Ara kif tista’ tagħmel differenza b’dan il-kalendarju

Ara kif tista’ tagħmel differenza b’dan il-kalendarju

Il-Fondazzjoni LifeNetwork Malta b’appell għal kalendarju tal-avvent

Diċembru huwa sinonimu mal-kalendarju tal-avvent, kalendarju li ta’ kuljum jagħtik rigal. X’taħseb li kieku din is-sena minflok tirċievi, tkun inti li tagħti rigal ċkejken kuljum? LifeNetwork Malta qiegħda toffrilek din l-opportunità.

Din l-organizzazzjoni volontarja, li tiddependi ħafna fuq il-ġenerożità tal-poplu Malti, tgħin lil tfajliet u nisa li jsibu ruħhom f’diffikultà waqt it-tqala billi toffri pariri professjonali u sapport.

Din is-sena minħabba l-pandemija, LifeNetwork Malta għandha bżonn iżjed għajnuna minn qatt qabel. Inti, flimkien mal-membri tal-familja tiegħek jew anke sħabek tista’ tagħmel differenza billi kuljum tpoġġi ġo kaxxa oġġett mil-lista ta’ hawn taħt. Wara l-25 jum, il-kaxxa tkun imtliet b’25 prodott u tistgħu tmorru biha fl-uffiċċju ta’ LifeNetwork Malta l-Belt Valletta jew inkella d-Dar Tgħanniqa t’Omm il-Mosta.

Bħala ringrazzjament, għal kull kaxxa li inti tagħti bħala donazzjoni, tingħata kalendarju tal-LifeNetwork Malta għas-sena 2021. Għal aktar informazzjoni tista’ ċċempel fuq 77115433.

This is a www.newsbook.com.mt opinion piece

Ref: https://newsbook.com.mt/ara-kif-tista-taghmel-differenza-bdan-il-kalendarju/?fbclid=IwAR0Jo0KdeIeGlDZm2sZtu51SjY7yjaQaPAfdlTzEp4Pj0sWTCqvVlh5PVTY

Watch out for your rights! – Arthur Muscat

Watch out for your rights! – Arthur Muscat

Equality ministry is antagonising many citizens, institutions and organisations

It would be a very condemnable undertaking but you may wake up one morning short of money and decide to stage a bank robbery. Rest assured that if you eventually action your criminal plan and get caught, unless and until your guilt is proven, beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law, your innocence status is protected.

If the ministry responsible for equality has its way, this fundamental human right will be taken away from you. In respect of equality and discrimination offences that you may be accused of allegedly committing, two acts being currently discussed in a parliamentary committee will remove this fundamental human right.

For such alleged offences you will now be a priori considered guilty and you will remain so unless and until you manage to disprove your accuser and prove your innocence.

Furthermore, facing your accuser, you will have to prove your innocence not in our established law courts, with all the guarantees of impartial and experienced magistrates and judges, no, not at all. In respect of such offences you will be tried by a sort of board made up of four lawyers plus a lay person, appointed to judge and sentence you on the basis of a majority vote.

The four lawyers on this board must each have five years’ work experience in issues relating to the right to equal treatment and non-discrimination. Explicitly, the fifth lay member must have at least five years’ experience working in this equality ‘sector’.

Now don’t we all know about the prevalent mindset of most operators in this ‘sector’? Is anyone convinced of the impeccable credentials of such members for impartiality? These people, judges in what will be a court of law, will have the power, if you do not manage to prove your innocence, to slap you with a whopping €10,000 fine, plus a tarnished reputation.

In addition to setting up the board, these acts will endow an existing Equality Commission with further very extraordinary powers. For example, measures for the advancement of gender balance, in public and private institutions, will fall within the remit of this commission with extremely enhanced enforcement powers. The filling of vacancies in the public sector may, or will, through quotas, be made subject to gender balance considerations.

