These past few years has seen a massive debate about how Australia will decide whether to give same sex couples the right to marry.
In this article, I won't be discussing the pros and cons, not as I don't have my views, however today I wanted to talk about the process itself.
The position of the current Liberal-National coalition government is to hold a plebiscite where the Australian people will be asked to provide its verdict, whether this social institution that to date was (generally speaking in countries with a Christian tradition) monogamous and reserved between a single man and single woman, should be changed to a monogamous one between two people of any sex.
I think this is one of those subjects where it's good that people directly give their views on this particular issue. Many people have strong views one way or the other. For example, those who are gay will likely be strongly in favour of this change, whereas those having traditional Christian beliefs or is conservative in outlook will probably be strongly against.
Those having strong views on the subject are unlikely to be persuaded to change, however I think it is good that everyone understands the prevailing view in the country. At least if a change is made to which one is categorically against, it is more likely that one accepts that the will of the majority has prevailed, rather than if the decision was made by elected members of parliament.
Nevertheless, I have my reservations on the plebiscite and the reasons for which it is being proposed. The Labor Party, the Greens and other senators are against a plebiscite, and favour a vote in parliament. In fact, one could argue that members of parliament pass or terminate the country's laws continuously, so why shouldn't this be treated as another (hot) issue like the others?
I do think this is all true, but this is not the reason why I'm against the plebiscite. In my view, the main problem is the intention of the Liberal-National coalition, when it adopted the position of the plebiscite, was that after the plebiscite, the members of parliament be asked to amend the law according to the result of the vote, but would not be constrained in their vote.
In other words, we could reach a situation where the plebiscite goes one way, and the members of Parliament go the other. They can do so as the plebiscite is a system for government to ask for advice, but is not tied by the result.
In a matter so fundamental for society, and after that people would have debated the matter passionately and finally expressed its view, it is for me incomprehensible and unacceptable that members of parliament have the audacity to decide otherwise.
My thoughts are that this is a matter in which almost everyone has profound views, even if not directly affected (for example by being heterosexual, and affecting the social fibre of the country. I feel that the people need not only to have a say, but the final word.
I therefore prefer that a referendum is held instead of a plebiscite, where the people's decision is final, and parliamentarians are bound to implement the people's will. It is also a method for members of parliament, who also probably have their own strong views one way or the other, to rest their conscience that they would be implementing the direct will of the people.
After all, that is their function.
----------------
Għal dawn l-aħħar snin, ilu għaddej dibattitu sħiħ dwar kif il-pajjiż Awstraljan se jiddeċiedi jekk jagħtix id-dritt taż-żwieġ lill-koppji tal-istess sess.
Jien f'dan l-artiklu, m'iniex se niddiskuti l-argumenti favur jew kontra din il-ħaġa, mhux għax m'għandix opinjoni, imma għax illum xtaqt nitkellem fuq il-proċess innifsu.
Il-pożizzjoni tal-gvern tal-ġurnata, iffurmat mill-koalizzjoni Liberali-Nazzjonali, hi li jsir plebixxit fejn il-poplu Awstraljan jiġi mitlub jagħti l-verdett tiegħu, jekk din l-istituzzjoni soċjali li sal-lum kienet (f'pajjiżi ġeneralment bi tradizzjoni Nisranija) monogama u rriservata għal raġel wieħed u mara waħda, għandhiex jinbidel għal waħda monogama bejn tnejn min-nies ta' kwalunkwe sess.
Jien naħseb li dan huwa wieħed minn dawk is-suġġetti fejn huwa tajjeb li l-poplu jagħti direttament il-fehma tiegħu fuq din il-kwistjoni partikolari. Ħafna nies għandhom veduti qawwija fuq naħa waħda jew l-oħra. Per eżempju, min huwa omosesswali aktarx se jkun b'qawwa favur din il-bidla, u min għandu twemmin tradizzjonali Nisrani jew huwa konservattiv fil-veduti tiegħu se jkun b'qawwa kontra.
