Claudette Abela Baldacchino, Qrendi
Let's hold a referendum on divorce
Malta is so far the only European Union member state without legislation allowing couples whose marriage has failed to enter into stable and legitimate second relationships.
In my political endeavours as a Labour Party candidate for the European Parliament, I frequently meet people living in new types of families. Many recount stories of difficulties they or their children have to surmount on practically a daily basis because of their inability to legalise their relationship.
I believe there should be no doubt that the traditional family unit on which Maltese society is largely built should be the recipient of the utmost respect and support.
At the same time, however, as a modern democratic society, I also believe that we have a moral obligation to respect and support those who live in non-traditional family units. This is a question fundamentally based on the notion of the respect of the individual person and one's fundamental human rights.
I find it rather hypocritical that in this country, it is still not possible for a couple whose marriage has failed irretrievably to file for divorce in the local courts, when those same courts are legally bound to recognise a divorce obtained by that same couple in a foreign court.
This means a clear discrimination at law between the haves and the have-nots, with the former being able to seek and obtain a divorce decree in a foreign jurisdiction which divorce would be recognised by the Maltese state which right the state does not recognise for the vast majority who are unable, economically or otherwise, to obtain a divorce from abroad.
This is unacceptable. While respecting the fact that this is a very sensitive issue, this problem has been left on the backburner for far too long. I believe it is in everyone's interest to take a decisive position on whether or not the country is going to allow for divorce legislation.
It is high time that on this sensitive issue the political class takes a step back and consults the people.
The state of the family is one of those areas which affects every citizen and thus, every citizen should be afforded the right to state their opinion on this sticky issue.
This can only be effectively done through the holding of a non-partisan referendum wherein both sides of the debate can put forward their views and leave it in the hands of the people to decide on divorce legislation. In the end that is what democracy is all about.
28 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Charles Grixti
May 25th 2009, 03:56
@John Meli.
The mistake that you and others make is to assume that everyone adheres to your lofty ideals. It is one thing to preach how things ought to be but reality is another.
It would not be amiss to assume that all here talking about the sanctity of marraige and quoting scriptures and Church teachings are doing it from a safe distance, either because you are lucky to have a good marriage or are single.
As a child who grew up in an abusive marriage, I know firsthand the terror that the child feels when he sees the father beating his mother and then the children themselves, showerring them with physical and verbal abuse, day after day for no apparent reason. Now go and preach your flowery words to a person like that!
As a child I would fantasise about killing my father. And the psychological trauma is still felt decades later and the memory of these terrible episodes has had a deep and negative impact on my life and and that of my siblings.
We only rested when my mother obtained a divorce and my father was forced out of our lives.
Divorce was truly a blessing.
Raymond Cachia
May 23rd 2009, 18:08
I do not agree with holding a referendum on divorce.
If a referendum was used to achieve social justice and liberty, then:
- The slaves in America would have never been freed
- Women would not have been given the vote
- Gays would not have won their civil rights
and countless other human rights gains made around the world, since the conservative majority would have voted against all of these. The result would not be democracy but a dictatorship of the majority.
I am afraid that in this instance a referendum would just be a tool in the hands of the Church to forever shut the voices of those that want justice and the introduction of divorce in Malta.
Ms. Abela Baldacchino please take note.
John Meli
May 13th 2009, 14:25
@ Mrs. P. Graham:::::::::::::> [My final Continuation sheet] Well from the Holy Bible it has taught us the following, so reading it was not a loss of time, if you agree:.....
Never both be angry at once; or talk at one another in an angry voice; or yell at one another, unless the house is on fire to get you wife or husband for safety!!!; Let each one strive to yield more often to do the wishes of the other; Let self-denial and forgiveness be the daily aim and practice; Never taunt with a past mistake when a quarrel develops put the fire off with LOVE & FORGIVENESS as nobody is perfect; or Neglect the whole world rather than one another; and Never make a remark at the expense of one another; But never part for a day or go to sleep without kind words to think of during such absence; and finally Never meet without a loving welcome or let the sun go down on your path. Don't forget that marriage is ordained of God, and that His blessings alone can make it what it ought to be. DO YOU AGREE!!!
John Meli
May 13th 2009, 14:20
@ Mrs. P. Graham:::::::::::::> [Continuation page 2] Good to note that in you statement against the reading of the Holy Bible, as a christian or catholic, don't forget that this is one's duty to do regularly and not if you feel to or not. So by not praying this does surely not help you at all in one's abusive style of life.