Powerful lobbies of ‘minority groups’ have run away with a preposterous and exaggerated discrimination and equality agenda– Arthur Muscat

Due to such quotas, as imposed, inferior male applicants, to fill quotas, may take precedence over better qualified and meritorious females. Gender balance may, or will be made to, take precedence over meritocracy and this is how these acts will mess up another human right, a right to be considered on your worth and not on your gender. This intrusion into the right to select on merit may extend into the private sector in, for example, appointments to the board of directors of private companies.

It has been established that the proposed ‘equality act 2019’ and the ‘human rights and equality commission act 2019’ go far in excess of EU discrimination and equality legal requirements. It appears that particular ambiguous and experimental clauses of these acts will be scrutinised by EU observers eager to see the outcome of this intrusion into delicate and risky unexplored territory.

Is Maltese society so far advanced and liberal on these issues to become the leader and inspiration to the rest of Europe? I am not at all convinced, more so when I recall that, way back, former minister Helena Dalli flippantly expressed herself in the sense that, to her, a vast section of the Labour electorate was unable to comprehend the outrageous implications of particular proposed pieces of legislation.

Few people are realising how powerful lobbies of ‘minority groups’, seemingly controlled by extremists, facing a ministry engaged in a vote harvesting exercise, have run away with a preposterous and exaggerated discrimination and equality agenda. To be fair, many entities are now reacting as their members will be negatively affected by these acts as drafted. Doctors, pharmacists, conscientious objectors, employers, Church authorities, education professionals, so many focused NGOs, and significantly so many citizens have raised serious objections to these acts and are currently engaged in fighting their cause.

No doubt, we do need some updated legislation to counter persistent unacceptable and shameful treatment of women and minority groups. We do need to make possible clear and timely justice procedures to victims of discrimination and inequality. We need effective rules and more resources that will strengthen the ability of a commission like the NCPE to continue influencing society to change, to make people behave in a fair and non-discriminatory manner.

However, it is one thing to influence and educate towards ethical behaviour but it is completely something else to bully, push and coerce towards arbitrarily defined behaviours and this backed up by an abusive legal framework.

We should be careful before we invent additional tribunals that we do not need, tribunals that do not feature due guarantees of fairness and impartiality to accused citizens.

The positive features of our judicial set-up need to be strengthened, more appointments of, and training for, judges and magistrates, more streamlined and timely judicial proceedings that will make justice more expeditious, less costly, less intimidating and easily accessible to all.

Surely from a jurisdictional angle competently tackling issues of discrimination and equality is not an unreachable objective.

The ministry responsible for equality must understand that these acts, with their many aggressive and erroneous clauses and definitions, are antagonising so many citizens, institutions and organisations. Equality and prevention of discrimination, correctly considered, are issues that should have us converge and unite and not cause alienating confrontations.

Short of completely dropping them, the ministry must definitely revisit these two draft acts and erase those passages that threaten the rights and perturb the peace of mind of the vast majority of citizens.

 

This is a timesofmalta.com opinion piece

Ref: https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/watch-out-for-your-rights-arthur-muscat.835799

Police inaugurate unit focused on tackling domestic violence

Police inaugurate unit focused on tackling domestic violence 

Cases to be investigated by trained professionals

A new police unit to handle domestic violence and gender-based crime was inaugurated on Monday.

The setting up of the unit means such cases will no longer be investigated by district police but handled by a team of professionals who have been given specialised training, Police Commissioner Angelo Gafa said.

The unit was inaugurated by Gafa together with Home Affairs Minister Byron Camilleri and the prime minister’s wife Lydia Abela.

The commissioner said that since assuming his role, he had made the handling of domestic violence one of his priorities. 

The police receive some five reports of domestic violence daily.

The 25 officers deployed to the new units are helping 300 victims, 90 of whom are men. 

“Last September when we renewed the mission statement to take into account the current context of policing, we pledged a professional and trusted policing service to ensure safety and security in partnership with the community,” Gafa said. 

“When it comes to tackling domestic violence I feel we have implemented this to a tee.”

He observed that more victims were coming forward to report cases, in what was seen as testament that the public felt more secure in going to the police. 

Camilleri said domestic violence was a scar on society which must not be fought only by the police but everybody who came across it. 

