Six dodging hats

The divorce issue in Malta (where else?) bears a striking resemblance to the Opera House saga. As time goes by, the chronicle becomes more captivating not so much for its substance as for the spin-offs and intrigues. In the case of divorce, a bit of fun can be had watching the wise men twist and turn. With apologies to our compatriot, let's call their attire 'dodging hats'.

The first hat has been worn by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and a host of others. There will be a 'public discussion' on divorce to which the politicians will respond, in their own time. Picture it: 'I officially declare the divorce discussion open'. Yes, ridiculous, because a public discussion is just that and has no tangible boundaries. We don't know how and when the discussion will start (does this column count?) and we therefore have no way of knowing when and how it will end.

The second hat is donned by, shall we say, the dons. There are 'not enough data' on marriage and families in Malta, and therefore no solid basis for legislation. The argument is as alluring as it is deceptive. First, if the several thousand people looking to start anew within a sensible legal framework are not 'data', I honestly don't know what is.

Ah, but are they enough? Of course not. Because, as anyone with the slightest methodological grounding in the social sciences will know, there is no such thing as conclusive data or 'proof'. Which means that, much as it may try, social policy cannot dodge politics by hiding behind 'science'.

The third hat is of the 'safety valve' type. Let us dither all we will on divorce, but, in order to avoid those several thousand (around 11,000 by an NSO count) getting snappy, we'll 'fast track' annulment and legislate for cohabitation. The former seems to be on the Church's (and therefore the State's, given our laws) agenda, the latter in the electoral manifestos of the two parties.

Never mind if annulment proceedings force people, in collusion with lawyers, psychologists, and the lot, to weave a tissue of lies and make an institutionalised mockery of the law. Or that squeezing cohabiting couples into a legal framework seriously encroaches on the basic right of two people to live together with no strings attached. What matters is that we dodge the real issue.

The fourth hat refers to a certain slippery slope, which has a nasty habit of showing up whenever social reforms are mentioned. Legislate for divorce and before you know it we will be living brutish lives ruled by libidinous urges and overrun by virtual orphans with no idea who their parents are. Let us leave aside the fact that logically the slippery slope argument doesn't work. Practice shows us that it does, and that's what happened 'abroad' right? Wrong.

Divorce is as old as the hills in most countries and yet people still have families and live in functional and stable societies. The same ones we look up to when we go on about 'European standards', as it happens.

The fifth hat is what students get downmarked for when they go 'out of point'. Surprisingly, the most erudite of people - high-ranking prelates, for instance, or academics - often fall for this one (or do they?). I refer to surveys that ask people what they think of 'divorce and same-sex marriage', or tomes on the 'culture of life' that condemn 'divorce, abortion, and euthanasia'. This is a classic dodge: Put very different issues in a bowl, stir well, and serve while still hot. What you get is people unable to rationally distinguish between the ingredients and to make up their minds on each separately. This fifth concoction is known in Maltese as a kawlata.

The fortunes of the sixth hat have of late risen, what with its fashion among upstarts with megalomaniacal visions. We would take the divorce issue to parliament (following a public discussion, of course) but only after decommissioning all whips and calling a free vote. In other words, an admission of inability to take decisions, and a sure tactic of delay and dodging. First, 'free' or 'conscience' votes are usually reserved for life and death questions such as capital punishment, where individual morality may override any collective decisions taken by a parliamentary group.

Second, given the attraction of the moral high ground - particularly in such a public place as parliament - a free vote on divorce would be a recipe for disaster in the shape of sanctimonious antics.

There is, perhaps, a crack of light. There have been encouraging mutterings in the Labour camp in favour of legalising divorce, and chances are they will grow louder. A recent case in point was Owen Bonnici, who made an unequivocal statement on Super One's Vici Versa.

This may well prove a winning card for Labour. The fact is that the party, in spite of its legacy of gender equality and other social reforms, has, for the best part of 30 years, been trumped by the Nationalists on the progressive front. Which is why, on the night, the contrast between Bonnici and the lily-livered Franco Debono (whose speciality seems to be not to have an opinion on anything), was striking.

We may yet go for the real thing, and there are six of them.

mafalzon@hotmail.com