|
Emmy Bezzina is the Curia’s worst enemy. But does his idiosyncrasy endanger the credibility of the greater lobby that wants divorce? 
Emmy Bezzina wants to lead a movement for change. In the coming weeks, he is expected to launch a political party which, so far, has no name, and only two visible candidates. Himself, and longstanding acolyte John Zammit, otherwise the figurehead for the Malta-North Korea Friendship Society (sic) and along with Bezzina in the Men’s Rights Association (double sic) and the Malta Divorce Movement.
“I know what the stigma of separation feels like,” Bezzina says, whose party is expected to launch an attack against the ‘hypocrisy of the nation.’ But thankfully, he muses, there are changes brewing underway: “Young people today no longer have any confidence in the institutions. The rate of cohabitation is alarming. And today we can speak more freely than before.
“I tell priests who disagree with abortion: ‘please. Who the hell are you? Have you any idea what it feels like for a woman who has been raped, or who suffers from a painful sickness and doesn’t want to carry the burden of pregnancy?’ Please let the people decide for themselves. Everybody has their own god within themselves, and everyone should be free to decide for themselves.”
Emmy Bezzina’s forthcoming candidature to the European Parliament, alongside Zammit, is carrying the banner of the civil rights ‘movement’ aloft. However, there are no disciples in the midst. His liberal-left ticket – the introduction of divorce, abortion, gay rights for couples, cohabitation rights and rights for children born out of wedlock, are issues which enjoy a support that is, however, not in sight behind the Bezzina-Zammit tag team.
“We believe there is a sufficient intelligent percentage of the electorate that has our views at heart. There is at least 20 per cent of voters who know the PN is a corrupt party, a dirty party, one that only wants power, and which even gets rid of its own supporters and those who disagree with the party.”
Bezzina wants to get the ball rolling for the introduction of divorce. A lawyer who for years has specialised in family rights, he has been lambasted for his views on divorce and the Curia finds no favour with him:
“I was refused a warrant to represent my clients in the Ecclesiastical Tribunal because of my views on divorce, which was communicated to me in writing after having faithfully completed a course on canonical law organised by the Curia. Officially they did not have the courage to tell me why they would not give me the warrant,” Bezzina says.
The Curia has been at the heart of a catalysing force on the Maltese islands to have divorce curbed as much in discourse, as in legal possibility. In 1995, the marriage laws of 1975 fell victim to the talks which had been held by Guido de Marco and Eddie Fenech Adami with the Papal Nuncio, and were eventually changed so that civil law is subordinate to the Ecclesiastical Tribunal.
“If there is an institution that does not believe in democracy, it is the Ecclesiastical Tribunal, which is a totalitarian institution that only seeks to impose its law. These are the alliances that exist between the Curia and the PN, because this is the power that the Nationalist government gave to the Ecclesiastical Tribunal.
“In March 1995, the law that was passed decreed that any procedures commenced within the Tribunal by a couple already undergoing a marital separation in the Civil Courts, would mean that civil proceedings would have to stop.
“Another obscenity is that any decision taken by the Ecclesiastical Tribunal has to be accepted by the Appeals Court. That is nothing but discriminatory against those who want to respect the sovereignty of a free Malta and those of other beliefs. Our party is going to be fighting these abuses.”
Bezzina is however an idiosyncratic product of the island’s liberal forces. His raging critique of the Maltese Curia and its longstanding alliance with the PN infuriates him to the extent that his rancour may alienate part of the lobby that wants divorce without upsetting so much of the system in the process.
“I don’t think our discourse will provide any shock factor. Many Nationalist and Labourite candidates are effectively people who have enjoyed big salaries and golden handshakes from the two parties. For example, the MEP candidates were chosen by the Nationalist Party and the MLP for an ulterior scope, to have party puppets sitting in the European Parliament.
“We also know that the Church wants to keep its absolute dominance, as in the case of marriages, on moral and social life. This enables it to keep a closer eye on that part of the population that for reasons of morality, belief in mortal sin and eternal salvation, can only seek the church for refuge.
“But our Party’s sincerity will be our guarantee to the people. In life there comes a certain experience which spurns you on to offer your contribution in the hope that mediocrity, hypocrisy, insularity and the manipulation we have in Malta will not be found in the rest of Europe.
“Maltese society is controlled by the Maltese Curia, the Nationalist Party and the Malta Labour Party. We believe these are issues which touch the soul of the Maltese family and this party will be speaking out on these issues.”
Bezzina may as well keep his feet to the ground for the time being. He hopes, however, that the European liberal and rational traditional will manage to cut down Nationalist conservatism to size, and possibly arm-twist Lawrence Gonzi into bringing civil rights up to a European level.
“It’s quite risible having to see Gonzi run around all the localities like a little boy saying the PN candidates are the ‘only’ choice for the European Parliament since they will be part of the European Popular Party, and therefore the largest political grouping in the EP. He only wants to hide his Party’s defects from the rest of Europe by having greater control. A case in point is Joe Borg’s, the Maltese Commissioner-designate to the EU interview in the European Parliament, where he had to face some tough cookies who asked him some delicate questions, and in the end he had to accept that he had nothing against abortion. This is sounding the alarm bells, because it pre-empts a U-turn on divorce, cohabitation, gay rights and on children born out of wedlock.”
|