“This crime cannot be justified and no one has the right to inflict violence on anybody, be it their partner or any member of the family,” he said. 

He added that all members of the police corps were receiving training on how to receive victims of domestic violence and that other initiatives had been carried out to bring officer’s training up to date, such as a virtual reality simulator. 

“We want to continue fighting the stigma that surrounds reporting the perpetrators of violence. It is not the victims who should feel ashamed but those who commit the violence.”

Lydia Abela said that in her profession as a lawyer, she had met many women seeking to flee abusive relationships. She praised the initiative to set up the unit in an effort to encourage more people to report such crimes.  

She was confident that the unit would provide much-needed support to victims because they would find someone to listen to them and help them and their children get out of that situation. 

“Society rarely talks about these issues, but it is important that everyone who can, takes steps to work against domestic violence,” she said. 

This is a timesofmalta.com opinion piece

Ref: https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/police-inaugurate-unit-focused-on-tackling-domestic-violence-gender.835619

The Truth About Emergency Contraception (MAP)

The Truth About Emergency Contraception (MAP)

We have a duty as scientists and healthcare professionals – and as humans – to expose the fallacy that emergency contraception (EC) – the “morning-after pill” – is not abortifacient. To do this I have drawn up the following write-up, which is also a synopsis of a previous piece, which, also rests on the evidence given by other scientists and medical professionals who have contributed in this field, in scientific, medical, legal and ethical research and literature.

Two of the reasons why I am writing again is because it is disquieting that we are faced with misinformation again and that pharmacists might be obliged to sell ECs, even if it goes against their conscience and morals. It is not equality at all to be ok with offending the sentiments of a particular group in order not to offend those of another category. It is evident that this is exactly the opposite.

Despite all considerable evidence regarding the abortifacient effect of ECs, some continue to deride those who maintain that ECs are abortifacient. Their arguments can hold water, only if one accepts the definition of conception, that is, the implantation of a fertilized ovum, adopted by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) in the 1960. For the rest of the world, or at least most of it, fertilization and conception are synonymous and mark the beginning of a new living organism.  (Charlotte Lozier Institute 2014, Sadler and Langman 2010, O’Rahilly and Müller 1996, Moore and Persaud 1993). 

However, our modern abortionists have become past masters of double-talk and the art of equivocation. For example, they substitute product of conception for pre-born child or by using the word choice instead of abortion. A word like abortion is too ugly and violent and sends negative messages. Indeed, all abortionists see red when one insists on conscience rights and conscientious objection. They are the most belligerent votaries of the cult of “the politically correct”. Serious scientific and scholarly research has proved that most popular emergency “contraceptives” can cause the death of embryos. For the sake of intellectual honesty, this truth must be accepted and acknowledged. Only thus, can we take informed decisions. But even if we refuse to look at the scientific truth in the face, as humans, we ought to feel prickly pangs of conscience when terminating the joy of a new birth.

However, our modern abortionists have managed to find a way to numb conscience. The equivocation is camouflaged in the prefix “pre“:  so, they have invented pre-pregnancy, pre-fertilization, pre-embryo and even such a meaningless word as pre-life when life exists already. Therefore, it is best to stick to scientific facts and base our arguments on empirical surveys. In case of EC we must stress clarity and follow the American maxim and say, “It walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it is a duck”. To start with, following are a few (of the multitude) scientific definitions on the beginning of life:

  • “Human development begins at fertilization, when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, the zygote(one cell embryo). This highly specialised, totipotent cell (capable of giving rise to any cell type) marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” (The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, Saunders 2016).
  • “Human pregnancy begins with the fusion of an egg and a sperm within the female reproductive tract.” (Human Embryology and Developmental Biology. Elsevier, Saunders, 2014).
  • “The seminal question in modern developmental biology is the origins of new life arising from the unification of sperm and egg.” (Gene expression during the oocyte-to-embryo transition in mammals. Evsikov AV, Marín de Evsikova C. Molecular Reproduction and Development, 2009).

