Roamer's column

The more Labour leader Joseph Muscat talks about his (so far unspecified) vision of the future, the more we are unwilling spectators to a return to the past; for which no vision is required. There he was, last Wednesday, as were other parliamentary members of the party, as were ex-leaders of the party Alfred Sant and Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici, both of unhappy memory, shoulder to shoulder with the general secretary of the General Workers' Union. Their presence there, they were told by Zarb, meant a lot to the union and to the workers.

The occasion was a protest meeting for dockyard workers in Paola over the privatisation of the Dockyard - on which objective there is the broadest agreement between all sectors of civil society and the overwhelming majority of the electorate. The rhetoric was as of old. "Castille is yours but the roads are ours. You either call us for a meeting to discuss the situation at the Malta Shipyards or else we will come to Castille ourselves with the workers" (Zarb) "...inside there belongs to us and we decide what happens" (Paul Bugeja). Sammy Meilak was reported as saying that that they were prepared to topple the government.

Later, the Labour Party was at pains to explain that the only way forward was through "discussion and pacific initiatives", to sit round "a table of discussions (sic) both in the interest of the workers and of taxpayers, who forked out millions for this company". The party said it was all for privatisation. Right then. Threats and confrontation, Muscat should be telling the GWU leaders, is not the way forward. In this context, his presence in Paola sent out wrong signals to the union and to the electorate, both of whom were on opposite sides.

As for dialogue and discussion, there is not the slightest evidence to suggest that the government has avoided these; on the contrary, it has constantly shown itself to be open to both. In a recent statement it pointed out that at their last meeting, requested by the GWU and called within two hours of the request being made, the union had failed to put forward its proposals over the early retirement schemes that government had drawn up. If this is the case, why this lacuna in communications over what is, after all, a central issue in the path to privatisation?

Once Muscat chose to attend that protest meeting, his public duty is to offer practical suggestions for an agreement between the government and the GWU. At the front of his mind he should have indelibly printed the fact that in the past five, six years, Malta, the Maltese taxpayer, has forked out more than €900 million for an enterprise that has defied reform. From the back of his mind he should have the courage to banish all thought of political upmanship - for his own sake, I must add.

This is neither the new beginning we had been asked to expect from Muscat; nor is the new political season he heralded particularly impressive.

Let it be serious, not hysterical

I wonder if I can start this piece with a simple statement. A separation of Church and State, two societies each operating in its own right, exists in Malta. This is not to say that the Church does not, cannot, must not, influence people; of course it does. It is part of its raison d'être. So does the State influence us, in its own way and for its own reasons.

Because the Church is autonomous, it has every right and even a duty to enter into any discussion on divorce and to offer a powerful contribution. This she can do either directly through its hierarchy, or through those of its members who live in the society in which the Church and the State operate, who worship and pay their taxes. To deny this right, or attempt to downgrade it, is comprehensively anti-democratic.

The start-point of any dialogue on divorce worth its name is a civilised recognition of that simple fact. From what I have read to date, we are nowhere near reaching this point. To read some contributions you would think that anybody who opposes divorce does so from a purely religious viewpoint. While there is much to recommend a Catholic argument against divorce, and non-Catholics and anti-Catholics who are not bigoted would do well to study what the Church has to say, debate that is not based on faith and biblical texts alone, abound.

What Catholics want in any reasonable discourse on the subject is fairness; if their opponents insist on faith being left out of the discussion, then they also should not bring religion into it, as they do time and time again, still less caricatures of the religion. Some of those who oppose it give the impression that the cackle should be cut and legislation in favour of divorce passed so that Malta can join the 'commonpoverty' of European nations. They look upon its introduction as if this were the equivalent of a mere administrative regulation on litter, opposition to it an assault on human rights. This approach generates much heat, and smoke, but casts no light.

I am reminded at this stage of a passage in Chesterton's short but brilliant and prophetic book he wrote nearly 100 years ago - The Superstition of Divorce.

'Many quite disinterested people urge many quite reasonable considerations in the case of divorce, as a type of domestic liberation; but in the journalistic and general discussion of the matter there is far too much of the mind that works backwards and at random...Such people say they want divorce, without asking themselves whether they want marriage. Even in order to be divorced it has generally been found necessary to go through the preliminary formality of being married; and unless the nature of this initial act be considered, we might as well be discussing haircutting for the bald or spectacles for the blind. To be divorced is to be in the literal sense unmarried; and there is no sense in a thing being undone when we do not know if it is dome'.

Any discussion on divorce, then, needs to start with marriage and families, how these are helped, if at all, when they become problematic; better still, before they reach such a stage. We need to find out what importance is given to marriage preparation by the State for those who opt for civil marriage, the proportion of marriage breakdowns in this group and among those who get married in Church; not as an argument in favour or against divorce but to have a clear and authentic picture of the situation.

And let's have clarity

We need a focused picture of what is happening out there, what help if any is given to married couples in difficulty, how much effort is made at reconciliation at parish level and by lawyers before these refer unhappy couples to the Family Court, how often litigation is recommended straightaway by lawyers, how often the Family Court is sidestepped altogether. In short we need to know the culture being adopted by lawyers when their advice is sought. Are they themselves pro-marriage or are they in a situation where their own marriage has broken down?

Two months after we were fed statistics from a Health Behaviour of School-Aged Children (HBSC) survey claiming that more than a third of children in Malta live with only one of their biological parents (up from eight per cent to 37.5 per cent in four years), we are none the wiser as to its accuracy.

Its findings have been seriously challenged by Fr Anton Gouder and his questions left unanswered. Calls for the report to be published in full have not been heeded. Ironically, a media normally sceptical of statistics seems to have accepted that questionable report unquestionably. This was more than passing strange. One would have thought that most people, including ministers John Dalli and Dolores Cristina, let alone the media, would have demanded further clarification, and confirmation of the figures if Fr Gouder was incorrect.

Allow me a penultimate remark. One argument for the introduction of divorce made by a number of people is based on the observation that it has been taken on board by the rest of the world. If this flawed approach were to be accepted, then the same thinking can be expressed on the grave issue of abortion.

'I have', wrote Chesterton 'deliberately left out the loftiest aspect and argument, that which sees marriage as a divine institution; and that for the logical reason that those who believe in this would not believe in divorce. I do not ask them to assume the worth of my creed or any creed... But if it could be shown, as I think it can, that a long historical view and a patient political experience can at least accumulate solid scientific evidence of the vital need for such a vow, then I can conceive no more tremendous tribute than this, to any faith, which made a flaming affirmation from the darkest beginnings, of what the latest enlightenment can only slowly discover in the end.'