House committee in divorce debate
The first attempt at debate on divorce took place in the House of Representatives today, with arguments for and against being made in the Social Affairs Committee between committee chairman Edwin Vassallo and Martin Scicluna, who started a presentation calling for divorce legislation on the basis of a report prepared by the Today Public Policy Institute.
In his introduction, Mr Scicluna said he was encouraged that the committee was taking interest in this subject. It was up to the legislators to decide on divorce in the best interests of society. MPs had a duty and responsibility to ease the suffering caused by marital breakdown and give citizens the freedoms given to others.
This, he said, was not an argument about divorce but about the right to re-marry after legal separation. The state, he pointed out, currently banned divorce but allowed legal separation. Remarriage was currently only allowed if divorce was obtained abroad. Thus half of the issue had already been decided.
CURRENT STATE OF MARRIAGE
Mr Scicluna said that in 1995 there were 5,095 people whose marriage had been annulled or they were divorced or legally separated. By 2005 that figure had reached 13,354 and the estimated figure for 2015 was 35,000 individuals- that projection having been made by the Institute of Research of the Times (Discern) which reports to the Archbishop.
All these marriages had collapsed even though there was no divorce in Malta, Mr Scicluna said.
Interjecting, committee chairman Edwin Vassallo (PN) said that if the Discern projections were to be given weight, then its other arguments on the value of marriage should be similarly treated. He however, was not so sure about how the figures were compiled and there could be double counting.
Michael Farrugia (PL), said that one could agree with statistics but not opinion.
Continuing, Mr Scicluna said broken marriages were personal, human tragedies which should matter to the State and deserved to be tackled with new legal remedies. The state allowed annulment or legal separation and the only missing element was the right to remarry. It was right that the state supported marriage, and more measures should be taken to support marriages, as the think tank report had suggested.
But, he said, the state also had to cater for the reality that marriages would still continue to break down, and legislation should recognise this by encouraging the institution of marriage as the form of relationship that could follow a collapsed marriage, rather than cohabitation as the relationship of last resort. Cohabitation did not equate with the stability and status of marriage.
Mr Scicluna insisted that it was important that people had the right to a distinction between the right to follow the rules of religion and the right not to have the rules of religion imposed on those who opted otherwise. A secular democracy should respect the passions of religious faiths but should not have its laws dictated by them. Legislating for divorce would not force anyone to revoke his religious convictions.
OBJECTIONS TO RE-MARRIAGE
Mr Scicluna argued that divorce was not the cause of marriage breakdown but a way to reduce the impact of a collapsed marriage on individuals and society. Divorce was a remedy to a marriage breakdown, not its cause.
Interjecting, Mr Vassallo said that in European countries which had introduced divorce, the value of marriage had been diluted, to the extent that many couples were preferring to cohabit rather than marry in the first place.
Mr Scicluna said there was no causal link between divorce rates and cohabitation rates. While the laws on cohabitation did need to be tightened up, one should not stop there and one should look for the stability which came from remarriage.
Anthony Zammit (PL) said there were stable and unstable marriages. In the case of the latter, could one deny such people the opportunity to a stable marriage? He agreed that marriage was far more stable than cohabitation.
Mr Vassallo said that where there was divorce, such as in the US, the rate of failure in a remarriage was far greater than in the first marriage. Statistics abroad did not lend weight to the divorce argument.
Mr Scicluna said one had to see the culture of the country. Malta, he felt, was closest to the Irish culture. Maltese society favoured steady marriage, and divorce gave the opportunity for a re-marriage for those who so chose.
No one entered into a marriage with the intent of divorce, Mr Scicluna said, and he therefore disagreed that divorce led to a lack of commitment to the marriage contract.
Mr Vassallo said statistics abroad showed that divorce transformed marriage into a temporary contract. Did Mr Scicluna have statistics to back his arguments?
Mr Scicluna said he was arguing on grounds of rationality, not statistics. People did not marry because they intended to divorce.
Mr Vassallo said that the idea that one could divorce led people not to resist marriage breakdown.
Mr Scicluna said that was a cynical argument.
Mr Vassallo said that was what crude statistics showed. People had no intention to divorce, but they did.
Mr Scicluna said one had to see what nature of divorce legislation existed.
DIVORCE VS COHABITATION
Continuing his presentation, he said marriage collapses were already taking place in considerable numbers in Malta. The absence of divorce had not spared people the pain of marriage breakdowns, but marginalised legally separated couples. Changing the law would therefore not destabilise society, but enhance it.
Intervening again, Mr Vassallo said that in other countries which had divorce, people did not tend to remarry or even to marry, but to cohabit. The Maltese too were increasingly cohabiting. There was therefore a divorce mentality in practice. So what would be the consequences on society of formally introducing divorce? Would the situation make matters worse. Would a door that was ajar be opened wide?
