.png)
.png)
Divorce is no civil right for Moviment Iva if bill is withdrawn – Zwieg bla Divorzju
Zwieg bla Divorzju said in a statement today that if the divorce bill presented to parliament will be withdrawn if the referendum lost, this would be “a sign that divorce is clearly not a civil right at all”.
The anti-divorce lobby is claiming that Moviment Iva is seeing support for its divorce bill flounder and will withdraw the bill if it does not win the referendum.
Without entering into specifics, the lobby said this “makes it clear that divorce is not a civil right.”
Zwieg bla Divorzju reiterated claims that divorce would increase the problems for separated families and threaten maintenance obligations, while second marriages would have a right to the salary of the divorced spouse.
“This would mean more problems and poverty for divorced spouses who must maintain two families or more… people are understand that ‘divorce without reason’ will allow spouses to file for divorce in the courts without the other party’s consent.”
Paul Sammut •
The Noners have every right to carry on doing it the way they like it. However they should stop moaning and leave others free to choose how they want it done. What a bigoted lot these Noners are. Do they really believe that they are the only ones going to heaven? Fat chance.
•
Why withdraw it?. Shelf it, probably better. Have we forgotten the answer given by Fenech Adami when confronted with the prospect of a NO vote for EU membership ?. "We"ll try again". So, what's good for the goose........ No ?.Let's not forget there were times when we've been reminded that a referendum is just an opinion poll !!. It is not binding. MPs have reiterated this in parliament.
Igor P. Shuvalov •
‘divorce without reason’ will allow spouses to file for divorce in the courts without the other party’s consent.”
What about the right of spouses who are allowed to file for annulment with the Church without the other party's consent?
victor refalo •
What is this fuss about a civil right or not? This is all legal talk which people are disinterested in. A right is a right and divorce is a right for 99.99% of the world population but the anti divorce movement seems cut off from the real world.
And what about the European Union - all other members have legislated for divorce some of them even ages ago.
The anti-divorce movement should either update themselves with the times or else promote Malta's integration with the Vatican City State!
•
Is it a civil right for Catholics living in Muslim countries to be allowed to profess their religion?
I am afraid it is one way traffic.
•
@Antoine Vella
I have already explained the difference!
It's your turn to explain what you mean.
•
CJohnZammit, there is a difference between fundamental Human Rights and Civil Rights.
•
The NO-side is resorting to every dirty trick to confuse the electorate into believing their mumbo-jumbo.
Nothing can be referred to as a civil right until it is enshrined in the State's Law.
In civil societies, it all begins with society recognizing, and accepting, that which Mother Nature has endowed us with: certain inalienable rights, as the Americans put it. (For the religious faithful, it is what God has given to all humans, from the moment of birth.) Once an inalienable right, that is, a fundamental human right, is recognized and accepted into the body of Law, then it is referred to as a "Civil Right".
The leaders of the NO-side, lawyers and theologians, know full well the meaning of Civil Rights. In their unwarranted efforts to keep the status quo, they are going to great lengths, nay, sink to the lowest levels, to confuse the issue.
Civilized societies live by the Rule of Law. Refusing to include, in Law, a right which is acknowledged worldwide, is an affront to the concept of a civilized society.
The whole NO-movement, especially the Prime Minister, is in contempt of the Rule of Law. They should be ashamed.
•
“... that if the divorce bill presented to parliament will be withdrawn if the referendum lost, this would be “a sign that divorce is clearly not a civil right at all”.
Do these people have a GRASP of what civil rights actually mean?
Civic respect - which the church clearly lacks - is about giving rights to ALL citizens not just Roman Catholics.
My goodness this is MAJOR nonsense ... The enormity of this kind of ignorance beggars belief. Every school kid knows or ought to know what civil rights mean.
Listen you guys.... Zwieg bla Divorzju : why don’t you pack your bags and go home? We’ll arrange a Roman Catholic passport and Roman Catholic identity card so you can go and live in the Vatican State near your dears.
Poof!!! Good Bye!!!!
•
So rights are only rights if they become law? Does that mean that every despotic regime is not really denying anybody any rights because they removed them from the statute or prevented them from being introduced?
•
Are these people for real?
•
What anachronistic, ass backwards rubbish.
•
What a silly, totally illogical way of reasoning. I will still be a civil right - a right which is enjoyed by people all over the world except in two backward countries - but a right which is being denied us. It's a simple as that.