Marriage involves three persons, God, the husband and his wife, and as we all know God forbids divorce (Matt. 5:32 and 19:9). So choose your partner careful, never enter into relationship as intimate as marriage or with those who refuse to honor Jesus as Lord (2 Cor. 6: 14-18) For the good principles see Eph. 5: 22-33 or 1Peter 3: 1-7. [Continued ]
John Meli
May 13th 2009, 14:10
@ Mrs. P. Graham:::::::::::::> It is true that we are not living in an ideal world, however, my suggestions and solutions are the ideal things to put into marriage if one really wants it to be in good harmony and to last. My suggestion are simple Christian or Catholic teachings on success through marriage life. Women that go out with any man to fall or be abused in having a baby indicates that this person is not a reliable one. The father who might just leave her pregnant with baby as stated by you, is quite wrong and abusive too.
Yet, in these Islands an unmarried woman or single mother are not as you stated “left with very few rights” because they would be entitled to state funds, including entitlement for Free Medicine for raising the baby and herself, even if she stays home with her parents. You also stated that “that some are left without a home,” This is neither correct, for if they apply with the Department concerned to Housing, should she become homeless, they are helped and given an accommodation by the Government. page 1/2 ........ [Continued......on 2/2]
Anton Portelli
May 12th 2009, 22:31
Ms. Baldacchino the issue of introducing divorce in Malta shoul dhave been decided long ago and certainly not by referendum. As stated below democracy is not a dictatorship of the majority. This involves something that is voluntary not like paying VAt or Income tax. And as has already been said hundreds of times divorce should not be something for people who can afford, it should be available for all who need to start a new life.
Steven Brockwell
May 12th 2009, 20:01
divorce should be given to thouse who really have no other choice. then again it should not be made that easy ether. as for me well married once never again???
Aleksandar Dimitrijevic
May 12th 2009, 19:34
@Bernard Galea
I have to apologize if my comment was unclear.
It was meant, tongue in cheek, to show that majority has no right to decide on the rights of majority. Calling on referendum where one can decide to suppress the rights of the minority is not a democracy - it is dictatorship of majority over minority.
How one is to live his/hers life when that life does not infringe on the right of others is not something that should be decided by popular vote. If popular vote is all that matters, majority could decide that earth is six thousand year old, or that milk is black, or that women have no rights and so on...
Apologies, once again, if i was not clear.
Franco Farrugia
May 12th 2009, 19:05
No, I disagree. We should not hold a referendum on divorce. Divorce should be available in Malta, full-stop.
Lino Apap
May 12th 2009, 17:56
@laurence schembri - not only that but our Courts also recognise divorce obtained by all and sundry as long as it is obtained from abroad - talk about discrimination!
@Joe Grima - please do not use divorce, abortion and euthanasia in the same argument because they are separate issues that are totally unrelated. Talk about chalk and cheese! Divorce is "permission" granted by the State to people whose marriage has irretrievably broken down (also recognised by the State through legal separations) to re-marry or simply to finalise the separation. Normally, by the time the State grants this "permission" (through a divorce decree), the marriage would have been dead and buried at the separation stage. Divorce does NOT kill marriages-these are dead by this stage- whereas abortion and euthanasia kills foetuses and people respectively. This should be kept firmly in mind!
Ms. Abela Baldacchino's proposal to hold a national referendum on this subject is the fairest one under the circumstances considering that our local MP's either want to force their religious beliefs on everyone or are simply vote-conscious politicians who will not take a stand on divorce lest they offend the religious authorities or fervent/fundamentalist Catholics in their constituencies.
Joe Grima (Brussels)
May 12th 2009, 17:45
@ Claudine Cassar.
No one is beating about the bush. You simply did not get the gist of my comment. I NEVER compared divorce to abortion, but my main emphasis was on WHO the real victims are in divorce, abortion and euthanasia: namely, those with the least voice!! Get it?? "How utterly ridiculous" not to understand such a simple reality!!
@ L. Schembri.
No, divorce and annulment are not one and the same. Annulment means "never existed", which means that there was some betrayal, cheating, threats or otherwise before marriage.
Bernard Galea
May 12th 2009, 16:45
(cont) relieved when they finally obtained a divorce, went their separate ways and could start their lives afresh. They were both fantastic parents - if anything, divorce made life easier for our family.
Why are people like Mr Dimitrijevic so afraid of letting others live their lives as they see fit?
And by the way - quick citation from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 16: 1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage AND AT ITS DISSOLUTION (my caps).
Equating divorce with slavery, gender discrimination or the colour of milk is facetious at best, pig ignorant at worst.