 

The above quotations from scientific and medical sources prove that fertilization is synonymous with the very first instance of human life. So, it follows that any artefact terminating the result of fertilization is indeed an abortifacient. Therefore, whether ECs can induce abortion depends upon when a new human life begins. The scientific reality is that when a human egg and sperm unite (fertilization), the newly formed being contains the full genome in which hair and eye colour, gender and all physical characteristics are determined.

In the first hours of existence, the embryo signals the mother to lower her immune system, prompting her body mechanism to release the Early Pregnancy Factor and this protein is detectable in maternal blood as early as 24 hours after fertilization (Charlotte Lozier Institute 2014). During its journey down the fallopian tube, the fertilized egg is actively growing and dividing itself. It will implant in the uterine lining where it will continue to grow. One of the ways ECs may work is to alter the uterine lining so that a fertilized egg (the embryo) may not be able to implant and grow (Kahleborn, Stanford, Larimore 2002, Kahlenborn, Peck, Severs, 2014, Mozzanega and Cosmi 2010, Peck and Vélez 2013, Morris and van Wagenen 1973, Rabone, 1990, Stratton et al 2010, Turlock Pregnancy Center 2016).

Also, certain ECs have inferior effect on ovulation than other ECs (Brache, Cochon, Deniaud, and Croxatto, 2013). So other mechanisms of action would prevail to stop the process of life. What are these?

An interesting fact is that mifepristone, which is marketed (in various countries) as an abortion pill, is also used (at lower doses) as an EC. Mifepristone effectively kills embryos in approximately six weeks after implantation. Mifepristone is also molecularly very similar to ulipristal acetate, the active ingredient of mainstream EC. It may be taken within 120 hours (five days) of unprotected sex or contraceptive failure (such as a tear in a condom during sex)!

So, the term “Morning-After pill” is also a misnomer! In the 2010 study of Stratton et al mifepristone and ulipristal acetate were compared. The following is a self-explanatory excerpt. (Here, one has to keep in view that mifepristone has also an abortive effect because it causes reduction in molecular markers for implantation, progesterone action and endometrial thickness): “….either effect of CDB-2914 [ulipristal acetate], endometrial atrophy or combined proliferation (endometrial hyperplasia – tissue growth), however, may hamper implantation. 

Single dose of CDB-2914 given to normal women at other times of the cycle have yielded effects similar to mifepristone’s on the endometrium, ovary and menstrual cycle.

In the luteal phase, a single 200mg mid-luteal dose of CDB-2914 caused early menses and less frequently functional luteolyses, as did 200mg of mifepristone [as an abortifacient it is marketed as 200mg tablets]. Lower amounts of mifepristone (10mg) administered twice in the mid-luteal phase induced stormal edema and delayed glandular development without changes in the cycle length. With a single late-follicular dose, luteal phase endometrial maturation was delayed in 70% of the biopsies at each dose of CDB-2914 (10, 50 and 100mg) compared with 17% in the placebo group. A delay in ovulation and suppression of estradiol levels was less frequently observed and was dose dependent. Similarly, 100mg of mifepristone administered from days 10 to 17 delayed both ovulation and endometrial maturation… In contrast to histologic dating, molecular markings of implantation and progressive action and decreased endometrial thickness were reduced by CDB-2914 in a dose dependent fashion.”

In Destroying unwanted embryos in Research: Talking Point on morality and human embryo research, Thomas Douglas and Julian Savulescu of EMBO (European Molecular Biology Organisation 2009), estimate that more than 50% of embryos die within eight weeks of conception, even if no direct actions are taken to end their lives. This vulnerability has also been unbelievably posited as a justification for considering implantation as the beginning of pregnancy, even the beginning of Life. So, here, the reasoning is that the phase following fertilization until implantation is a pre-pregnancy phase. By this reasoning even lethal experiments could be performed on pre-implantation human embryos. Yet, this fragile creature is indisputably human. His or her vulnerability should rather be a call for greater care than for annihilation (European Molecular Biology Organisation 2009). In plain language, we are aware of the vulnerability of embryos and yet, instead of striving to protect them even more, we use it as a prime justification for destroying them. But abortionists are not destroying life, it is a thing called pre-“something”. Abortionists seek excuses to terminate Life and to distort facts, they insult in their faces those parents who have lost a child, be it through a miscarriage or at a later stage in life.

