Herman Grech
PN 'finally' puts divorce on agenda
Pullicino Orlando favours referendum
Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi speaking to reporters shortly after a parliamentary group meeting to discuss the divorce Bill.
The Nationalist Party's executive committee has paved the way for a delicate internal debate to discuss whether there are grounds for the party to revise its anti-divorce stand.
During a meeting on Friday evening, the PN broke its long silence on the subject after backbencher Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando recently forced it onto the agenda by presenting a Private Member's Bill.
There was broad consensus during the well-attended meeting that the divorce issue should be decided by the electorate, though it has not been established whether this should be through a referendum or otherwise. So far, the PN has not established any time frames.
It is still not clear how the majority of the 80 or so members of the executive of the traditionally pro-Church party feel about the divorce issue.
But sources said around eight speakers on Friday (including ministers Tonio Fenech, Tonio Borg and Carm Mifsud Bonnici) advanced arguments against the introduction of divorce while three expressed themselves in favour. Some others merely put their thoughts on record in what sources described as a "surprisingly positive" meeting.
"The majority at the meeting made it clear we can't keep ignoring this issue. We are heading towards a clear, unequivocal stand on divorce," one official said.
When contacted, PN Information Director Frank Psaila said there was agreement that though the PN was "by its nature" against divorce, it was wide open to discussion - aware of a changing society and families facing problems.
"Thus, the PN thinks it is appropriate to embark on a wider discussion within its ranks wherein party members express their opinions freely," he said.
During Friday's meeting there was broad consensus that the strengthening of the Maltese family needs to be at the core of the on-going discussion, Mr Psaila added.
Asked whether the party will set up a commission to provide it with scientific data regarding changing trends within Maltese society, the family and marriage, he said he had personally put forward this suggestion for consideration.
The executive did not rule out setting up a commission to draw up a scientific report in the future, though it was agreed that at this stage the discussion should continue within the party using official statistics.
Though party leader Lawrence Gonzi opened the discussion by reiterating his opposition to divorce, Mr Psaila said the Prime Minister made it clear he did not wish to impose his personal beliefs on the executive.
One executive member in favour of divorce said the ultra conservative elements in the party had no right to impose their morals on colleagues who had so far remained silent.
One source said though Dr Pullicino Orlando was widely criticised for the way he presented the Bill, he was gaining support from unexpected quarters, especially since there appears to be broad agreement that the MP's unexpected move burst the Labour Party leader's bubble on the subject. Joseph Muscat had said he would allow a free vote on divorce once elected.
The same source insisted, however, that the PN had no mandate to introduce divorce in this legislature and should instead stop dragging its feet on the cohabitation law it had promised.
The PN group is also expected to eventually decide whether any future referendum would be based on a pre-prepared divorce law, so that the electorate would have a clear idea of the details of such legislation.
One executive member who expressed himself against divorce lashed out at the backbencher's Bill, telling The Sunday Times it was riddled with legal loopholes.
"If we're really going to move forward on divorce, we need to do some serious soul searching on the state of the family... and so far there's nothing of the sort."
The next PN executive meeting will take place in September.
Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando's presentation to the PN executive committee
The reasons
1. It is unjust that only Malta and the Philippines deny the rights for citizens to apply for divorce locally, while recognising divorces granted overseas.
2. Divorce is requested more by those who had the bad luck of seeing their first marriage break down and who want to rebuild a new life and family with their partner. Does it make sense for the state to discourage this? The state should relate more to a formal family unit rather than a cohabiting couple.
The Bill safeguards
1. No couple may apply for divorce until it proves in front of the Family Court it has been separated for at least four of the last five years. This should ensure nobody takes any frivolous steps without weighing the repercussions.
2. The court has to be satisfied that there is no possibility of reconciliation. Lawyers should be obliged to formally certify that every means of reconciliation have been exhausted.
3. The court has to be satisfied that the necessary provisions for the dependent members of the family have been taken. The children and dependent members of a broken family will always suffer.
Opposition to introduction of divorce
1. The argument: 'Men will leave their wives for younger women should divorce be introduced'. This is unfortunately already
taking place, and will continue happening with or without divorce. Men who conveniently leave their wives to care for the children will be forced to regularise their lives as well as that of their estranged partners. It suits such men to retain the status quo.