Bernard Galea
May 12th 2009, 16:39
@ Aleksandar Dimitrijevic and all the others with similar arguments -
Divorce is not a zero-sum game. Me getting a divorce does not influence your marriage. You getting a divorce does not influence MY marriage.
And when you say 'democracy is not a dictatorship of the majority over the minority', are you implying that the majority is in favour of divorce? And if so, are you saying that the will of the majority should be disregarded? Because THAT certainly ISN'T democracy.
Live and let live - if a person in an unhappy marriage wishes to remain married due to their religious beliefs, fair enough. I'm not going to force them to divorce their spouse.
But if my wife and I were to be unhappily married, who are YOU (and who is the state) to tell us what to do about it? Why should your belief system take precedence over mine, especially when I've never tried to impose my ideas onto you?
And, please note, I say this as the son of divorced parents. I hated the anger and tension in my house as a child, and was incredibly (cont)
J. Azzopardi
May 12th 2009, 16:02
@Emanuel Bajada
Stop making everything a political issue.
@Aleksandar Dimitrijevic
I think you are right, democracy isn't about the dictatorship of the majority over the minority. It's about the right to choice, freedom of expression, freedom from unnecessary intrusion, privacy, etc. If you don't see my point yet, as long as no third parties are being effected it is anyone's right to do as they please with their life.
@Joe Grima
I'm in favour of divorce, I'm in favour of gay marriage, but I'm totally against Abortion.. Euthanasia is a very delicate subject I'de rather not go into it. Consequently, you might see that they are totally different issues.
And to all of those who get religion mixed with politics, with all due respect, I have the right to Freedom of Religion. You have no right to impose your catholic beliefs on me in any way, afterall 'a democracy is not the dictatorship of the majority over the minority' ay?
Name Name
May 12th 2009, 15:50
My biggest problem about this issue is that divorce is already recognized by law. It is probably no news that any divorce granted by a foreign court where one of the spouses is a national will be immediately, and automatically recognized in Malta (a.33 Marriage Act). Perhaps more of a surprise, it can be argued that the Code of Civil Procedure gives recognition to foreign court judgments in a much wider manner. That is, to give an example, Rino Nevada only requests seven days residence for it to have jurisdiction to grant divorce, and a couple can easily go spend a week there and bring divorce, which, arguably, would be recognizable under Maltese Law (a. 826 COCP). My problem is that we do have divorce, but it is limited to a certain class of people, and it is perfectly excluded for those who do not afford to go to, for example to Rino Nevada, ecc. Divorce is no longer a question of public policy, as such. Malta is the only country in the EU which doesn't grant Divorce (even if we do grant it, however expensive it may be). Is it time for a referendum? I think yes.
S Risso
May 12th 2009, 15:48
@ Laurence S.
Yes we have annulment but it does not mean you get one. Thus spending alot of money and get nothing from the state or church. with divorce, you actually get a divorce. Thus getting what you are paying for.
Matthew Borg
May 12th 2009, 15:44
Ms. Abela Baldacchino fails to recognise, in her 'legal analysis' of things, that a divorce obtained from abroad by a Maltese couple who have lived in Malta and were married under Maltese legislation is NOT recognised.
I kindly refer to Article 3 of Brussels II bis for further details on this.
laurence schembri
May 12th 2009, 14:40
We are a load of hypocrites. We do have divorce under another name `annulment`, being by Church or by Court.
John Meli
May 12th 2009, 14:31
Good to note that one might also say "what do Criminologist (this is also documented on the INTERNET) say to what is causing all these divorces which are also connected to crime violations?"
From their studies it was established that males are more likely to commit crimes from females. It was also established that when they are between 12 to 18 years they are more likely to commit a crime. However, the major factor indicated that these had parental indication, and among the strongest predictors was that of juvenile in their frequent involvement in crime, (In fact the knife crime had increased in U.K. and also recently in Malta) especially when the family environment is absent, such as that due to separations or divorce families.
These parental factors are all related to delinquency and can be grouped to four categories:
1.Parental neglects such as in large families, poor supervision, inadequate parent-child interaction.
2.Parental conflict and discipline such as abuse or nagging, harsh, erratic or inconsistent discipline.
3.Deviate (parental) behaviors, or attitudes, parental criminality, or violence or tolerance of violence etc.,
4.Associate to family disruption for example in chronic spouse conflict or marriage brake-ups.
John Meli
May 12th 2009, 14:19
Good to know that a British Criminologist namely Dr. Patricia Morgan, a effected an important study in the UK and USA, but in this most important report she stated that after effecting her studies she discovered a clear link between the braking-up of families and criminality. In her National Development Study held in the United Kingdom in the year 1975 on 18,000 young children before they became sixteen years, the majority had already appeared before the court for some criminal offense. The result on boys was as follows:-
8 % those who lived with natural parents (divorced)
16 % coming from single mothers.
