As I have had cause to write before, I don't mind people disagreeing with me over the necessity for the introduction of divorce legislation in Malta. But I do object when people like Tony Mifsud of Marsascala (June 4) misrepresent what I have written.
The position on the need for improving marriage counselling and mediation services to save marriages in peril was made absolutely clear in the TPPI report, of which I was the lead author, For Worse, For Better: Re-marriage After Legal Separation.
In the report, I devoted Part I - In Praise of Marriage - to extolling the need for society and the State to promote stable marriages. "Society and the State have a vested interest in promoting marriage. The first, best answer must be to encourage good marriages built on solid foundations. If the rising tide of marriage breakdowns in Malta is to be stemmed or at least reduced, there are several steps which the State should take. The family requires committed support from the government. In the context of Maltese society today, and in the face of the increasing rates of marriage break-ups, it is considered that a six-point programme of marriage support on the following lines is the minimum that the State should seek to implement."
"...The provision of State mediation, counselling and reconciliation services should be greatly expanded to nip in the bud marriages which are getting into difficulties. Couples with marital problems should be actively encouraged to seek help as early as possible." (I repeated this call later in the report when I wrote about the essential need for a social support framework to underpin the whole process of marital breakdown and, ultimately, civil dissolution.)
But I went on to argue: "The government cannot stop there. It has also got to cater for the reality of modern Maltese life that - despite best efforts to avert it - marriages will continue to break down. While in an ideal world marriage would be for life, it must be recognised that we live in an imperfect world and the ideal is not always possible. When marriages fail, the government must give legal recognition to this fact in such a way as to acknowledge the need to encourage the institution of marriage by allowing those who have been legally separated, and whose marriages have irretrievably broken down, to remarry after the civil dissolution of their marriage."
I am delighted that the Chief Justice and the President of the Chamber of Advocates, one year after the publication of my report, generally support my contention that State mediation, counselling and reconciliation services should be improved. For they, more than many others, must see first hand the turmoil being caused by marriage breakdowns and the inadequate, anomalous and discriminatory state of family law in Malta.
Instead of hypocritically going down the blind alley of cohabitation legislation, the government would do better to improve mediation and counselling services - action which, 12 months after my report, they have not deemed of sufficient priority to take - as well as, most importantly, plucking up the moral courage to introduce fair and equitable divorce legislation.
I can assure Mr Mifsud that there is no "obsession" on my part with "the idea that the solution to marital break-down is divorce", nor do I intend to use "the values of compassion and justice as a stick to kick (sic) the Church" - although my comments have clearly struck a chord with him and many others.
My position stems from an objective, impartial and unprejudiced assessment of the state of marriage in Maltese society today and the need to find legal remedies which are fair, equitable and workable for marriages which are adjudged by the courts to have irretrievably broken down. This is not about religious doctrine. It is about justice for all.