I have gone into perhaps fastidious details to prove that the Morning After Pill is an abortifacient by any other name, but we are free to refuse to listen to reason and science and continue on the way to oblivion. Even at this late hour, it is not too late. All stakeholders must step forward to convince that it is both inhuman and self-defeating to terminate the unborn. Nice words can never hide ugly deeds.

 

Jean Pierre Fava holds a B.Sc. (Hons.) and M.Sc. in Health Science

This is a independent.com.mt opinion piece

Ref: https://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2020-11-29/newspaper-opinions/The-truth-about-emergency-contraception-6736229001

President urged to safeguard right to conscientious objection

President urged to safeguard right to conscientious objection

The Chamber of Pharmacists has written to President George Vella asking for his intervention to safeguard the right to conscientious objection for pharmacists and other health care professionals.

The request was made in view of the current debate in parliament on the Equality Bill which the chamber views as breaching this right.  It did not specify any examples, but over the past weeks Parliamentary Secretary Rosianne Cutajar insisted that every pharmacy in Malta should sell the morning-after pill.

In September, fourteen associations representing various medical specialities in a statement also called for the inclusion of a conscientious objection clause in the Bill, endorsing a draft amendment proposed by the Medical Council.

“Doctors should not be faced with clinical situations where they are forced to act against their ethical convictions or be deemed liable if they exert their freedom of conscience,” the associations said.

They argued that doctors should be allowed to refuse to prescribe treatment or perform procedures that violate their ethical convictions, even if such interventions are deemed legal by the state.

Malta’s bishops in a statement in September had also warned that the proposed law aimed at achieving equality and eradicating discrimination would have serious implications on individual freedom.

The Chamber of Pharmacists said on Sunday it had also written to the prime minister, the Minister for Health, the Minister for Justice and the Parliamentary Secretary for Equality and Reforms.

“The Kamra reiterates that under the watch of these persons who serve the Constitution and the people, pharmacists and other health care professionals must not be stripped of their right to freedom of thought and conscience in the context of legal health care.

“The Kamra which is a professional association and also a trade union takes a serious view of this matter and expects the State to be a guarantor of this right,” it said.

Click to view the letter to the President

This is a timesofmalta.com opinion piece

Ref: https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/president-urged-to-safeguard-right-to-conscientious-objection.833725  

A tribute to the fearless and inspirational priest

A tribute to the fearless and inspirational priest

Article written by Katrine Camilleri and Danielle Vella

A free spirit who was larger than life… for us, that is the best way to describe Fr Pierre Grech Marguerat who died in Italy on Friday morning. Since waking up to the news, we’ve been fending off sadness by remembering what made Pierre such a remarkable person. And here it is: Pierre tried to live life to the full despite the debilitating sickness that plagued him.

Life dealt him a raw deal when it came to his health but for as long as he could, Pierre resolutely refused to give in. Where others would have retreated from the world, Pierre persisted. Asked how he kept from falling into despair, Pierre would chuckle and say, “What would you have me do? Hide myself in a corner and cry?”

We knew Pierre through the Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS) Malta over several years. Pierre was a Jesuit priest and pioneer of JRS. He was a passionate advocate for refugee rights and never afraid to speak out; quite the contrary, he delighted in making his voice heard and did not shy away from controversy.

A gifted communicator, Pierre had a way of explaining things to people, so that they listened and understood. He inspired people and made them want to support him and the causes he was advocating. It was about more than just having the gift of the gab. Pierre was respected because he cared deeply about people, and about justice as a natural expression of his faith in God, and this authenticity came across.

Pierre tried to live life to the full despite the debilitating sickness that plagued him

Pierre’s abiding interest in people went beyond his tireless work for social justice. He was a loyal and concerned friend who liked to know what was going on. There were kind and thoughtful gestures, like calling from abroad if he heard that we were sick or searching for and buying Madhur Jaffrey’s Curry Bible as a gift because he gleaned from conversation how much it would be valued. Pierre liked food and talking about food. Although there was much he could not eat because of his health, he would really appreciate whatever you prepared when invited for dinner, and recall it for ages afterwards.