2. The argument: 'Divorce brings about a breakdown to marriages'. The two biggest factors leading to matrimonial troubles are adultery and financial problems. Adultery will never go away, but financial burdens are likely to increase should the route to divorce be taken.
3. The argument: 'God does not want divorce'. Many object to divorce because of their beliefs. I don't blame these people but the country cannot legislate according to religious beliefs. Should this be the case, contraceptives, adultery and homosexuality should be rendered criminal acts.
4. The argument: 'Each country that introduced divorce saw a breakdown in families'. Nobody can say scientifically this statement is correct unless countries that bar divorce are included in studies. Each country that introduced divorce saw the initial wave of applications wane, which means that a large number of couples were simply waiting to pounce at the opportunity.
5. The argument: 'We have no electoral mandate'. I agree with the Prime Minister that the electorate should take the final decision on such an important subject. Such a decision should be taken in an informed manner. People should be presented with a law which is subject to amendments where required, with the participation of society's representatives. It should then be presented for approval through a referendum.
6. The argument: 'Divorce goes against the PN's basic principles'. If this was the case, this executive would not have approved certain pro-divorce candidates like Georg Sapiano and Edward Demicoli for the general and European Parliament elections respectively.
The political argument
Does it make sense for our political opponents to make political gains from this issue? This should be a secondary consideration but a political consideration like this should be considered.
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...
'No need for early election if PM's...
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...
31 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Zammit
Feb 9th 2011, 16:26
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.
J.Camilleri
Aug 3rd 2010, 10:03
Thank God that we have joined europe eh ! Slowly slowly we have to be like all the rest of europe. Next is Abortion ... wait and see ! I hope all the gullibles whoever voted yes will start carcading now for bringing in the divorce. Viva L-ewropaaa !
E Camilleri
Aug 3rd 2010, 12:27
It's not as if these false values wouldn't have found their way into our society if we hadn't joined the EU.
Lina Caruana
Aug 2nd 2010, 18:00
I am afraid the discussion is many times carried out on the level of a few people who need divorce at all costs. The urge for it is sustained by some thinkers who want to push it more because it serves people they know rather than in the interest of the Nation. When other countries are crying over split milk we are being tempted to shed it. Please do not ignore the fact that before one takes an action one has also to calculate the risks and not from a personal point of view.
B. Cachia
Aug 3rd 2010, 10:07
The few polls public polls that have been done over the past few years clearly indicate that the strongest correlations in support for divorce are with age and education. Support for divorce among those under 50 is extremely strong but it becomes almost a consensus among the 'young' and better educated, many of whom are not even married. Incidentally, the latest poll I've seen also indicates a majority of 59% in favour of some kind of divorce legislation, a complete reversal of the situation that prevailed 15-20 years ago.
I myself am a strong supporter of divorce legislation even though I'm not even married let alone separated. For many supporters that I know, at least, it is a question of freedom and the separation of Church and State. Religious principles are not something that should be imposed by the State but should be embraced freely.
Lina Caruana
Aug 2nd 2010, 17:54
@ Paul Barret
Some issues are more urgent than others.Everything costs money, the whole nation must be considered when spending public funds. The country's economy comes first.Climate change is a threat and it is useless burying your head in the sand. Investment in human resources is an urgent matter. May I point out that it is an illusion to think that divorce does not cost money to the State. Ask those countries who are carrying the burden and wondering why things do not work. Just think of overlapping families , paying as many say the heavy bills imposed, rising costs of food, education expenses as well as other trivialities which the Maltese on the papers always grumble about. How is it that people do not think of them when they think of the families who will be bearing such expenses with increased family maintenance due? Not to speak about division of the matrimonial residence with the expense of another. smaller housing . The villa syndrome is now going down to small apartments in low rent or cheap housing areas . Is this true or are everyday grumbles false ? Practicality is measured against reality not wishful thinking.
Joe Zammit
Aug 1st 2010, 16:51
According to the opinion poll carried out by timesofmalta.com on whether a decision on divorce should be taken by Parliament or by the people at a referendum, over 77 per cent had opted for a referendum.
Since marriage precedes the state, and the family is the foundation cell of society, divorce will affect marriages, families and the whole of society.
