It is commendable that consideration is being given to how the divorce law can be improved. The manner of its introduction was less than usual and some of the provisions it sets out are quite odd. Understandably so, since it was ushered in by a government which as a matter of principle, objected to it.

Now it seems that there exists a political consensus to confirm divorce as a fact of life in Malta. Indeed, both sides of the House of Representatives believe that if amended, the law could be of better service to citizens. Efforts to update the law should run without allowing partisan calculations from one side or another to distort the process.

It surely should not be used as an excuse to revive the controversies that went on when the proposal to introduce divorce was first launched. And perhaps there might be a need too to consider how the divorce law could itself be related better to the laws about civil unions and marriages between persons of the same sex.

*** 

PRUDENCE

Naturally, the news about the development of Covid-19 vaccines has promoted a sense of optimism among many people. It was what was wanted...

Meanwhile though, we had health authorities in the different countries warning people not to run away with the idea that everything’s over. For we still are placed in the middle of the pandemic’s second wave. Till the vaccine arrives, many people will still die and it is not acceptable that by slackening on precautions as a result of the optimism that is being generated, we behave in a way that triggers additional deaths.

Moreover, it could happen that not all vaccines being produced will be as effective as is being proclaimed. I hope this will not happen but the possibility cannot be totally discounted. The warning not to slacken on precautions too fast, is valid for all.

The government has done well to announce that after the arrival of the vaccine in this counry and while it is being rolled out, precautionary measures will continue to apply.

***

FACING THE COURTS

Some time ago, on Facebook, I criticised the way by which the public enquiry into whether the state failed to safeguard properly the personal securrity of Mrs Caruana Galizia was being conducted. A friend wrote to say that it is not right to denigrate how the judiciary operates. It’s in this way, he opined, that we undermine the respect and esteem we should as a nation, demonstrate towards the rule of law.

I consider this to be fake as an argument since in a democracy, all institutions should remain subject to criticism in a context of transparency and fair play.

Now, somebody else has sent me a copy of another comment published by this same friend about the judgement recently delivered by the courts in a libel case instituted by an actress against it-torċa. His comment was harshly critical of how the court rejected the complaint concerning a photo the actress had herself published in facebook.

It is so astonishing that in this country, many of those who appear as good defenders of justice, in actual fact occupy such a role only when the courts decide in their favour.