Min għandu fehmiet qawwija fuq is-suġġett aktarx mhux se jiġi perswadut li jibdilhom, imma naħseb li huwa tajjeb li kulħadd jifhem x'inhu l-ħsieb predominanti tal-pajjiż. Talinqas jekk isseħħ bidla li bniedem ikun kategorikament kontriha, iktar hemm ċans li jaċċetta li twettqet ir-rieda tal-maġġoranza tal-poplu, milli jaċċetta li din kienet id-deċiżjoni tal-membri eletti tal-parlament.
Madankollu, jien għandi r-riżervi tiegħi fuq il-plebixxit u r-raġuni għalfejn qiegħed jiġi propost. Il-Partit Laburista, il-Partit tal-Ħodor u senaturi oħra huma kontra l-plebixxit, u jiffavorixxu vot fil-parlament. Fil-fatt, wieħed jista' jargumenta li membri tal-parlament jgħaddu jew iwaqqfu liġijiet fil-pajjiż kontinwament, għaliex din ma titqiesx bħala kwistjoni (taħraq) bħall-oħrajn?
Jien naħseb li dan kollu minnu, imma mhix ir-raġuni għaliex jien kontra l-plebixxit. Il-problema kif naraha jien hi li l-intenzjoni tal-koalizzjoni Liberali-Nazzjonali, meta adottat il-pożizzjoni tal-plebixxit, kienet li wara l-plebixxit, il-membri tal-parlament jiġu mitluba jammendaw il-liġi skont ir-riżultat tal-vot, imma ma jkunux marbuta kif jivvutaw.
Jiġifieri, nistgħu naslu għal sitwazzjoni fejn il-plebixxit jagħti riżultat mod, u l-membri tal-Parlament jiddeċiedu mod ieħor. Ikunu jistgħu jagħmlu dan għax il-plebixxit huwa sistema fejn il-gvern biss jitlob parir, imma ma jkunx marbut bir-riżultat.
F'din il-ħaġa tant fundamentali għal soċjetà, u wara li l-poplu jkun iddibatta l-kwistjoni aktarx b'passjoni liema bħala, u finalment esprima l-ħsieb tiegħu, għalija tkun inkomprensibbli u inaċċettabbli li l-membri tal-parlament jażżardaw jiddeċiedu mod ieħor.
Jien naħseb li din hija kwistjoni li kważi kulħadd għandu veduti profondi fuqha, anke jekk mhux direttament affettwat (per eżempju għax huwa jew hija eterosesswali), u li taffettwa l-fibra soċjali tal-pajjiż. Jien inħoss li l-poplu jrid ikollu mhux biss sehem imma l-aħħar kelma.
Jien għalhekk nippreferi li minflok plebixxit isir referendum, fejn id-deċiżjoni tal-poplu tkun finali u l-parlamentari jkunu marbutin li jwettqu r-rieda tal-poplu. Huwa mod ukoll fejn il-membri tal-parlament, li wkoll aktarx għandhom veduti qawwija kemm naħa kif ukoll l-oħra, ikunu jistgħu iserrħu l-kuxjenza tagħhom li jkunu qegħdin iwettqu r-rieda diretta tal-poplu.
Wara kollox, dik hija l-funzjoni tagħhom.
1http://time.com/3937766/us-supreme-court-countries-same-sex-gay-marriage-legal/, retrieved 23/8/2016
2http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/AMEpollfactsheet@Jun11.pdf, retrieved 23/8/2016
3http://www.afr.com/news/politics/election-2016-majority-of-voters-would-say-yes-in-gay-marriage-plebiscite-20160701-gpwg3z, retrieved 23/8/2016
4http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-23/same-sex-marriage-plebiscite-labor-ramps-up-opposition/7776060, retrieved 23/8/2016
1http://time.com/3937766/us-supreme-court-countries-same-sex-gay-marriage-legal/, retrieved 23/8/2016
2http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/AMEpollfactsheet@Jun11.pdf, retrieved 23/8/2016
3http://www.afr.com/news/politics/election-2016-majority-of-voters-would-say-yes-in-gay-marriage-plebiscite-20160701-gpwg3z, retrieved 23/8/2016
4http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-23/same-sex-marriage-plebiscite-labor-ramps-up-opposition/7776060, retrieved 23/8/2016
No comments:
Post a Comment