In other words it will have an impact - in this case a negative one - on me, on you and on all Maltese and Gozitans.
So, all Maltese and Gozitans must have a direct and clear say on the introduction or otherwise of divorce in our legislation. This "direct and clear say" points only to a referendum.
At a general election, all political parties will have many issues in their electoral programmes. So, mixing divorce with other issues is not advisable.
Voting for divorce is always a betrayal of Christ!
Joseph Calleja
Aug 1st 2010, 17:21
" Voting for divorce is always a betrayal of Christ! ". Mr Zammit as you know I am in favour of divorce but I don't think that I am betraying Christ in any way. That is your opinion of which you know what I think. Mr Zammit you have no right to condemn me or any other for not agreeing with you. As far as I know you are not part of a clergy, probably not even married but yet terrified of the word divorce. What do you care? What are you afraid of? This is a civil matter and not a catholic church matter like you would like to believe. He who lives in a glass house should not throw any rocks. Let him with no sins throw the first stone. Are you willing to be that person? Stop threatening people Joe, you are not St Joe yet.
Duncan Sant
Aug 1st 2010, 17:38
While Mr Zammit's writings on divorce are somewhat repetitive and always of the same substance (or lack of), what I find most disturbing is the fact that he wants to have it his way (or God's way) or nothing.
If ever my marriage gets in trouble (which I hope it doesn't), I will do anything in my power to fix it. But that is just me. Who am I to prevent others that have their marriage broken down from divorcing if they so wish? What is the difference between couples getting divorced and re-marry and couples legally separating and cohabiting with other partners?
And besides all this, Mr Zammit should also know that God gave us something called CHOICE. God shows the right way, but left us common mortals the freedom to choose. Why should Mr Zammit deny this freedom that God Himself gave us?
Felix Ebejer
Aug 1st 2010, 18:02
Joe Zammit With due respect Joe, I have seen many broken families and people who should never even have considered marriage. Apart from this, there is already divorce in Malta and anyone can still get it. Anyone can go to another country, live there for some months to become domiciled there, get divorced and have his divorce recognized in Malta. That was introduced way back in the 1970's. So you see Joe, divorce is here for anyone who can afford to live for a few months in another country, but not for those who cannot afford to do so and have to continue to live a life in hell.
Paul Barrett
Aug 1st 2010, 19:32
I am afraid that you are continuing to destroy your case by bringing religion into the debat on divorce.
A failed marriage is negative for society. Allowing those from a failed marriage to re-marry should they wish to is a positive. Divorce would allow this.
I agree that it would be difficult for either of the main political parties to have divorce as part of their manifest they are unsure of the support this would loose or gain. Like them, I wonder just how many people still live in fear of hell and damnation for separating religious beliefs from common sense, compassion, the security of marriage after a legal separation followed by divorce from a previous failed marriage.
Joe Zammit
Aug 1st 2010, 21:34
Felix, choosing evil like divorce is not using your freedom but ABUSING of your freedom. In abusing your freedom you will have a negative impact on society.
Joe Zammit
Aug 2nd 2010, 02:12
Paul, Christ tells you never to resort to divorce because divorce is evil and it is a grave sin. Divorce separates the divorcee from God and puts them on the way to hell. Divorce is detrimental to all individuals and to the whole of society. Marriage is for life. The characteristics of marriage is unity (one man and one woman) and indissolubility (for ever).
Ernest Vella
Aug 1st 2010, 15:37
Jekk it-twemmin religjuz ma jitpoggiex f'konsiderazzjoni f'legizlazzjoni mela dan ifisser li int tlift vot, mhux wiehed biss imma ta dawk kollha li t-twemmin religjuz jigi qabel kull ideoligija politika...jien qabel ma jien Malti jien Nisrani...l-Innu Malti ma jghoddx ghalik...il-bewsa li tajt lil kurcifss hija bewsa ta tradiment. Prosit u Keep it up
Xi jmiss indahhlu issa?
victor pulis
Aug 1st 2010, 21:15
Forsi il burka? il morality police bil bsaten isawwtu n-nisa li johorgu barra b'wicchom mikxuf? It thaggir tal adulteri (wahda mill ligijiet ta' Mose' incidentalment) il hruq tal eretici fil pjazez? (ala inkwizizzjoni kattolika incidentalment)
Lina Caruana
Aug 1st 2010, 15:33
No excuse is needed to say that the timing of the divorce issue is incongruent with the times for the following reasons.
