Well, you may have not heard the latest news, but the Gift of Life Foundation has decided to re-exhume itself and revive its request for a special clause in the Maltese Constitution that bans abortion. For once, this column will be in synch with rival columnist Daphne. At least on this point we share the same outlook and view.
The news is that Gift of Life’s promoter Mr Paul Vincenti has returned to the public debate with a vengeance.
And he wants a Constitutional clause that will bind future societies according to his religious and ethical values.
It is of course an abominable thing to do, and it goes against the grain of what Europe stands for.
Abortion in Malta is illegal, in stark contrast with the rest of Europe where abortion is possible. And yet Vincenti has managed to turn a non-issue into an issue.
Abortion is not practised in Malta and yet Vincenti, who would do us all a favour if he collected seashells instead of persisting in his obsessive crusade, is convinced that it is a problem.
If a Maltese citizen wishes to perform an abortion abroad, Paul Vincenti can do nothing about it. Thank God for that.
That is all we needed. It isn’t bad enough that Kenneth Demartino’s wardens are flitting around every centimetre of this country. No. What we need now is a freshly baked persecution of women who have decided to end a pregnancy.
In the very near future the disintegration of European borders and citizenship and the ease with which European citizens can travel across the European Union will make the issue of where and when an abortion took place as very irrelevant.
There will come a time when everything will have to be unified, and this will very much bring uniformity between one State and another.
People like Paul Vincenti want to formalise the Institution we call the Church with the State. People like Vincenti are fixated with merging them together, just like the Iranian model where Imams and politicians are one and the same thing; or the Taliban’s vision for Afghanistan, or the Muslim rulers of Sudan.
In tomorrow’s world the distinction between State and Church will have to re-defined.
The local secular movement, however disorganised at present, will flourish.
I would not be too surprised if the Gonzi administration puts few spokes to this natural mutation in society. But as I see it, it is an obligation on the part of the State to protect the interests of future generations, and not only of a bunch of religious zealots.
Joseph Muscat has no…
Which of course brings me to the question of divorce. Entirely unrelated to abortion, but very conveniently, divorce is nonetheless linked to abortion by religious fanatics.
You see a divorcee is a sinner and their only place appears to be Hell.
And this because there is a strong belief that ‘what God has joined together, let no man put asunder [ apart ]” (Matthew 19:6b).
It is of course not the same when we talk of the Lutheran God, the Greek Orthodox God or the Muslim God. The Catholic God seems to be a more inflexible version of modern Christianity even though some time before the 15th century, divorce within the Catholic Church divorce was tolerated.
But however hard it sounds, the whole idea of imposing a religious belief on the whole population has faced some limitations.
Needless to say most people just go ahead and break up, or leave their partner, or accept that their marriage has come to an end. The Church believes it can halt the tide. But as any mariner will recount, tides are never stopped.
To insist, as Minister Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici would, that divorce is not a great idea and that is out of the question, is one way of denying that there is a way ahead for hundreds of failed marriage that has nothing to do with tunnel vision.
The Church is not of the same opinion. I guess they have a right and if I were a practicing Catholic I would think the same. But there are a large number of people who do not synchronize their values to that of the Church.
Retaining the Status Quo
But it is not the Church and its tradition to retain the Status Quo which should concern us.
Really, the issue here is one that very much is related to the State.
The State has to look at the needs of a fast-changing society with little or no time for Church ‘values’.
And yet since politicians are preoccupied with what the Church has to say or will say they refrain from taking a stand.
So, in the case of Joseph Muscat, we are told that he favours a free vote on divorce legislation.
But why a free vote?
One either believes in divorce or does not believe in divorce, and what is wrong in dragging a so-called left wing party to take a stand on divorce?
Joseph Muscat can have the best of both worlds.
The problem is that most people in the Labour party are as conservative as those in the Nationalist party and therefore one should not expect a vote for divorce to pass in parliament.
If Joseph Muscat had the proverbial vision or the gall he would steer his party through the reefs and shallow water and take a clear stand on divorce and finally bring his parliamentary group to back him up.
But a cursory look at his parliamentary group would not inspire any leader to take the plunge.
As things stand, Malta will remain one of the few remaining countries in the European Union without a legal framework for enabling those with a failed marriage a new chance.
It is high time we stop giving in those who impose their ‘values’ on the rest of us.
We desperately need some brave men and women to stand up and take us into the 21st century.
Next Sunday: Tax compliance and the big fish
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
For once, this column will be in synch with rival columnist Daphne. At least on this point we share the same outlook and view.
