As a democrat, I sincerely welcome the setting up of a new referendum movement, having participated very proudly in a similar committee for Malta to join the European Union. This greeting, however, cannot hide my disappointment at its president’s condescending reference to the movement’s “non-objection” to the participation of the Church in the debate.
Yet, it is a serious eye-opener to all Catholic voters of the danger that the divorce referendum becomes the front for an anti-Catholic campaign. The president’s comment is, to say the least, uncalled for if not outright contradictory to the movement’s democratic nature.
Well, coincidences are rare to come by in the world of politics. On the day the movement was launched, a member of the pro-divorce referendum committee made serious statements against the Church’s involvement in any social debate concerning the state. The tone and the content leave very little to the imagination: “The need for a strict separation of the Church and the state in Malta with its long and sometimes painful history of ecclesiastical intrusion in matters strictly the preserve of the state is paramount if justice for all citizens is to be done.”
What has the movement’s president to say on Martin Scicluna’s sweeping, unjustified generalisations on the Church. Mr Scicluna is a very clever man and I read every article of his. I can assure Deborah Schembri her fellow committee member writes profusely in favour of divorce and in practically every article of his there are unsavoury remarks on the Catholic Church.
It must be said this unholy cocktail is not an isolated situation. Most pro-divorce columnists seem to consider that being pro-divorce implies an obligation to denigrate the Catholic Church and to describe any person in disagreement with them as fundamentalist or God knows what else. What need is there to continually invent an excuse to throw anti-Church and anti-Catholic feelings to promote what they should consider is a social measure which, in their belief, should be to the benefit of all society?
Whatever the idea behind this tactic, the Catholic voter certainly cannot stand by idle. The Catholic voter knows very well how to defend his ideals and his cultural identity without resorting to the mud-slinging tactics of those who communicate anti-Catholic sentiment.
The Catholic voter can express his ideas rationally without any “Ecclesiastical imprimatur”, resort to “sin” or even mass objection of conscience. Pope Benedict assures us that Catholic social thinking is far more efficient than any of them.
If the pro-divorce movement does not distance itself from these intolerant statements, then the first step for the Catholic voter must be not to support this movement for the only reason of it being anti-Catholic.
Even if, unfortunately, the committee would not do so, the Catholic voter must be careful to maintain a positive message irrespective of the provocations thrown at the values and institutions most cherished by any Catholic voter. Equally, divorce must not be allowed to be the sole item on the political agenda. The Catholic voter is pro-life not anti-abortion; equally must be pro-family and not anti-divorce.
The Catholic voter must, with the sole use of reason, scientific facts and above secular logic push the agenda of family values and fundamental human rights. These are the values which, at the end of the day, should find us all, Catholics, Christians, believers in other faiths together with atheists, promoting together family unity even when a divorcist would be prepared to throw in the towel and break up a family union. A second and equally worrying fact about this committee is the politicisation of the new movement. Labour heavyweight Evarist Bartolo underlined his participation was approved by his party leader. The signs are getting clear the Labour movement intends, as it did in the EU referendum, to throw its political and media weight behind the efforts of this committee, otherwise why stress the fact this movement has the blessing of the outspokenly pro-divorce Labour leader?
With the Nationalist Party in constant internal debate, the least Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando should do is to lobby his Prime Minister and the party so that, as the first step towards the holding of the referendum, a law be passed to ensure fairness in the media between the social forces which might eventually wish to participate in the debate. This balance was barely achieved during the EU debate even though the two political media giants had taken two opposite positions on the poll.
If the Prime Minister accepts putting party-funding as a top priority government agenda then so should he ensure equality of arms during the referendum campaign both on funding and, more fundamentally, where media balance is concerned. There are social forces out there which will never compete with any of the political parties. If this becomes so then why hold the referendum at all?