Pierre’s irrepressible sense of humour, expressed in a trademark mischievous chuckle, made him fun to be around. He was a gregarious soul, who liked to be around people and in where the action was. When we heard about his death, the first thing that occurred to us was how many people around the world will be sorry to hear the news.

Pierre was known and loved by Jesuits and others in the international JRS family. A colleague of ours in Brussels said: “He was of those people who leave a deep impression on those who cross paths with him. We’ll miss him.” People liked Pierre; it was as simple as that. Perhaps it was because he made you feel like you mattered.

Given that Pierre cared so much about others, it was with a twinge of regret that we received news of his death, because of the missed opportunities to contact him in Italy to see how he was doing. But then our guilt was wiped away by the realisation that Pierre would never dream of holding our failings against us.

Pierre was free from pettiness, he was never one to get offended, or sulk or nurse grudges in his heart. His freedom frees us too, to remember the great times spent together in work and in fun, and to learn from the touch of greatness that made Pierre who he was. Thank you, Pierre, we’ll never forget you.  

This is a timesofmalta.com opinion piece

Ref: https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/a-tribute-to-the-fearless-and-inspirational-priest.831841

Equality Bill is not Radical Enough

Equality Bill is not Radical Enough

By Fr Carlo Calleja -November 13, 2020 9:26 AM

I am in full agreement with the thinking behind the proposed Equality Bill. Every human being is created with equal dignity. My only issue with it is that it is not radical enough.

What I mean is that by focusing simply on equality, the Bill is—for want of a better word—ineffective. In his most recent social encyclical issued last October, Fratelli Tutti Pope Francis, impels us to go much further than mere equality, and to embrace fraternity instead.

Five take-aways

Here are five take-aways from Fratelli Tutti applied to the proposed Equality Bill.

First, with the pretext of promoting equality and preventing discrimination, the proposed Bill silences voices that might be interpreted in some way or other as discriminatory. As a result, the only voice that is heard is that which pleases those in power, or as is interpreted by them (206).

Second, the Bill takes on the bold mission of promoting equality. This, however, can never be reached if there is no serious effort to address the removal of economic inequalities (168). This is not done only by providing social services but by creating just structures, a project which leaves much to be desired. A practical example is the increasing number of people who have to depend on different forms of charity to receive their daily bread, a situation that was already existent but which was further aggravated by the pandemic.

Third, equality will remain a nothing but “an abstract proclamation” unless it is supported and encouraged by structures that engender fraternity (104). This can also be brought about through reciprocity and mutual enrichment (103). As the pope himself insists, “the future is not monochrome” (100).

 

Fourth, history has shown us that when a group is silenced, it emerges with much greater voracity. This is perhaps the greatest threat that must be avoided. The risk is not from the mainstream church, but from vociferous fringe groups who defend a certain worldview and feel that they are being persecuted. If such groups rise to power in some way or another, the resulting inequality would be even more pronounced (191).

Fifth, the Bill does nothing to change a mentality. Instead it simply enforces a law. As a result, people act out of fear of not being charged and taken to court. They will circumvent rules and misinterpret laws rather than act out of the conviction that every human being has equal dignity (104).

Post-Enlightenment Europe has sought to engrain liberty and equality in its citizens with poor results. What is really needed is social friendship, a recognition that we all belong to the same family and that I must treat you equally not because the law says so but because I recognise that you are endowed with equal dignity despite our differences.

Fr Carlo Calleja is a member of the Justice and Peace Commission of the Archdiocese of Malta and a lecturer in Moral Theology at the Faculty of Theology, University of Malta.

This is a newsbook.com opinion piece

Ref: https://newsbook.com.mt/en/blog/equality-bill-is-not-radical-enough/

 

 

Amendment to divorce law is ‘crucial’, prime minister says

Amendment to divorce law is ‘crucial’, prime minister says

Amendment will tackle need for four years before couples can seek divorce

The government intends to amend Malta’s divorce law where it lays down that couples need to be separated for four years before filing for divorce.