Mr Scicluna said divorce would not make the situation worse, but give an opportunity for remarriage.
Mr Vassallo said figures abroad showed otherwise and the accent now was on strengthening families, which should be what concerned society most.
Justyne Caruana (PL) said opposition to divorce did not stem only from religion but also from the very consequences of divorce.
Mr Scicluna said there was also pain suffered by people whose first marriage collapsed and they moved into a new, stable relationship but could not remarry.
Dr Caruana said that in many cases, the least thing people thought about when their marriage collapsed was remarriage. The country should first address the issues created by marriage breakdowns, and their causes.
The young increasingly did not even believe in marriage. So would introducing divorce help?
Mr Scicluna said the framework for divorce legislation in Malta had to be tailored to the context of Maltese society. That way people could opt for the stability of remarriage as against cohabitation.
Mr Vassallo said he did not see stability as equating with the right to remarriage. The fact that marriages were collapsing showed there was a problem of stability there which needed to be tackled.
Concluding today's sitting, Mr Vassallo urged Mr Scicluna to present the committee with more statistics on the situation abroad. Arguments, he said, had to be backed by statistics and research in other countries. Would the right to remarry improve marriages and family stability?. So far it had been shown that even separations were undermining society. Would the right to remarry undermine Maltese society further?
Mr Scicluna said he had not concluded his presentation, but his arguments were based on rationality and justice for those who wished to remarry.
Mr Vassallo said politicians had to know whether they would strengthen or weaken society.
Mr Scicluna said divorce would introduce more order in society because people could remarry rather than opt for cohabitation as at present.
Mr Vassallo said he could not agree, because statistics showed that in countries which had divorce, cohabitation was still increasing. ,
Mr Scicluna insisted these points were not related. Most Maltese people wanted to marry and it was only just that they were given the opportunity to do so.
Mr Scicluna is to continue his presentation in another sitting.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Petrol price up 6c
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
23 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Zammit
Dec 21st 2010, 16:42
BORG IN-NADUR: 17 ta' Novembru, 2010:
Uliedi, illejla tajtkom prova ċara. Iva wliedi, għalhekk Ibni Ġesù qed jibgħatni hawn, fuq dil-gżira. Għalhekk għażilt dil-familja kważi ħames snin ilu. Għalhekk ridt lil Angelik u lil Catherine. Iva wliedi, Ibni Ġesù ma riedx jara żwieġ imfarrak. Għalhekk ħames snin ilu bagħatni hawnhekk, nerġa’ ngħidilkom. Ġejt inħabbrilkom minn qabel x’se jseħħ fuq dil-gżira. Kien hawn min fehemni u oħrajn lanqas biss taw widen.
Ftit taż-żmien ieħor se jkollkom għażla f’idejkom intom stess. Oqogħdu attenti x’tagħżlu wliedi. Iġġibux il-gwaj fuqkom.
Fejnhom fil-familji l-imħabba, l-għaqda, il-maħfra, is-sinċerità u t-talb flimkien? Fejnhom? Għalhekk illum kulħadd qed ifarfar minn fuq spallejh mal-ewwel intopp li jinqala’.
Iva wliedi, il-qalb tiegħi u l-qalb ta’ Ibni Ġesù muġugħin minħabba fikom. Jiena muġugħa għax jiena omm li nħoss għalikom.
Akkost ta’ kollox uliedi, jiġri x’jiġri, ibqgħu għidu: “LE GHAD-DIVORZJU, LE GHAD-DIVORZJU!"
U għidu r-rużarju u ġiegħlu lil ħaddieħor jgħid ir-rużarju.
Grazzi talli smajtu s-sejħa tiegħi.
Dominic Azzopardi
Oct 27th 2009, 10:18
For those who are happily married good luck..For those who want to have a second chance because they think they found the right partner ,lets give them a second chance. Who wants to be progressive ? Lets decide. In this country those who are paid to take decisions are taking too long ,like everything else.
A. Cauchi
Oct 27th 2009, 10:12
MP's should look into why marriages are breaking down. One of the major causes is the ridiculous bank loans couples have to take in order to purchase a home. Spending 40 years repaying the loan (which amounts to almost 2.5 times the original value) surely puts a lot of stress on the relationship.
Gerald Fenech
Oct 27th 2009, 10:00
What is being confused here is the separation between Church and State which is still a cloudy divinding line. If you are married under Church law (the Catholic Church) then you cannot divorce and that is as clear as crystal. However those who choose civil marriage should obviously be allowed the right to divorce as that is a civil matter. The sooner this distinction is made, the clearer it will be for divorce legislation to proceed.
Klaus M. Pedersen
Oct 27th 2009, 09:15
Reading the headline, I thought there was a mistake - what do you mean "attempt at a debate" I asked? Having read the article, however, I now see what you mean.
