able to impose “their values” on others.

(published on Saturday, April 30, 2011)

Id-Divorzju : ħawwadni forsi nifhem (4)

(4) Il-Partit Progressiv ; fejn hu ?

Il-Partit Laburista għandu mexxej li stqarr li personalment hu favur id-divorzju imma jemmen li jrid iħalli lil kulħadd fil-liberta’ li jiddeċiedi skond il-kuxjenza.

Posizzjoni nobbli ħafna kieku, sakemm tinduna għalfejn. 

Għax Joseph Muscat qiegħed f’dilemma. Jemmen li bħala partit “progressiv” mhux biss għandu jkun favur id-divorzju imma għandu jkun fuq quddiem. Imma rrealizza li fuq din il-materja l-partit tiegħu m’hu progressiv xejn : hu konservattiv daqs il-PN.

Issa mill-PN tistenniha. Kien konsistenti ma dak li stqarr tul is-snin. Ngħiduha kif inhi: qatt ma stennejt li l-PN ikun favur id-divorzju. Forsi hemm xi żewġ membri parlamentari oħra li huma favur id-divorzju imma iddeċidew li joqgħodu lura. Imma xejn iktar mill-PN. Diġa qalu izjed milli mistenni Jeffrey Pullcino Orlando, Jesmond Mugliette u Karl Gouder.

Imma minn partit li jiddeskrivi lili nnifsu bħala “soċjalista, progressiv u moderat” kont nistenna mod ieħor. Li jkollok Membru Parlamentari wieħed jew tnejn li jaħsibha differenti wieħed jistenniha. Imma li l-parti l-kbira tal-Membri Parlamentari tal-Labour qed jaħsbuha, jistudjaw, għadhom ma qrawx il-liġi ……. tindika affarijiet oħra.

Qiegħed jirriżulta li l-Partit Laburista taħt Joseph Muscat huwa partit konservattiv.

Id-Divorzju : ħawwadni forsi nifhem (3)

(3) Bejn kalkoli u realta’  

L-issues f’dan id-dibattitu qed jiżviluppaw kontinwament. Il-posizzjonijiet huma fluwidi ħafna b’mod partikolari fiż-żewġ partiti l-kbar. L-ebda wieħed mill-partiti l-kbar m’hu kompatt. Dan hu normali f’pajjiż demokratiku u f’soċjeta’ li qed tinbidel. 

Il-PN ħa posizzjoni kontra l-introduzjoni tad-divorzju.  Huwa konxju li fil-PN innifsu hemm opinjonijiet oħra. Mhux biss ta’ dawk li esprimew ruħhom pubblikament. Iżda ukoll ta’ dawk li fissru l-fehma tagħhom wara l-bibien magħluqin. Kemm fil-laqgħat formali tal-Kumitat Eżekuttiv tal-PN kif ukoll f’laqgħat oħra informali li jsiru kontinwament.

M’għandix dubju li fil-grupp parlamentari tal-PN hemm min ser isibha diffiċli biex jittraduċi fehma favur id-divorzju b’vot favur fil-Parlament. Dan minħabba l-kalkoli politiċi. Dan hu riżultat tal-fatt li s-soċjeta’ tagħna qed tinbidel bil-mod. Dak li qed jgħidu u jagħmlu l-Membri Parlamentari mhux neċessarjament li jirrifletti l-valuri tal-votanti. 

Il-familja ukoll qegħda fi stat ta’ metamorfosi. Il-familja reali m’għadhiex dik tradizzjonali iżda l-istat miexi bil-mod wisq biex jirrikonoxxi l-uġiegħ ta’ nies u l-forom ġodda ta’ familja li ilhom is-snin li nibtu fostna. Mhux il-punt jekk taqbilx jew le. Iżda li tiftaħ għajnejk għar-realta. 

Il-Labour għandu nukeju immexxi minn Joseph Muscat u rappresentat prinċipalment minn Evarist Bartolo li jaċċetta d-divorzju. Pero’ għandu numru mhux żgħir ta’ Membri tal-Parlament li huma inċerti dwar x’ser jagħmlu. Ta’ l-inqas dik l-impressjoni li jagħtu ħafna minnhom ħlief Adrian Vassallo li fuq din il-materja tad-divorzju għandu ideat ċari u huwa iktar konservattiv mill-PN.  Bosta mill-Membri Parlamentari l-oħrajn qed jistudjaw, huma inċerti, għad iridu jaqraw il-liġi, qed jieħdu l-pariri …………. għadhom qed jagħmlu l-kalkoli.

Il-Labour qiegħed fi stat ta’ transizzjoni bejn il-veduti konservattivi li qed tirriġetta bil-mod s-soċjeta’ Maltija u viżjoni progressiva tas-soċjeta li tirikonoxxi l-uġiegħ tan-nies u r-realta’ ta’ forom alternattivi ta’ familja.

Alternattiva Demokratika (AD) hi l-uniku partit politiku kompatt dwar id-divorzju. Il-fatt li  hu partit żgħir u bi storja riċenti hu ta’ relevanza kbira għal dan.

AD biss għandha l-appoġġ tal-votanti tagħha favur id-divorzju. Dan għax sa mit-twaqqif ta’ AD fl-1989 iddikjarat ruħha favur id-divorzju u inkludiet proposti konkreti f’dan is-sens f’kull programm elettorali u ċjoe f’dawk għall-elezzjonijiet ġenerali tal-1992, 1996, 1998, 2003, 2008.   

 

Qegħdin f’salib it-toroq : fit-triq diffiċli bejn il-kalkoli u r-realta’. L-uġiegħ tan-nies qiegħed hemm fejn jarah kulħadd jistenna l-Parlament jiċċaqlaq.

Ir-referendum jidher li ser ikun l-għodda magħżula biex tħoll il-kobba. M’hiex l-aħjar għodda. Għax id-drittijiet ċivili naddottawhom billi nimmaturaw u nifhmu li hemm opinjonijiet differenti li jistgħu jeżistu flimkien. Opinjoni ma teskludix oħra.

M’huwiex faċli li tgħid x’ser tkun il-konkużjoni. Għalhekk l-inċertezza fost il-Membri tal-Parlament li huma imdorrijin jiddeċiedu f’termini ta’ maġġoranza u minoranza hi kbira.

Għad jonqos ir-rispett ta’ opinjonijiet differenti u r-rikonoxximent tal-fatt li forom differenti ta’ familja diġa’ jezistu.  Avolja l-istat Malti ma jirrikonoxxihomx. L-introduzzjoni tad-divorzju hu pass importanti f’din it-triq tal-għarfien tar-realta’. L-uġiegħ tan-nies qed jistenna.