Prime Minister Robert Abela said in parliament on Tuesday this amendment was ‘crucial’.  

He said the government would continue to champion civil rights and it would seek agreement with the opposition for this amendment. 

“The Divorce Law is creating hardship and injustice for many people. I could never understand why one had to wait four years to get divorced after separation. Four years are an eternity in people’s lives, what logic is this?” he asked.

Maybe there was logic and a sense of compromise when the law was enacted, he said. At the time, getting the law through was a battle and some had campaigned against it, he said in a dig at opposition leader Bernard Grech.

But he hoped that lessons had been learnt from those mistakes and both sides could move forward together on such an important amendment.  

Abela did not specify how the government intends to amend the law. 

Divorce was introduced in Malta after a ‘yes’ vote in a referendum in 2011.

Malta has a system of ‘No-fault divorce’ that allows the dissolution of marriage without the need for the spouses to accuse each other of specific faults (such as infidelity or abandonment). These issues are tackled at the separation stage.

A couple, however, has to be legally separated or living apart for at least four years to obtain a divorce.  

Clause was defended in 2011

At the time of the referendum debate, the pro-divorce movement had praised the four-year delay, saying in a statement: 

“What is being proposed is a responsible type of divorce because it gives ample time for the spouses to get back together if they so wish before they become eligible to even apply for divorce.

“This is important in order to have moral certainty that the marriage has, in fact, irretrievably broken down. Those who try and plant doubts in people’s minds that the four-year period is not a must or that maintenance, care, custody and access to children are not dealt with in the law are out to mislead,” it said.

“Having a marriage contract that states that one is married when nothing that effectively constitutes marriage subsists is a ridiculous state of affairs,” the movement added.

Low divorce rate

Times of Malta reported in July that according to Eurostat statistics, Malta only has 0.7 divorces per 1,000 people, putting it on a par with Ireland, which registered the same rate.

On the lower end of the scale came Slovenia, with a divorce rate of 1.1, followed by Italy, Croatia and Bulgaria, all on 1.5.

Conversely, Latvia and Lithuania had the highest rates of divorce at 3.1, followed by Denmark at 2.6 and Sweden at 2.5.

The average divorce rate across the EU stood at two per 1,000 people, more than doubling since records started being kept in 1965, where the rate stood at 0.8 at the time.

This is a timesofmalta.com opinion piece

Ref: https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/amendment-to-divorce-law-crucial-prime-minister-says.827779

“Int Id-Dawl Ta’ Ħajjitna” – Tamara Webb Tiċċelebra Għeluq It-Twelid Ta’ Bintha

“Int Id-Dawl Ta’ Ħajjitna” – Tamara Webb Tiċċelebra Għeluq It-Twelid Ta’ Bintha

Il-personalità tal-midja Tamara Webb illum żvelat li t-tifla tagħha Pixie Rose għadha kif għalqet xahrejn! “Ma nistax ngħid li ‘ż-żmien tar’ għax inħoss li hi kienet parti minni ħajti kollha,” kitbet Tamara fuq il-midja soċjali.

Iżda x’ġara eżatt f’dawn ix-xahrejn ta’ ħajja u mħabba? Tamara żvelat li Pixie Rose “kellha l-ewwel tbissima tagħha u dewbitilna qalbna.”

Tamara kompliet billi kitbet lista tal-aktar affarijiet li Pixie Rose tħobb tagħmel.

“Tħobb iżżomm rasha ‘l fuq għal perjodi ta’ żmien estiżi, l-aktar fuq missierha!”

“Tħobb leħen il-mamà u tidher ukoll li xi kultant trid titkellem magħha”

“Tħobb il-ħin ta’ filgħodu, tieħu nagħsa u l-bobo tagħha”

“Mhux dilettanta tal-ħin ta’ filgħaxija, il-ħin taż-żaqq u wisq bews”

Fl-aħħar, Tamara kitbet: “Int id-dawl ta’ ħajjitna. Happy 2 months baby girl.” Aħna minn Gwida.mt nawguraw lil Tamara u Ken aktar mumenti mill-isbaħ bħal dawn. Awguri mill-qalb liċ-ċkejkna Pixie Rose!

