Trust politician lawyers to prevaricate and smoothly wriggle their way out of a responsibility they have usurped from the sovereign people, and then throw it back right into the lap of the people through a consultative manoeuvre, which might well be worthless in the end.
Trust politician lawyers to prevaricate and smoothly wriggle their way out of a responsibility they have usurped from the sovereign people, and then throw it back right into the lap of the people through a consultative manoeuvre, which might well be worthless in the end.
Why would the polity do this, especially in the case of divorce? This is because the issue is not whether the polity enacts divorce laws or not. The real issue is that, were the polity to enact such legislations, it would have, first of all, to seek whether it has the constitutional power to do so. That would first and foremost entail consultation and confrontation even in front of the highest courts of the land. This issue is being deliberately excluded all the time and there are occasions when even the hinting of this issue was ‘censured’ by the press. This author had several letters in the press that discussed this topic suppressed in different Maltese and English language weeklies and dailies.
Malta is not just another Catholic country like Ireland and Poland and Austria where divorce laws have been enacted. One only compares like with like. In the above countries, Catholicism may well be the predominant religion but it is still the folk religion. Malta has to be compared to existing Islamic countries and even Old Testament Israel where, like Malta, a religion has been adopted as the state religion. Even if all the Maltese were to renounce the Catholic faith, so long as the second article of the Constitution exists, it will have to be the highest Law Courts of the land that have to decide both the full implications of this article and the limitations this article might impose on the legislator. This is the real issue that is being occluded by means of the rhetoric, which is being dished out as an evasive, obstructionist and time wasting tactic by all sides concerned. Then, again, if such an authoritative definition and interpretation does in fact exist, let us, the people have it without more ado.
If it were to turn out that this article legally impedes the legislator from enacting laws that run counter to Catholic teachings, then, in order to enact in favour of divorce, euthanasia, abortion and what have you, even if the people, on consultation, show that they agree to them, then this second article would have to be removed. Only a two-thirds majority of the polity can do this and this author and others would like to know right now the identity of the two-thirds of the polity who are prepared to vote this article out. Or is it maybe that the people would also be consulted whether to remove or not Article 2? Whatever it is, this writer and thousands like him are insisting on a definite legal definition and interpretation of the implications and obligations, if any, that are imposed on the legislator by Article 2 and not whether we have divorce or not. That comes later.
JPO has been in the limelight lately because he presented a private member’s bill. I am certain, as are several hundreds of thousands of the electorate, that there exists quite a number of MPs from both sides who share his views. They are free to hold their convictions. I ask all or any one of them to answer these questions without prevarication and reservation:
Did they or did they not take an oath of office swearing allegiance to and upholding the laws of the land, including the Constitution, which includes Article 2? How could they move to enact a law that might well be unconstitutional? Why don’t they move for a speedy clarification of the implications and obligations of Article 2 of the Constitution on the legislators, first? If they know the answers, why don’t they make them public?
This is the issue that is actually being discussed by the majority of the people in the street. People that know their own mind have made their choice, one way or another. They do not care whether divorce is good or not, whether it is catholic or not, whether it harms the children or not. They are either for or against. All they need to know now is how the polity that has to legislate stands constitutionally.
As usual, the polity has, till now, cleverly, but exasperatingly for many, evaded the final plunge by opening debates, the promise of passing the dummy through public consultation, and other time-wasting and obstructionist tactics rather than rising to their responsibilities.
As if we have not had enough of this and of them for years.
Frank Galea
ZEBBUG