1. Recovery from the global recession needs time and it is unwise to burden the welfare state with more expenses when it is already overburdened.
2. Recently the scientist who eradicated smallpox Prof. Frank Feller has declared that because of climate change the human species is at serious risk of perishing within the next 100 years like many species have done . This is urgent as survival is of primary importance needing urgent attention.
3. We are at the crossroads of development which must be based on our only resource ,human resource. Heavy investment is required to pull us along.
4. A strong family makes a healthy nation.Overlapping families are known to create emotional and problems in social order.
5. Inheritance laws are already laden with loopholes within family law. Have we thought about basic implications for the family?
6.Do we mean to be radical in the upheaval of social custom for those who do not want it ? It is useless modeling on other countries because Malta has its own defined structures.
Paul Barrett
Aug 1st 2010, 17:03
Counter comments to your comments:
1. Divorce places no extra cost on the welfare budget.
2. I am not sure how smallpox and climate change relate to the divorce debate.
3. You have lost me on your point of heavy investment and the relevance to divorce. If a marriage does not work, no amount of heavy investment will hold it together - thus we have legal separation which should be finalised with a divorce after a suitable period of time (one year I suggest). The saying about flogging a dead horse should apply here.
4. You are right in that a strong family makes for a healthy nation and that overlapping families are known to create emotional and problems in social order. That is why a divorce law following a legal separation is required.
5. Again you are correct "Inheritance laws are already laden with loopholes within family law". Solve this with writing a will.
6. There is no upheaval of social custom for those that do not wish to take advantage of a divorce law - there is no compulsion for one or both spouse from a divorce to re-marry.
Lina Caruana
Aug 1st 2010, 15:12
It is wrong to appeal to God for punishment as justice because in His Infinity He may also punish us all for our mistakes. Prayer should be addressed towards those whose family lives got mixed up ,some through no fault of their own, for God's strength and enlightenment in their situation. As brethren we must be concerned about their plight and find every means to help . What we should not encourage is that this is done at the expense of others who cannot understand what they are in for. It is up to the intelligent MP'S to open their eyes on what they are proposing simply because of experiences which are not everybody's. We know well enough that different religions ,and advanced countries are well aware that divorce has created unexpected irreversible problems.Should we follow suit.?
B. Cachia
Aug 3rd 2010, 10:20
On a practical level, I think that if you compare the countries that don't have divorce (Malta and the Philippines) with those that do (the rest of the world) you'll find that we don't necessarily stand out as beacons for the rest to follow. Malta is the poorest country in Western Europe in GDP per capita terms and, as if that were not enough, it is facing demographic collapse thanks to a birth-rate that is far below replacement level and is among the lowest in the world. The Philippines is also one of the poorer countries in its region and is rarely looked upon as an example of the ideal society.
If we go quite a bit further back to the days when half of Europe didn't have divorce (the southern half) we'd find that the more vibrant and dynamic part of the continent was in fact the protestant north. Not only that, but the family was probably just as strong in Victorian Britain (which allowed divorce) as it was in the typical Catholic country, and ethical standards were probably far stronger up north than they were in the Med (and that's probably still the case).
C.camilleri
Aug 1st 2010, 13:15
@ J Zammit
Stop playing God, and stop imposing on our mp's how to act on the divorce issues, as if they are a bunch of fools and needs you to guide them.
Josephine Bugeja
Aug 1st 2010, 12:02
It seems that Mr. Zammit has now gone one step further and arrogated to himself the right to issue warnings to MP's, threatening them with divine retribution. I suppose we are bound to see more of this as further steps are taken to resolve the issue one way or the other. I trust that the majority of MP's are not easily frightened by threats of eternal fire. Was God not awake, Mr. Zammit, when divorce was introduced in other countries or does He spend all His waking hours standing guard over Malta to the exclusion of all the rest?
Joe Zammit
Aug 1st 2010, 10:38
On the latest survey on living and income conditions released by the National Statistics Office, a pessimist would say seven per cent of marriages have failed. An optimist would be satisfied that 93 per cent of marriages are still going steady. A realist looks at both and tries to help failed marriages to heal and steady marriages to become stronger.
