The divorce debate

John Bisazza deliberately or otherwise attributed to me unintended motives (The Sunday Times, August 10).

The one and only purpose of my intervention was to question the logic of the arguments advanced by Michael Falzon, former PN Minister and opinion-maker (July 27).

Mr Falzon argued that Maltese society is evolving in such a way that we are heading to a scenario where the harm done as a result of the lack of divorce would eventually be worse than the harm caused to society by its introduction.

His conclusion is that "applying the principle of the lesser of two evils would then militate in favour of introducing divorce". His central argument was that "if the present situation is such that the lack of divorce is leading to social disorder, then the state is obliged to introduce divorce".

I consider this a non-sequitur. There is plenty of social disorder where divorce is the law of the land. Divorce did not diminish its incidence.

The divorce debate is about values in the context of globalised secularisation, and it has to incorporate moral principles, as they impinge on legal and political considerations, that merit full and free discussion.

Mr Bisazza was "astonished" that I failed to make any reference to Joseph Muscat's proposal to introduce a private member's motion on the issue.

In so doing, Dr Muscat made it amply clear that he would give a free vote to Labour MPs. I have no quarrel with that. Upright politics impose the obligation, on the part of elected politicians, of living up to their sense of moral duty and responsibility.