Keep your distance

The new leader of the Malta Labour Party is slowly but surely involving himself more in the divorce debate albeit in a manner which may not be to its benefit. He had at first stated that he would be prepared to present a divorce Bill on condition that the Prime Minister declares a free vote in Parliament.

The MLP leader has now moved more than a step further. He seems to have started the unfortunate process of politicising the issue, insisting that divorce is a civil right and explicitly warning people that they should keep their religious opinions to themselves without explaining exactly what this admonition meant or to whom it was addressed.

Are we to understand therefore that the new Labour leader will be taking a "pole position" in the pro-divorce campaign? If so, will he not be making it more difficult for all those within the MLP who do not favour divorce to think freely on this delicate issue? That these exist is evidenced by many articles written in the past by MLP supporters and even MLP members of Parliament warning about the dangers brought about by the introduction of divorce in Malta.

What makes Joseph Muscat adopt such a high-risk strategy, which may increase and not heal the many serious divisions the leadership election and that of the secretary general of the MLP manifestly showed that exist? Why risk creating a new and, potentially, more explosive one?

Will Dr Muscat's campaigning not contradict his own appeal for a free vote in Parliament should political ideologies start raising "liberal-conservative" barricades so early in the debate?

The divorce debate was and is proceeding at a very acceptable level of tone and respect within the civil society and so it must continue.

It is imperative therefore for the political parties, and, especially, their political leadership, to allow the debate to progress further with them for once well in the background.

The dangers in politicising a national issue like that of divorce can clearly be seen from what happened to the EU issue. We are still suffering the consequences of the "black-white" or "yes-no" divide that the EU brought about at the expense of a more objective evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of the entry into the EU.

Of course, no one is arguing that Dr Muscat or, for that matter, Lawrence Gonzi are not entitled to their personal opinion like any other ordinary citizen. However, equally, it can hardly be argued that Dr Muscat and Dr Gonzi are ordinary citizens. It would be therefore in the interests of the debate that they keep it for themselves for the moment and even for quite some time to come.

Our society must be allowed to find a language that will allow all sectors of our society to debate the divorce issue without creating division.

Dr Muscat begs the question when he insists that divorce is a civil right as distinct from a fundamental right since the real question is how are we to reconcile the position of protecting the family unit while, at the same time, providing social remedies to face the increasing social tension which separations are creating.

The one must be discussed with the other because the introduction of divorce without having solved these social tensions would be a disaster of the highest magnitude.

The jury on the introduction of divorce is still out and the public opinion needs to hear all the various opinions on the issue openly and free from ideologically-motivated stands.