Separation always leaves the door open for reunion. Divorce goes directly against marriage itself.
No MP can vote in favour of divorce without sinning seriously against God. This is a warning and let every MP know that God is not asleep. Time will tell!
Paul Barrett
Aug 1st 2010, 11:17
There is nothing to stop separated couples getting together again - there is nothing to stop a divorced couple getting married to each other again.
There is no point in threatening our MP's with the wrath of your or their God, it is a childish and meaningless act of aggression.
Joseph Micallef
Aug 1st 2010, 12:27
Again Mr. Zammit - you got me shivering with fear!!
victor pulis
Aug 1st 2010, 13:01
A super realist would admit that not all broken marriages can be 'healed' what is the church doing about them besides telling them to keep on praying and possibly suffering at the hands of their spouses in the hope that when they die they will go to heaven?
Threatening our MPs with eternal fire (along with all non cathoilcs may I add) will not win you any points Joe. I hope your answer will not be the usual cut and paste comment.
sciortino m
Aug 1st 2010, 10:32
'One executive member who expressed himself against divorce lashed out at the backbencher's Bill, telling The Sunday Times it was riddled with legal loopholes.
"If we're really going to move forward on divorce, we need to do some serious soul searching on the state of the family... and so far there's nothing of the sort."'
What is the anonymous executive member waiting for to prod the PM to do something to strengthen families? Marriage breakdowns have increased dramatically over the last twenty years almost exclusively under PN Governments. All we have is just talk about the need to strengthen the family. No action ever taken. This anonymous executive seems to confirm the total lack of action.
Paul Barrett
Aug 1st 2010, 11:48
There is a lot of talk about the State strengthening the family. This can and is done through certain benefits to married couples but it has its limits.
You cannot honestly expect the State to enter into and resolve problems within a marriage as this would be a gross infringement of a private life.
The State has no part to play in the private and personal relationship between two adults living in emotional conflict unless it becomes a matter for the law to intervene.
Voluntary mediation is fine but even this should not be forced on a couple.
sciortino m
Aug 1st 2010, 12:57
@Paul Barrett
We have been hearing from the PM and the Archbishop how they would like to strengthen the family. Yet till now nobody has not done anything. This talk to strengthen the family is just that talk. and a way to deflect discussion from divorce. If the state and the Church are serious they would do something about it.
Of course nobody has the right to interfere with the couple but steps could be taken to support families through better education in schools, state pre-marriage courses on a voluntary basis and state supported marriage counselling. One way would be state financed marriage counselling services which are timely and professional. I am sure that these services could be of help.
My view is that the PM and his party are in government so they should either do something to strengthen the family or else shut up.
Lina Caruana
Aug 1st 2010, 10:23
During a global recession this issue is untimely. Without State aid some couples have ironed out their turbulent family lives magnificently with coping skills and financial means. There is a serious deficit in the expectation that these then need legislation to seal their arrangement to perfection. This cannot apply to all and sundry.
There are separated men who seek unmarried women after creating emotional relationships incognito not to be burdened with another family even if the women is forced to steal from the supermarket.Financial expenses for two families are not trivial. Then there are separated women who do the same for an unmarried man as provider and partner often being locked in med style conflict ending in court . Divorce practically increases unhappiness not the expected happiness syndrome. Why many studies , if not because of increasing social problems ? Divorce creates financial difficulties, children left unclad and unfed ,a burden on the State. I urge Nationalist MP 's to consider how untimely this issue is and what it will bring with it .This is not what they want . This is an actual reality which must be considered seriously.
Paul Barrett
Aug 1st 2010, 11:30
Quote: Divorce creates financial difficulties, children left unclad and unfed ,a burden on the State. Unquote.
A family splitting up creates financial difficulties which are ruled over by the Courts in gaining a legal separation. Divorce does not increase nor decrease the financial burden although admittedly, supporting two families with or without the right to re-marry could well do so. It is certainly not a sound argument for preventing a divorce law.
sciortino m
Aug 1st 2010, 13:01
Annulment means a family breakdown as well and not just legal separation but the former is OK because it is blessed by the Church.
Don't annulments create financial burdens and don't they become a burden on the state?