Joking aside, congratulations to the Today Public Policy Institute for having contributed to finally bring about a debate (or an attempt anyway) about this issue.
Tonio Azzopardi
Oct 27th 2009, 09:11
@R Cassar
What Iran...?? As usual, blinded by cheap propoganda!
In Iran....
''married couples who find it inconvenient to live together have the option of getting a divorce.''
Read more: http://family.jrank.org/pages/957/Iran-Divorce.html#ixzz0V7ajpaOK
Claire Hollier
Oct 27th 2009, 09:06
None can provide statistics proving that divorce is enhancing marriage stability. That is a false stick and unfair to ask. Marriages worldwide are becoming less stable with or without divorce because people know their rights and are no longer ready to live and pretend that they are living 'happy' unions. Children suffer truly in marriages breakdowns notwithstanding divorce. They suffer because parents are not happily united and neglect them whether still in wedlock, separated or divorced. So, ok lets strive for enhanced unions, however separation whether de jure or de facto will still occur with or without divorce. Insofar is anyone ready to cater for the circumstances after marriage breakdown? Should we fuel cohabitation after marriage breakdown because there is no other alternative neither a small percentage to remarry? Even if a small percentage choses to remary, we would be pushing people to form a family and give legal rights to partners to inherite eachother and the right to give consent to some medical intervention? With allowing separation, enhancing cohabitation etc how are we going to sustain healthy unions after marriage breakdowns. I have never come across to statistics showing that the lack of divorce enhances marriage stability.
C Gatt
Oct 27th 2009, 08:55
@Andrew Borg-Cardona
Why is Martin Scicluna even bothering?" Because without a proper legal infrastructure people can get even more hurt and abused. L'Arte di Arragiarsi' is really not a solution.
@James De Giorgio. I cannot remember another contributor who managed to strong together many sweeping statements and inane generalizations in one comment. If these 'facts' are so available, perhaps he would be kind enough to send us the links.
@The Politicians If this is the level of intellectual discourse you intend to create no wonder we are in the state we are in . However I can't claim to be surprised. Just turn on to 106.6 any time there is parliament on the radio and try to get through more then 10 minutes of the inanities and drivel that passes for debate. I am surprised the speaker has not yet topped himself.
d. borg
Oct 27th 2009, 08:43
Why is it that in Malta we always remain in the discussion phase of things? The whole world has divorce legislation but tiny Malta needs to dicuss and discuss again and again. The fact remains that many couples need divorce to restart a new life. Those who are happy in their married life, well good luck to them.
Mario Bonnici
Oct 27th 2009, 08:40
Dr.Joseph Muscat speaks about a progressive labour Party, but unfortunately it is full of CONSERVATIVE MP's.
Malta and the Philippines are the only two countries in the world that still haven't introduced divorce!!
Mario Genovese
Oct 27th 2009, 08:28
I had a happy marriage....and up to now, it would not even cross my mind to leave my partner of 23 years. However, I feel pity for those whose marriage failed and cannot restart afresh. I know friends who really want things right and are struggling to build a new relationship without being seen by their nephews and nieces as cohabitators. Up to now they cannot!!! And all this because of us who are happily married, want to follow our religion to the book, and don't care about those who are living hell and are ready to abandon their religious beliefs to start anew. The state is there to cater for everyone and not a section of society!
John Pace
Oct 27th 2009, 08:23
Martin Scicluna intelligent heroic crusader for a just and noble cause. I salute you and thank you. ...... Edwin Vassallo - Your arguments show a profound lack of truth and intelligence. Who are you afraid of?
Peter Korsten
Oct 27th 2009, 08:16
Divorce already exists in Malta. It's called 'separation' and it's everything that divorce is, except that you can't remarry. Also, there is an inordinate amount of annulments in this country.
But obviously, there are those who like to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that divorce doesn't exist and that they're being good little Catholics.
J Farrugia
Oct 27th 2009, 07:53
Who is this Martin Scicluna? Why is he the only person this select committee is interviewing? What is his Agenda? Who does he think he is when he says that "divorce would introduce more order in society because people could remarry rather than opt for cohabitation as at present.". he really is out of touch with the real world. He should be ashamed of himself for trying to introduce divorce in Malta. And why did this House committee call him to 'enlighten it' (sic) about such a hot matter: Divorce. The grand disorder divorce brings to our nation like it did to other nations, will be on his grave forever.
C Farrugia
Oct 27th 2009, 07:48
I think divorce should be introduced after one year of living separated, not after four years as is being proposed by Martin Scicluna. As it it here in Germany. Why compare ourselves to Ireland?? Malta is very different. Getting a divorce is an expensive ordeal and also not an easy thing, so I do not understand the argument of the church that people would divorce b'kapricc if divorce was available and not bother to save their marriage. everyone wants his marriage to work, but if it cannot be saved, THERE HAS TO BE A WAY OUT. Our representatives should be representing all members of society, not just those with happy marriages and intact families. In some cases, some individuals are not even to blame for the breakdown of their marriage cause there may be other factors which led to it, or they were victims of violence, why should they suffer the consequences all their life for a bad choice they made?