19 % coming from women living with another man (divorced or separated)
70 % of those in prison came from families without a natural father (broken families)
As we all know from news on television or newspapers that criminality in the Britain and in Malta too had increased enormously. The reason was that the year 1975 she quoted this because it was near the year when divorce was being introduced in other European countries too. Do we need this(Divorce), knowing these results and out-come?
Ms P Graham
May 12th 2009, 14:04
John Meli, in an ideal world your "solutions", "suggestions" may work, however we do not live in an ideal world. In the current climate women are generally left holding the baby, so to speak, with very few rights, some without a home, without means and for those who have remained at home raising children, no income.
No amount of reading the Bible or praying will free a woman living in an abusive relationship. The marriage must come to a legal end with priority given to the children and their future and not as it is now, left to a "contract of separation" that is not worth the paper it is printed on, or enforced.
Claudine Cassar
May 12th 2009, 13:27
@Joe Grima
how utterly ridiculous to equate divorce with abortion and euthanasia! In Malta we have seperation, which has exactly the same effect on children as divorce! So at the end of the day this is just a case of beating around the bush. Families are breaking down already, with or without divorce!
P. Schembri
May 12th 2009, 13:08
(1)Say daily some prayers (before meals or at night time) or read the Bible (if Catholic) regularly (together-separately) (2) Get used to forgiveness (from both side) (3) Make yourself both aware of our Christian/Catholic laws; and (4) At an early stage of marriage help your children from their confirmation days to start attended (any) prayer-meetings; or legion of Mary; or Museum in your area to enrich further in one's religion teaching.
Before or after the divorce?
Aleksandar Dimitrijevic
May 12th 2009, 13:04
I have an idea. Let held a referendum of should women become property of men? If majority votes for it, we turn it into laws ...afterall, that is what democracy is all about.
or let us hold referendum on should all blac people be enslaved and do road maintenance work for free? If majority votes yes, we turn it into laws. After all, that is the wish of majority and that is what democracy is all about.
or lets vote if colour of milk should change to black? if majority wishes so, it will become law and ..
Sorry Mrs. Baldacchino, but your views on what democracy is all about are wrong.
Democracy is not dictatorship of majority over minority.
Joe Grima (Brussels)
May 12th 2009, 12:07
@ Ms Graham
All so true. When it comes to divorce, it is US, the grown ups who have the only say. Children's rights come second, or none at all! We grown ups have our rights and voices, so we tend to be egoistic. When we foresee a burden with the unwanted baby, there is abortion to solve OUR problem. When we have trouble in our married life, there is divorce to solve OUR problem. And when we have an elderly or a sick person who is too much for us, we can turn to euthanasia to solve OUR problem.
How often do we give a thought to the baby, the children or the sick and elderly?
John Meli
May 12th 2009, 11:58
Most of the engaged or married couples would not end up in any sort of trouble that would lead them to separation(divorce) for something that could have been sorted out. If one had an extensive Cana course with all the information on life, including the management and co-operation of couples, they could make it up-to 50years. They need to eliminate the need of cohabitation, and also managed to find four major points that if followed couples would avoided all future hardship and pain that comes to their children and their own life if they choose to separate. They can contribute from early stage-of-life of their engagement or courtship from over six months together, and for children if possible from after doing their confirmation.
(1)Say daily some prayers (before meals or at night time) or read the Bible (if Catholic) regularly (together-separately) (2) Get used to forgiveness (from both side) (3) Make yourself both aware of our Christian/Catholic laws; and (4) At an early stage of marriage help your children from their confirmation days to start attended (any) prayer-meetings; or legion of Mary; or Museum in your area to enrich further in one's religion teaching. This way we can survive!
Emanuel Bajada
May 12th 2009, 10:51
And how would you if I may ask, interpret its result if ever? Like you and your then party's leader did the referendum on the EU?
Ms P Graham
May 12th 2009, 10:44
"I find it rather hypocritical that in this country, it is still not possible for a couple whose marriage has failed irretrievably to file for divorce in the local courts, when those same courts are legally bound to recognise a divorce obtained by that same couple in a foreign court".
Burying ones head in the sand does not make a problem go away and the lack of decent laws for Divorce in Malta are detrimental to Maltese children who are the ones who suffer the most.
A referendum on Divorce? I doubt it will ever happen simply because the powers that be know it would fly.