 This is a gwida.mt  opinion piece

Ref: https://www.gwida.mt/mt/bir-ritratt-int-id-dawl-ta-hajjitna—tamara-webb-ticcelebra-gheluq-it-twelid-ta-bintha?fbclid=IwAR3kMGQuHKWd2k6BiihAot3lHEUqM-GuqX3LS7uZcn876I8YYyL5Z3egOiQ

A right diminished – Tonio Borg

A right diminished – Tonio Borg

The government has proposed a law which reduces our constitutional rights

The human rights chapter in the Maltese Constitution is the bedrock and shield of our rights as citizens. Any attempt at changing the contents of such a chapter needs to be scrupulously examined and vetted. Since 1964 every time the chapter was amended, this was to increase rather than reduce the rights enshrined in it.

The first Fenech Adami administration introduced gender as a prohibited ground of discrimination, and the immunity hitherto enjoyed by certain pre-1964 codes of law from the human rights chapter came to an end. Sexual orientation was added as a prohibited ground of discrimination in 2013.

This is set to change.

The government has proposed a law that will diminish rather than embellish our rights set forth in the constitution. The right to a court of law in criminal proceedings was laid down in a 1983 landmark case where a law allowing a price control tribunal to decide criminal cases was declared null and void. Along the years this guarantee of access to a court of law in criminal cases, and nothing else, was extended to cover cases where hefty and punitive so-called “administrative penalties” could be imposed.

Since 2016, by a ruling of the Constitutional Court these cannot be imposed except by a court of law. In 2018 the same court decided that such cases had to be made available both at first and second instance i.e. at all stages of the proceedings.

This bill deserves to be dumped in the bin of legislative history– Tonio Borg

The government is proposing to bury this jurisprudence and rulings and allow administrative tribunals, rather than courts of law, to impose administrative penalties which are in effect criminal in nature.

There is no doubt in my mind that this is being done to save a provision in the equality bills which allows the equality board – not a court of law – to impose hefty fines on private individuals and organisations. A Church school or organisation may be hauled before such administrative tribunal and be given a hefty fine. The opposition, during the second reading of the bills through Clyde Puli and Therese Comodini Cachia rightly criticised this provision as being unconstitutional. What does the government intend to do? Rather than amend the draft law it wants to amend the constitution to regularise the ‘unconstitutional’ provisions!

Thankfully, this bill needs a two-thirds majority of all MPs in its final voting to be approved. I have no doubt in my mind that the opposition will oppose tooth and nail this nefarious draft law. I am saying this for the simple reason that in 2018 the party in opposition, following the institution of a constitutional human rights action, managed to have a law declared as unconstitutional which allowed the Electoral Commission to impose hefty fines against any political party found to have breached the Party Financing Act.  

Besides, I am reliably informed that this provision, which needs a two-thirds majority to be approved, was launched by the government without any form of consultation with the opposition whose support it needs to enact this constitutional amendment. Even for such an act of arrogance this bill deserves to be dumped in the bin of legislative history!

To add insult to injury, this bill is being justified on the grounds that it aligns the Maltese Constitution with the European Convention on Human Rights and eliminates a ‘discrepancy’ with the latter. This is pure legal nonsense, and a deceitful assertion; for the Convention allows, indeed encourages, member states of the Council of Europe to provide for rights and guarantees in addition to, or more generous than, the Convention. It does not allow member states to provide lesser guarantees not more.

A solution to this problem would be to set up a special administrative court presided over by a sole member of the judiciary to decide questions relating to administrative penalties.

Changing the Constitution to allow lay tribunals to decide criminal cases would be a first in constitutional history. A first to be ashamed of.

This is a timesofmalta.com opinion piece

Ref: https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/a-right-diminished-tonio-borg.825019