Dr Emmy Bezzina, B.A.,LL.D.
Oct 27th 2009, 07:23
A ``million light years`` behind times,finally this politically lack luster country represented by politicians whose main concern is to retain their Seat,Perks & Privileges AND NOT [ as it should always be the NECESSITIES of the PEOPLE`s NEEDS ],gets down to discuss DIVORCE. The only beacon hitherto MARTIN SCICLUNA who came out from the cold and has literally given a cold,shivering shower to our incompetent Parliamentarians most of whom appear undoubtedly to be simply put NOT THERE!!
Already some of the idiotic arguments put forward by some MPs have a hint of protecting the manipulative forces which this Country must put aside.DIVORCE Legislation has long been-a-coming with some married couples having been apart and not communicated for over two decades and THEY ARE STILL REGARDED AS MARRIED for all intents and purposes of the Law.Let us halt this intellectual dementia and accept REALITY - whoever was responsible for not legislating for all these years should never obtain any assets from our State but should be shamed for derelict of duties.Thanks to persons like MARTIN SCICLUNA and of course OTHERS,DIVORCE ISSUE is once again ALIVE - STOP THE USELESS BLA BLA - DIVORCE NOW !!
Ramon Casha
Oct 27th 2009, 05:38
It's good to finally have this move into a house committee. I hope they do what is right - and introduce divorce. All statistics show that marriage stability is decreasing in all societies, including those which do not permit divorce. Divorce allows the situation to be fixed, rather than insisting against all evidence that a couple are still married.
Graham Crocker
Oct 27th 2009, 00:16
Politicians, statistics and their love of control over other people's lives.
It doesn't occur to them that when marriage was first thought of, it was really a financial thing and that people rarely lived longer then 40 years.
Now women are self sufficient and our life expectancy has doubled and is rising.
Thats why cohabitation is increasing and Mr Vassallo, there is no such thing as a "divorce mentality", what we have in this country is many people with delusional superiority complexes who feel the need to impose or control other people, when they really should be looking at the real problem i.e. controlling themselves).
Cohabitation is becoming the norm, because marriage requires commitment, while the majority of our generation don't understand that virtue, let alone live by it.
Divorce aides marriage-hopefuls, because it lessens the commitment that many people fail to understand.
If one cannot argue from the human right aspect, that is divorce because of irreconcilable differences, at least laws must be drafted for cases of domestic abuse.
I think the welfare of children comes before Politicians and their BS statistics, but maybe some people don't think that is so.
Alex Borg
Oct 26th 2009, 23:34
At this rate we will have divorce legislation in another 25 years. Does it occur to any of the MPs to wonder why Malta is the only Western state without divorce legislation? Are they all so smug and complacent about this build-up of marriage breakdowns?
Colin Camilleri
Oct 26th 2009, 23:34
Unfortunately some people are either born liars or they change their mind notwithstanding the promise that make at the altar! therefore it is only fair on the victim to have a second chance in life.
I do personally agree with divorce and remarriage, albeit only with those who have been found innocent! the culprits for destroying a family and kids should NOT be given a second chance, not even to seek redress at court, let alone alimonies.
Who is found guilty for a marriage break down should also suffer the consequences!!
James De Giorgio
Oct 26th 2009, 23:28
First of all, is Mr Scicluna an independent?
Secondly, it's wrong to say that a good divorce is better than a difficult marriage.
There is no such thing as a good divorce. We have Europe's experience gawping at us. The least we can do is learn.
A divorce means the end result of a hurt couple, wounded children, irreparable damage. It's useless denying it.
Research and studies have shown that children whose parents are divorced are much more likely to fall for drug abuse, alcohol abuse and criminal tendencies. This research is available! Look it up.
Further research shows that a majority (though not all) of children would have preferred to see their parents still together.
REMEMBER!! In Europe, most divorces don't happen due to the extreme cases we always quote locally in Malta - domestic violence etc. Actually that's a small minority. Most divorces in Europe are capricious, and divorce legislation all started with the argument being used here in Malta - "ghax imsieken, mhux sew..."
Divorce is no magic wand. It's rather like throwing away the dirty dishes. Eventually, expenses will take their toll.
R Cassar
Oct 26th 2009, 23:14
Iran or Malta!?
Andrew Borg-Cardona
Oct 26th 2009, 22:26
Why is Martin Scicluna even bothering? In the real world, people will cohabit and separate and find a way to live their lives, while in the world inhabited by the people who consider what they think people want them to say or think before they say or think it, positions will be taken notwithstanding the difficulties they create.